ROFL!! Firstly, Apple' share of Samsung Electronic's overall Sales is still less than 8% - and Apple wasn't even Samsung's largest customer until last year (Sony #1). Even if you combine all the sales from Apple last several years, it couldn't still pay for Samsung's capital expenditure for 2012 or $41B. Samsung and other South Korean component makers like Hynix and LG have been well "out in front" in semiconductor/display business since the 90's and it has very little or nothing to do with Apple, which back then was on the brink of collapse. Samsung semi's revenue has been flat for years now and could possibly face a few disappointing quarters - after all, nobody, other than Samsung and Toshiba, is really making any money in the DRAM/NAND business now; almost everyone in the display business is losing money. But that's the nature of their business; less to do with Apple. Samsung mobile can easily make up for the loss from the growing mobile and mobile components business.
... In fact, this is the sort of thing Apple would have done anyway. The real evidence of the rift is the alleged move to TSMC.
Yes. Apple paid $278 million to acquire PA Semi and $121 million to acquire Intrinsity for their chip design expertise. Apple can now do all their SoC designs in-house, and now they essentially control their own destiny in terms of SoC design. They don't need to rely on arch rival Samsung for anything other than commodity components and chip mass-production.
Having said that, the PA Semi acquisition wasn't a defensive move against Samsung. It happened in 2008, long before Samsung's blatant iPhone copying began. The PA Semi and Intrinsity acquisitions were simply logical moves to reduce dependence on outside entities and to create better hardware designs. (And maybe all those years of Motorola / IBM PowerPC indifference and incompetence, when Apple desperately needed faster PowerPC chips for Macs, helped to motivate the acquisitions.)
I don't think so. If Apple provides a netlist Samsung can copy it but has no (VHDL) design.
Such a low level description has almost no design information, like the binary code from a C program after compilation.
So Samsung can make an exact copy of the information (and that's a must if Samsung is to produce the chip) but it cannot make variations or use parts of the design the netlist originates from.
Samsung is not a R&D shop, they are OEM manufacturer, Samsung have not create their ARM design in-house, Intrinsity engineers was the real brains behind Samsung's CPU.
so where was Apple's R&D and their superior chip design expertise in A4 and A5?
ROFL!! Firstly, Apple' share of Samsung Electronic's overall Sales is still less than 8% - and Apple wasn't even Samsung's largest customer until last year (Sony #1). Even if you combine all the sales from Apple last several years, it couldn't still pay for Samsung's capital expenditure for 2012 or $41B. Samsung and other South Korean component makers like Hynix and LG have been well "out in front" in semiconductor/display business since the 90's and it has very little or nothing to do with Apple, which back in the late 90's was on the brink of collapse. Samsung semi's revenue has been flat for years now and could possibly face a few disappointing quarters - after all, nobody, other than Samsung and Toshiba, is really making money in the DRAM/NAND business now; almost everyone in the display business is losing money. But that's the nature of their business; it has little to do with Apple. Samsung mobile can easily make up for the loss in the growing mobile (smartphone) and mobile components business.
Another thing people seem to miss is that every billion Apple takes from Samsung is a billion they spend at one of Samsung's competitors. Money those competitors can use to improve their facilities and expand their production capabiltities. Or invest into R&D on newer technology.
Ok Ill let's you thank Samsung for stealing their clients works, Ill thank Apple to keep bringing new OS and UI concept to the mass for the past 30 years.
so where was Apple's R&D and their superior chip design expertise in A4 and A5?
Who cares? Go ahead and live in the past if you wish.
Obviously, at one point in time, Apple had little ARM expertise. They then went out and acquired it - via acquisition, hiring, and internal development. All that matters is that they have sufficient expertise TODAY, not several years ago.
Vertical integration is essential to building an "ecosystem". Eventually there will be Apple, Amazon, Google and (maybe) Microsoft left when the dust settles. Samsung will have to exit the mobile market or create their own operating system and ecosystem.
That's right. Monopolistic practice is based on units sold, not the profits derived. Apple doesn't even meet that standard on the iPod which is still over 70% of the market after a decade.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
ROFL!! Firstly, Apple' share of Samsung Electronic's overall Sales is still less than 8% - and Apple wasn't even Samsung's largest customer until last year (Sony #1). Even if you combine all the sales from Apple last several years, it couldn't still pay for Samsung's capital expenditure for 2012 or $41B. Samsung and other South Korean component makers like Hynix and LG have been well "out in front" in semiconductor/display business since the 90's and it has very little or nothing to do with Apple, which back then was on the brink of collapse. Samsung semi's revenue has been flat for years now and could possibly face a few disappointing quarters - after all, nobody, other than Samsung and Toshiba, is really making any money in the DRAM/NAND business now; almost everyone in the display business is losing money. But that's the nature of their business; less to do with Apple. Samsung mobile can easily make up for the loss from the growing mobile and mobile components business.
