Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
I dont think so, this is deliberated... and Apple is trying hard to flush out Samsung from its supply chain, it cant afford to throw away suppliers for no reasons.
seriously guys.. where else is Apple going to go for Flash, CPUs, batteries, etc? As I've said many many times, there is really nobody else out there big or reliable enough to meet Apple's demand. Apple has historically used LG or Sharp for displays before, so this is nothing new.
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
Well, I think it's closer to 4.5% of Samsung Electronics gross revenue of $150B in 2010. But perhaps that will change this year - Apple is expected to buy more some $12B worth of components this year.
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
So may be it's 4% now. That only means that Apple's dependency on Samsung grows overtime and not the other way around. If Apple will start using Sharp as LCD supplier it may drop back to 2.5% or 3%. In any case some 1% would not be a loss for Samsung at all. There are plenty of buyers for Samsung part, which are great quality and good value.
This seems very odd in many ways. I can't expect that shipping a component only this month would lead to quantities ready for sale next month. I can't imagine that Apple would allow Sharp to speak of this. Some might say Apple can't do anything about it but believe me when I say they have contracts that protect them from executives talking.
Did the original comment specifically state it was the iPhone or was that an assumption? If Sharp wants their IGZO displays to gain traction and their quality is less than displays Apple currently uses then this might be perfect for a small, cheap tablet.
It ALL hinges on how many display's Sharp's producing. If they're making a few million, or even 1 million a month, they can deffo do it.
South Koreans take pride in celebrating that they're wholly unable to come up with their own ideas and so just steal wholesale from Americans?
The only way they could end their contract with Apple is if they choose not to renew. If they cut it off prematurely, they'll be fined tens of billions of dollars at minimum, and then Apple would probably go to someone else anyway, just to hurt them more.
Fined tens of billions of dollars? are you fucking high?
Fined tens of billions of dollars? are you fucking high?
Right, you enter a manufacturing agreement with the wealthiest corporation on the planet and then break it off before the term is up. See what happens.
Whether you do something withem or not...its still innovation. And oh yeah, have you used any 3g today? Dumb question, you have an iphone (as usual Apple is years behind in tech so no 4G till decades later), well then yeah, you are using some good old Samsung innovation, which by the way, Apple has not paid for, they just stole. So yeah, your whole argument about Samsung not innovating is kinda weak.
Not their fault they couldn't figure out the rectangle I just types that in to see you get mad again.
The idiocy in your posts is mind boggling. Apple bought basebands that support 3G, who ever made the basebands paid licensing fees for 3G, it's not Apple's responsibility, and Apple didn't steal anything. Nobody's mad, and you're a terrible troll. no literally terrible, I know half retarded trolls that are miles ahead of your dumbass.
Right, you enter a manufacturing agreement with the wealthiest corporation on the planet and then break it off before the term is up. See what happens.
No company would be able to afford those fines with few exceptions, stop exagerating. Apple's contract break fees are in the contract and they're prenegotiated.
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
Exactly. That's why I want Apple and Samsung to settle this patent business or at least get it resolved.
Samsung is being accused of stealing Apple's technology. Whether or not Samsung has created some of their own technologies is irrelevant to that question.
It's like saying that a billionaire should be able to steal anything he wants because he already has lots of money.
Many in the USA believe this. People here in the USA don't care how you made your money. The fact that you are rich makes it that much easier to steal. Then people will say...well you should've known he was going to steal from you.
This is probably close to shocking for many industries. A product that never spends more than 5 days in the supply chain after leaving the factory doesn't happen often. About the only industries that do better are the perishables that is food stuffs.
The thing here is that Apple will in this case build inventory for a massive debut. I wouldn't be surprised if they shoot for 25 million phones at launch.
I read somewhere that Tim Cook has the supply chain so tight & efficient that the average iPhone/iPad sits in the supply chain for 5 days. Meaning yeah.. August shipment = September phones on store shelves.
Apple is at the point size wise where relying on one partner is stupid. Plain and simple. In fact Apples demands for SoC is growing so fast they likely will need other fab partners beyond Samsung anyways. Apple a year or two ago was already using 80% of Samsungs capacity. While it is not clear what the capacity of Apples and Samsungs 32/28 nm plant in Texas is they very well could be finding themselves in a crunch for parts even if that plant is humming right along.
