If Apple intends to switch away from Samsung for logic fabrication, it's obviously to their benefit to keep Samsung in the dark as long as possible. However, if Apple's only exploring the possibility of moving away from Samsung and haven't actually committed to do so, keeping Samsung in the dark may actually hurt Apple. Chip fabs can take years to plan and build and if Apple's mixed messages keeps Samsung from investing in new fabs, if Apple turns out to still be with Samsung in two years after-all, they may find themselves short on production capacity. It'll be interesting to see how Apple tries to diversify while keeping Samsung viable as a primary producer.
I'm sure the Samsung board will be saying the same thing to themselves.
We can mock them, antagonise them, copy their products.
They are just bluffing.
Apple NEED US !
These are the sort of issues you handle with contracts...
e.g. Apple contracts to buy so many chips from supplier x. The contract has minimum and maximum targets, as well as time and quality targets.
Clauses in the contract allows for a renewal options, and target change options.
In some cases Apple will purchase the plant and equipment, or finance the suppliers' purchase of same.
In effect a contract gives each party a guarantee -- Apple gets a guaranteed supply -- the suppliers get guaranteed workload and guaranteed sales.
A contract with one supplier does not, necessarily, preclude contracts with other parties.
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
The whole market is down significantly...
Likely due to the US elections...
Investors are unsure of taxes, the US economy, government spending, consumer spending, the debt, Global economy, foreign relations...
Investors are unsure of taxes, the US economy, government spending, consumer spending, the debt, Global economy, foreign relations...
Unsure investors sit on the sidelines.
The specific concern is the fiscal cliff. The market would have reacted similarly even if Romney won. With Dems and GOP splitting control of the Senate and House respectively, gridlock remains. Someone has to blink - Either the Dems and Obama continue the tax cuts or the GOP has to agree to reducing/eliminating them. This ain't going to be pretty, particularly since the GOP's starting point in negotiations is a rate of tax cut higher than what Bush instituted.
Whoever thinks Apple doesn't need Samsung must also believe Apple management is stupid. If Apple could walk away, they would swing that hammer immediately to force Samsung into changing their smartphone design. But they can't. They are taking steps to reduce their dependence on Samsung. But to say they don't need each other is pure ignorance.
The fact is that Samsung may see their percentage of Apple business drop but not the gross. This is because iPhone sales is still rising. Apple simply needs more suppliers even if there was no conflict.
Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
I think the A6 was designed entirely in-house by Apple. Samsung is only manufacturing it.
Apple's problem isn't expertise; there are plenty of outfits who could make the chips, but not in the quantities that Samsung can.
I'd like to think that one day Apple could take on more of the manufacturing itself, but then I think of the sheer cost involved...
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
IIRC correctly Samsung said they worked just as fab on the A6, they had a more technical partnership on earlier designs, but not this one.
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
Samsung had no input into the design of the A6. It was all in house. Remember, Apple did buy two IC design companies, P.A. Semi and Intrinsity. P.A. Semi had completely designed a new Power based CPU from the ground up. Intrinsity worked on customizing ARM cores - the A4 SoC used it. They don't need input from Samsung.
The screen on the mini is not below par. It's fine. It's just not what SOME people are used to after the whole "retina" craze. No one, other than the pickiest users are going to even notice the display. The display on the mini is the exact same display used on the 3GS. I know a lot of people still using the 3GS and never has any of them once uttered, "This display sucks!"
The fact is, Apple stopped producing the 3GS, and I'm guessing they are using up production on those lines until "retina" production can pick up. This allows them to get the screens at an extremely low cost if not for free - they could have already been paid for. This is what Tim Cook excels at, maximizing supply production.
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
Samsung doesn't design chips. Can you even name one processor or GPU they designed themselves? They license ARM cores and then fab their own chips based on ARM designs. Something Apple used to do years ago. They're great as a fab, not as designers. They even buy SoC's from Qualcomm to use in some devices. Why would a chip "design" company need to use chips from other companies?
Meanwhile Apple switched from licensing actual ARM cores to simply licensing the instruction set (for the A6 and A6X) and made their own processor that runs ARM code. Just like AMD makes processors that execute x86 code, but are completely different from Intel processors.
Apple is now in the same league as AMD, Nvidia and others who design their own custom chips and get a fab (like Samsung) to produce them to their specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
I seriously doubt that you can make anyone a fool with that type of language.
Says the troll. I notice he never bothered to come in and defend himself since he knows exactly what I'm talking about. Posts something in one thread to start an argument and then later on says something completely different in another. His whole purpose is to troll and start $hit, sort of like what your recent posting history indicates. Maybe you're his buddy? Or a second account?
