Sharp announces it will ship screens for Apple's next iPhone this month

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 86
    If Apple shifts away from Samsung as a supplier, the danger is not just about the upfront dollars.

    The larger danger is Apple empowering Samsung's competitors, which makes them larger, more wealthy, and capable of bidding on contracts that they might not even consider now due to less resources.

    If Sony puts out an RFQ, you think Samsung wants 5 new suppliers responding because they got in bed with Apple.
  • Reply 82 of 86
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    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.

    That would depend on the contract. You pay an ETF to your carrier for early termination because you agreed to it.

    While most multimillion dollar contracts will address early termination and probably assess penalties, there's no requirement that they do so.
  • Reply 83 of 86

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Would someone please let me know when this thing gets back to something even remotely resembling a coherent, intelligent argument?



     


    You're not helping.

  • Reply 84 of 86
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by muffinman View Post

    You're not helping.


     


    Nor you. It evens out. image


     




    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    While most multimillion dollar contracts will address early termination and probably assess penalties, there's no requirement that they do so.



     


    That seems really strange to me, but you probably know your stuff. Thanks.

  • Reply 85 of 86

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Exactly. That's why I want Apple and Samsung to settle this patent business or at least get it resolved.



    Amen. they should just get along.. and agree on something. many people in the law industry are laughing at how this became a trial, when it should have been settled outside the court.

  • Reply 86 of 86
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    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.

    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.


    There aren't very many suppliers that can service Apple. Samsung may have a combination of price and reliability that is difficult to find wiht some of the others. I'd imagine there's a reason Apple is so dependent on them. They could have diversified a long time ago if it was a simple matter.

Sign In or Register to comment.