Honestly they need another SoC supplier even if nothing had ever happened with Samsung.
When you're the largest component consumer in the world, you have few options for large scale fabs. They are moving that way, but even if you do, you need someone the size of Samsung to take over key fabs (CPU). Ideally, you want a BIG Fab with the ability to move mountains to hit deadlines and maintain quality for your primary source. Yet they can't be too large so that they don't care about you as a customer... say like to be held up by an Intel who says, "Whoops, we're late with SandyBridge... sorry about that"
To fund say 3-4 competitive fabs up front to develop processes to build your chips/components is a lot of duplicative effort.
So you fund two. It is only a problem if you don't use the capacity. Beyond that you have foundries like Global Foundries that you don't need to fund with similar processes to Samsungs so it isn't a big deal to consider them as a continepgency plan.
It's always better to fund one primary, and retain 'exclusive rights' to their work output (process and product), and once they scale it, you then take their process and present it to other people and say 'this is the process, now you pay for the implementation (we've got Samsung to work out the details) and getting your quality levels up to our needs.' In other words, in terms of risk, you need a 'partner' that has the capacity to absorb some of the risk. 4 small partners is not the same as 1 big one.
There is also the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Guess who the exceptions are. And guess WHY the fines should be like that.
Absolutely. We don't know what they are, but I imagine they're indicative of the sizes of companies involved.
so, in another word, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how this typically works in component business? or Are you an expert in contract law?
so, in another word, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how this typically works in component business? or Are you an expert in contract law?
So try enlightening me if I'm wrong. You're saying there aren't penalties for breaking a contract midway? Then why do we have to pay an ETF to our telecoms if we quit our two year crap early? That's patent nonsense.
Comments
ugggh Sharp. Based on my experience with Sharp television displays, the upcoming iPhone screen will be a grand disappointment.
Talk trash about Samsung all you want, but their displays generally look great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
Wikipedia:
Samsung's largest clients (Q1 2010)[87]
Rank/company
Part description
Buying (trillionKRW)
% of total sales
1 Sony
DRAM, NAND flash, LCD panels, etc...
1.28
3.7
2 Apple Inc.
AP (mobile processor), DRAM, NAND flash, etc...
0.9
2.6
3 Dell
DRAM, flat-panels, lithium-ion batteries, etc...
0.87
2.5
4 Hewlett-Packard
DRAM, flat-panels, lithium-ion batteries, etc...
0.76
2.2
5 Verizon Communications
Handsets, etc...
0.5
1.3
6 AT&T
Handsets, etc...
0.5
1.3
[edit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I dont think so, this is deliberated... and Apple is trying hard to flush out Samsung from its supply chain, it cant afford to throw away suppliers for no reasons.
seriously guys.. where else is Apple going to go for Flash, CPUs, batteries, etc? As I've said many many times, there is really nobody else out there big or reliable enough to meet Apple's demand. Apple has historically used LG or Sharp for displays before, so this is nothing new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by makingdots
Yeah, it's probably a controlled leak.
sounds like desperation to me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury99
Wikipedia:
Samsung's largest clients (Q1 2010)[87]
Rank/company
Part description
Buying (trillionKRW)
% of total sales
1 Sony
DRAM, NAND flash, LCD panels, etc...
1.28
3.7
2 Apple Inc.
AP (mobile processor), DRAM, NAND flash, etc...
0.9
2.6
3 Dell
DRAM, flat-panels, lithium-ion batteries, etc...
0.87
2.5
4 Hewlett-Packard
DRAM, flat-panels, lithium-ion batteries, etc...
0.76
2.2
5 Verizon Communications
Handsets, etc...
0.5
1.3
6 AT&T
Handsets, etc...
0.5
1.3
[edit]
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
Well, I think it's closer to 4.5% of Samsung Electronics gross revenue of $150B in 2010. But perhaps that will change this year - Apple is expected to buy more some $12B worth of components this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
That's more than 2 years old. Other more recent earnings report closer the numbers I suggested (which also have been referenced here in various articles). Apple is worth more than 2.6% to Samsung.