Quite possibly yes. Particularly since Obama didn't jump up and say that he was going to, if re-elected, devote himself to sticking it to companies like Apple and make them move all production back to the States so that they could single handedly create jobs for everyone etc.
Elections are the one thing worse than launch announcements to make Apple's stock fall. And both are well below the analysts and their hyped up sales estimates and the 'production difficulty' talk that they send out to cover up that they were giving out off base numbers to begin with
Are you interested in setting up an assembly plant requiring 30,000 or so younger workers needed for such a job?
The only significant Apple problem is getting enough product to sell.
Foxconn is complaining about meeting Apple's volume requirements and also maintain Apple's high quality std.
Good for Apple, sticking to their high quality regardless.
The stock will recover, Apple's sales and profit will ensure it.
For now the brokerage insiders are enjoying the bouncy ride, from which they profit.
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
Well, if Apple moves away from Samsung that will hurt Apple more than it will hurt Samsung just as moving away from Google Maps hurt Apple more than it hurt Google.
The fundamentals of Apple are the worst since they have been since 2005 so it is not surprising the stock is tanking. I see $300 long term. Analysts, as usually blinded by their spreadsheets, do not understand what is going on. The most important "fundamental" is the rate of change of anticipated profits, which in the case of Apple will not be as big as it has been since 2005 (the derivative of profits, not profits themselves). In fact, there is a good chance it will be negative. This is not the place to explain why but suffice to say that morbidly fat margins that Apple has been charging are not sustainable. Unfortunately, moving away from Samsung means additional expenses for Apple.
Well, if Apple moves away from Samsung that will hurt Apple more than it will hurt Samsung just as moving away from Google Maps hurt Apple more than it hurt Google.
The fundamentals of Apple are the worst since they have been since 2005 so it is not surprising the stock is tanking. I see $300 long term. Analysts, as usually blinded by their spreadsheets, do not understand what is going on. The most important "fundamental" is the rate of change of anticipated profits, which in the case of Apple will not be as big as it has been since 2005 (the derivative of profits, not profits themselves). In fact, there is a good chance it will be negative. This is not the place to explain why but suffice to say that morbidly fat margins that Apple has been charging are not sustainable. Unfortunately, moving away from Samsung means additional expenses for Apple.
Ridiculously long response.
Shorter version: Stock market is always right, but rarely logical.
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
I shorted AAPL from 180 all the way down to 120 where I doubled-down. It went down even further so I was in the red for a bit but then it climbed and climbed and climbed.
When it hit 700 that was about as high as I was willing to ride it. iPhone 5 did not impress me so I sold and shorted at 700, figure I'd ride it out as high as to 750 before I let go given how much I've already made.
Well it went to 705 and have been nose-diving since. I'm going to ride it down to 450 before I buy back again. Then I'm out.
AAPL? It might hover here and there, but I don't think you'll see the ascension that we did for the past few years ever again.
When it hit 700 that was about as high as I was willing to ride it. iPhone 5 did not impress me so I sold and shorted at 700 .... I'm going to ride it down to 450 before I buy back again. Then I'm out.
AAPL? It might hover here and there, but I don't think you'll see the ascension that we did for the past few years ever again.
Great trade. I think one can ride AAPL all the way back to $300. Unfortunately and very sadly Steve Jobs is not here to get the Apple house in order. Where is an iPhone with a large screen? Where is iOS that easily supports multiple users? Where is seamless - Dropbox-like - integration with the cloud instead of the current iTunes/iCloud/MobileMe confusion? Under Tim Cook leadership, Apple failed to deliver any of those, the crucial features that make devices easy to use. But instead we have a narrow iPhone with a metal edge that is hard to make but easy to scratch. Yeh, let Sir Ive marvel at the machine-cut iPhone edge while Samsung eats Apple marketshare for breakfast.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
I guess, I should expect TS to remove this post as well?
Why would he do that tool talk? I only found your ignorance and lack of notion of reality real funny... there's nothing wrong you that.
Keep up the good work tooltalk.
I wonder if Apple could build a single product right now if Samsung put a halt on shipments to Apple?
Do they already have a supply line to eliminate Samsung?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data
If Apple intends to switch away from Samsung for logic fabrication, it's obviously to their benefit to keep Samsung in the dark as long as possible. However, if Apple's only exploring the possibility of moving away from Samsung and haven't actually committed to do so, keeping Samsung in the dark may actually hurt Apple. Chip fabs can take years to plan and build and if Apple's mixed messages keeps Samsung from investing in new fabs, if Apple turns out to still be with Samsung in two years after-all, they may find themselves short on production capacity. It'll be interesting to see how Apple tries to diversify while keeping Samsung viable as a primary producer.