Apple #1!! LOL!!
Thank you for reinforcing my point about Samsung being an OEM manufacturer and not a R&D shop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
... In fact, this is the sort of thing Apple would have done anyway. The real evidence of the rift is the alleged move to TSMC.
Yes. Apple paid $278 million to acquire PA Semi and $121 million to acquire Intrinsity for their chip design expertise. Apple can now do all their SoC designs in-house, and now they essentially control their own destiny in terms of SoC design. They don't need to rely on arch rival Samsung for anything other than commodity components and chip mass-production.
Having said that, the PA Semi acquisition wasn't a defensive move against Samsung. It happened in 2008, long before Samsung's blatant iPhone copying began. The PA Semi and Intrinsity acquisitions were simply logical moves to reduce dependence on outside entities and to create better hardware designs. (And maybe all those years of Motorola / IBM PowerPC indifference and incompetence, when Apple desperately needed faster PowerPC chips for Macs, helped to motivate the acquisitions.)
Expect to see Apple becoming one of Global Foundries larger clients at the Malta Foundry in Upstate New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
So you're freely admitting you want Apple to become a monopoly in every industry possible?
You have no idea what an illegal monopoly is so please keep quiet.
OK, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
Samsung is not a R&D shop, they are OEM manufacturer, Samsung have not create their ARM design in-house, Intrinsity engineers was the real brains behind Samsung's CPU.
so where was Apple's R&D and their superior chip design expertise in A4 and A5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
so where was Apple's R&D and their superior chip design expertise in A4 and A5?
In pockets of millions of happy customers who are happy with their phone performance and efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
ROFL!! Firstly, Apple' share of Samsung Electronic's overall Sales is still less than 8% - and Apple wasn't even Samsung's largest customer until last year (Sony #1). Even if you combine all the sales from Apple last several years, it couldn't still pay for Samsung's capital expenditure for 2012 or $41B. Samsung and other South Korean component makers like Hynix and LG have been well "out in front" in semiconductor/display business since the 90's and it has very little or nothing to do with Apple, which back in the late 90's was on the brink of collapse. Samsung semi's revenue has been flat for years now and could possibly face a few disappointing quarters - after all, nobody, other than Samsung and Toshiba, is really making money in the DRAM/NAND business now; almost everyone in the display business is losing money. But that's the nature of their business; it has little to do with Apple. Samsung mobile can easily make up for the loss in the growing mobile (smartphone) and mobile components business.
Apple #1!! LOL!!
Source? What numbers did you use for Apple's sales and what numbers did you use for Samsung's sales to get that 8%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
In pockets of millions of happy customers who are happy with their phone performance and efficiency.
let's all thank Samsung / Intrinsity. thanx for reinforcing my point about Apple being a marketing/design company, not a technology shop.
Another thing people seem to miss is that every billion Apple takes from Samsung is a billion they spend at one of Samsung's competitors. Money those competitors can use to improve their facilities and expand their production capabiltities. Or invest into R&D on newer technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
let's all thank Samsung / Intrinsity.
Ok Ill let's you thank Samsung for stealing their clients works, Ill thank Apple to keep bringing new OS and UI concept to the mass for the past 30 years.
Who cares? Go ahead and live in the past if you wish.
Obviously, at one point in time, Apple had little ARM expertise. They then went out and acquired it - via acquisition, hiring, and internal development. All that matters is that they have sufficient expertise TODAY, not several years ago.
Hey tool, I see you're avoiding my question. Where are you getting your numbers from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
let's all thank Samsung / Intrinsity. thanx for reinforcing my point about Apple being a marketing/design company, not a technology shop.
Saying Apple products design is about marketing is to ignore Apple core culture. Beside, how do you qualify Samesung?
Samsung is learning that there is a price to their corporate pride. The greater the pride the greater the price.
Vertical integration is essential to building an "ecosystem". Eventually there will be Apple, Amazon, Google and (maybe) Microsoft left when the dust settles. Samsung will have to exit the mobile market or create their own operating system and ecosystem.
Samsung richly deserves whatever they get.
That's right. Monopolistic practice is based on units sold, not the profits derived. Apple doesn't even meet that standard on the iPod which is still over 70% of the market after a decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Hey tool, I see you're avoiding my question. Where are you getting your numbers from?
EricTheHalfBee:
go to Samsung Electronics' investor relations and look up 2011 annual report. Is that so hard to do?
Samsung Electronics and Consolidated Business 2011 income (sales) : 165,002B KRW or around $150B USD
hate to disappoint you - Apple may be a big consumer electronic giant now, but the world doesn't evolve around Apple.