So may be it's 4% now. That only means that Apple's dependency on Samsung grows overtime and not the other way around. If Apple will start using Sharp as LCD supplier it may drop back to 2.5% or 3%. In any case some 1% would not be a loss for Samsung at all. There are plenty of buyers for Samsung part, which are great quality and good value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This seems very odd in many ways. I can't expect that shipping a component only this month would lead to quantities ready for sale next month. I can't imagine that Apple would allow Sharp to speak of this. Some might say Apple can't do anything about it but believe me when I say they have contracts that protect them from executives talking.
Did the original comment specifically state it was the iPhone or was that an assumption? If Sharp wants their IGZO displays to gain traction and their quality is less than displays Apple currently uses then this might be perfect for a small, cheap tablet.
It ALL hinges on how many display's Sharp's producing. If they're making a few million, or even 1 million a month, they can deffo do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
South Koreans take pride in celebrating that they're wholly unable to come up with their own ideas and so just steal wholesale from Americans?
The only way they could end their contract with Apple is if they choose not to renew. If they cut it off prematurely, they'll be fined tens of billions of dollars at minimum, and then Apple would probably go to someone else anyway, just to hurt them more.
Fined tens of billions of dollars? are you fucking high?
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
Fined tens of billions of dollars? are you fucking high?
Right, you enter a manufacturing agreement with the wealthiest corporation on the planet and then break it off before the term is up. See what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
you mad bro?
Whether you do something withem or not...its still innovation. And oh yeah, have you used any 3g today? Dumb question, you have an iphone (as usual Apple is years behind in tech so no 4G till decades later), well then yeah, you are using some good old Samsung innovation, which by the way, Apple has not paid for, they just stole. So yeah, your whole argument about Samsung not innovating is kinda weak.
Not their fault they couldn't figure out the rectangle
The idiocy in your posts is mind boggling. Apple bought basebands that support 3G, who ever made the basebands paid licensing fees for 3G, it's not Apple's responsibility, and Apple didn't steal anything. Nobody's mad, and you're a terrible troll. no literally terrible, I know half retarded trolls that are miles ahead of your dumbass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right, you enter a manufacturing agreement with the wealthiest corporation on the planet and then break it off before the term is up. See what happens.
No company would be able to afford those fines with few exceptions, stop exagerating. Apple's contract break fees are in the contract and they're prenegotiated.
Originally Posted by marcusj0015
No company would be able to afford those fines with few exceptions…
Guess who the exceptions are. And guess WHY the fines should be like that.
Apple's contract break fees are in the contract and they're prenegotiated.
Absolutely. We don't know what they are, but I imagine they're indicative of the sizes of companies involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
Exactly. That's why I want Apple and Samsung to settle this patent business or at least get it resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, you're still spewing irrelevancies.
Samsung is being accused of stealing Apple's technology. Whether or not Samsung has created some of their own technologies is irrelevant to that question.
It's like saying that a billionaire should be able to steal anything he wants because he already has lots of money.
Many in the USA believe this. People here in the USA don't care how you made your money. The fact that you are rich makes it that much easier to steal. Then people will say...well you should've known he was going to steal from you.
The thing here is that Apple will in this case build inventory for a massive debut. I wouldn't be surprised if they shoot for 25 million phones at launch.
Honestly they need another SoC supplier even if nothing had ever happened with Samsung.
So you fund two. It is only a problem if you don't use the capacity. Beyond that you have foundries like Global Foundries that you don't need to fund with similar processes to Samsungs so it isn't a big deal to consider them as a continepgency plan.
There is also the concept of not putting all your eggs in one basket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Guess who the exceptions are. And guess WHY the fines should be like that.
Absolutely. We don't know what they are, but I imagine they're indicative of the sizes of companies involved.
so, in another word, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how this typically works in component business? or Are you an expert in contract law?
Just a lot of imagination?
Originally Posted by tooltalk
so, in another word, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about. Do you have any idea how this typically works in component business? or Are you an expert in contract law?
So try enlightening me if I'm wrong. You're saying there aren't penalties for breaking a contract midway? Then why do we have to pay an ETF to our telecoms if we quit our two year crap early? That's patent nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy
Considering the Samsung drama, Apple may just give them a slap on the wrist.
More likely that considering the Samsung drama, Apple may have even strongly suggested Sharp make this announcement.