I'm sure the Samsung board will be saying the same thing to themselves.
We can mock them, antagonise them, copy their products.
They are just bluffing.
Apple NEED US !
These are the sort of issues you handle with contracts...
e.g. Apple contracts to buy so many chips from supplier x. The contract has minimum and maximum targets, as well as time and quality targets.
Clauses in the contract allows for a renewal options, and target change options.
In some cases Apple will purchase the plant and equipment, or finance the suppliers' purchase of same.
In effect a contract gives each party a guarantee -- Apple gets a guaranteed supply -- the suppliers get guaranteed workload and guaranteed sales.
A contract with one supplier does not, necessarily, preclude contracts with other parties.
Tim excels at these kinds of arrangements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
The whole market is down significantly...
Likely due to the US elections...
Investors are unsure of taxes, the US economy, government spending, consumer spending, the debt, Global economy, foreign relations...
Unsure investors sit on the sidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The whole market is down significantly...
Likely due to the US elections...
Investors are unsure of taxes, the US economy, government spending, consumer spending, the debt, Global economy, foreign relations...
Unsure investors sit on the sidelines.
The specific concern is the fiscal cliff. The market would have reacted similarly even if Romney won. With Dems and GOP splitting control of the Senate and House respectively, gridlock remains. Someone has to blink - Either the Dems and Obama continue the tax cuts or the GOP has to agree to reducing/eliminating them. This ain't going to be pretty, particularly since the GOP's starting point in negotiations is a rate of tax cut higher than what Bush instituted.
Whoever thinks Apple doesn't need Samsung must also believe Apple management is stupid. If Apple could walk away, they would swing that hammer immediately to force Samsung into changing their smartphone design. But they can't. They are taking steps to reduce their dependence on Samsung. But to say they don't need each other is pure ignorance.
The fact is that Samsung may see their percentage of Apple business drop but not the gross. This is because iPhone sales is still rising. Apple simply needs more suppliers even if there was no conflict.
Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling.
And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
I think the A6 was designed entirely in-house by Apple. Samsung is only manufacturing it.
Apple's problem isn't expertise; there are plenty of outfits who could make the chips, but not in the quantities that Samsung can.
I'd like to think that one day Apple could take on more of the manufacturing itself, but then I think of the sheer cost involved...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
Someone is selling big time.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
IIRC correctly Samsung said they worked just as fab on the A6, they had a more technical partnership on earlier designs, but not this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Surprised to see you back after I made of fool of you in the last two threads about this very subject.
I seriously doubt that you can make anyone a fool with that type of language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
Samsung had no input into the design of the A6. It was all in house. Remember, Apple did buy two IC design companies, P.A. Semi and Intrinsity. P.A. Semi had completely designed a new Power based CPU from the ground up. Intrinsity worked on customizing ARM cores - the A4 SoC used it. They don't need input from Samsung.
The screen on the mini is not below par. It's fine. It's just not what SOME people are used to after the whole "retina" craze. No one, other than the pickiest users are going to even notice the display. The display on the mini is the exact same display used on the 3GS. I know a lot of people still using the 3GS and never has any of them once uttered, "This display sucks!"
The fact is, Apple stopped producing the 3GS, and I'm guessing they are using up production on those lines until "retina" production can pick up. This allows them to get the screens at an extremely low cost if not for free - they could have already been paid for. This is what Tim Cook excels at, maximizing supply production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
The problem for Apple is in design skills, Samsung surely still have a major input in the design of the A6 so moving production might also need re-skilling. And shopping around for screens has given Apple new difficulties with the Mini one being particularly below par.
Samsung doesn't design chips. Can you even name one processor or GPU they designed themselves? They license ARM cores and then fab their own chips based on ARM designs. Something Apple used to do years ago. They're great as a fab, not as designers. They even buy SoC's from Qualcomm to use in some devices. Why would a chip "design" company need to use chips from other companies?
Meanwhile Apple switched from licensing actual ARM cores to simply licensing the instruction set (for the A6 and A6X) and made their own processor that runs ARM code. Just like AMD makes processors that execute x86 code, but are completely different from Intel processors.
Apple is now in the same league as AMD, Nvidia and others who design their own custom chips and get a fab (like Samsung) to produce them to their specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien
I seriously doubt that you can make anyone a fool with that type of language.
Says the troll. I notice he never bothered to come in and defend himself since he knows exactly what I'm talking about. Posts something in one thread to start an argument and then later on says something completely different in another. His whole purpose is to troll and start $hit, sort of like what your recent posting history indicates. Maybe you're his buddy? Or a second account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Quite possibly yes. Particularly since Obama didn't jump up and say that he was going to, if re-elected, devote himself to sticking it to companies like Apple and make them move all production back to the States so that they could single handedly create jobs for everyone etc.
Elections are the one thing worse than launch announcements to make Apple's stock fall. And both are well below the analysts and their hyped up sales estimates and the 'production difficulty' talk that they send out to cover up that they were giving out off base numbers to begin with
Are you interested in setting up an assembly plant requiring 30,000 or so younger workers needed for such a job?
The only significant Apple problem is getting enough product to sell.
Foxconn is complaining about meeting Apple's volume requirements and also maintain Apple's high quality std.
Good for Apple, sticking to their high quality regardless.
The stock will recover, Apple's sales and profit will ensure it.
For now the brokerage insiders are enjoying the bouncy ride, from which they profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
Well, if Apple moves away from Samsung that will hurt Apple more than it will hurt Samsung just as moving away from Google Maps hurt Apple more than it hurt Google.
The fundamentals of Apple are the worst since they have been since 2005 so it is not surprising the stock is tanking. I see $300 long term. Analysts, as usually blinded by their spreadsheets, do not understand what is going on. The most important "fundamental" is the rate of change of anticipated profits, which in the case of Apple will not be as big as it has been since 2005 (the derivative of profits, not profits themselves). In fact, there is a good chance it will be negative. This is not the place to explain why but suffice to say that morbidly fat margins that Apple has been charging are not sustainable. Unfortunately, moving away from Samsung means additional expenses for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature
Well, if Apple moves away from Samsung that will hurt Apple more than it will hurt Samsung just as moving away from Google Maps hurt Apple more than it hurt Google.
The fundamentals of Apple are the worst since they have been since 2005 so it is not surprising the stock is tanking. I see $300 long term. Analysts, as usually blinded by their spreadsheets, do not understand what is going on. The most important "fundamental" is the rate of change of anticipated profits, which in the case of Apple will not be as big as it has been since 2005 (the derivative of profits, not profits themselves). In fact, there is a good chance it will be negative. This is not the place to explain why but suffice to say that morbidly fat margins that Apple has been charging are not sustainable. Unfortunately, moving away from Samsung means additional expenses for Apple.
Ridiculously long response.
Shorter version: Stock market is always right, but rarely logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
What the **** is with Apple's stock??! There's absolutely no reason it should continue diving like this. Their fundamentals have never been this good. **** this shit.
I shorted AAPL from 180 all the way down to 120 where I doubled-down. It went down even further so I was in the red for a bit but then it climbed and climbed and climbed.
When it hit 700 that was about as high as I was willing to ride it. iPhone 5 did not impress me so I sold and shorted at 700, figure I'd ride it out as high as to 750 before I let go given how much I've already made.
Well it went to 705 and have been nose-diving since. I'm going to ride it down to 450 before I buy back again. Then I'm out.
AAPL? It might hover here and there, but I don't think you'll see the ascension that we did for the past few years ever again.
You want a tip? Buy Google and Samsung.
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
You want a tip? Buy Google and Samsung.
GOOG
AAPL
Right, Apple is the one that goes… up and… down… wait…
You shorted because you were stupid. Enjoy the money you lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckus Toothnai
When it hit 700 that was about as high as I was willing to ride it. iPhone 5 did not impress me so I sold and shorted at 700 .... I'm going to ride it down to 450 before I buy back again. Then I'm out.
AAPL? It might hover here and there, but I don't think you'll see the ascension that we did for the past few years ever again.
Great trade. I think one can ride AAPL all the way back to $300. Unfortunately and very sadly Steve Jobs is not here to get the Apple house in order. Where is an iPhone with a large screen? Where is iOS that easily supports multiple users? Where is seamless - Dropbox-like - integration with the cloud instead of the current iTunes/iCloud/MobileMe confusion? Under Tim Cook leadership, Apple failed to deliver any of those, the crucial features that make devices easy to use. But instead we have a narrow iPhone with a metal edge that is hard to make but easy to scratch. Yeh, let Sir Ive marvel at the machine-cut iPhone edge while Samsung eats Apple marketshare for breakfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature
Great trade. I think one can ride AAPL all the way back to $300.
So you will be shorting AAPL then?