Samsung is certainly hitting Apple where it hurts: squeezing elements of the supply chain. For Tim Cook, master of logistics, this must be some interesting challenge.
I think you are way off base, this will not hurt Apple and is not squeezing their supply chain, since contract law takes priority over investment law and Sharp are not the only supplier in the market.
Also with approx. 3% investment, that does not mean you can control the company.
Apple could buy majority stake in Sharp and dump the stock, just to burn Samsung "I think there was similar line in the film 'Wall Street' with Gordon Geko and Sir Lawrence Wildman.
Seriously I doubt this will be major issue for Apple and they probably have alternative supplies already aligned to support their needs.
Why is this even news? Pretty much every large tech company buys & sells from multiple other companies and/or has investments by, and in others as well. It's impossible to be an "island" in tech and do everything yourselves.
This is where Samsung can be commended. They invest their money pretty well. Regardless of how you feel about their ethics and tactics they are moving quickly and effectively.
I'd be interested in your reference for that. So if I own 32.9% of a company, they would tell me to pound sand and if I own 33%, they have to listen? I don't think it works that way.
In fact, Japanese corporate law is a strange amalgam of different principles. One of the guiding principles is that they have to consider all stakeholders (suppliers, customers, employees, etc) in making decisions. That doesn't mean that those stakeholders control, but that they must be considered.
Japan is also well known for its keiretsu. Companies are all tightly linked and interconnected. The relationships and connections carry a huge amount of weight - regardless of the percentage of ownership.
If you own nearly a third of any company it's hard to imagine that anyone would tell you to "pound sand." His comment is about what you are allowed to by law. Surely you understand why a numerical demarkation point would be set. At 33% there might be a legal requirement but at 32.9% it would not be legally required.
That investment and the announced "alliance" buys them access to internal Sharp information: what's in development (work for a customer that may be a Samsung competitor?), product sales, inventory levels (build up for a new Apple product release?), supplier details (upstream companies to interfere with?), etc. That's a great way to keep tabs on a supplier to a competitor.
All your points make sense. However, as I understand it, Samsung invested in Sharp. As far as I know they do not have a seat on the board nor do they have people in the executive team. Just because their investment is big, it doesn't mean that they have any more access to internal, and most certainly, undisclosed agreements of Sharp with its customers, than any other shareholder except of the financial report.
While Sharp already supplies Samsung with a limited number of displays, the capital alliance will "provide a long-term, stable and timely supply of LCD panels for large-size TVs and small- and medium-size LCD panels for mobile devices such as notebook computers," release said.
...
Sharp plans to put the proceeds toward the development of high-definition LCD technologies and investment in facilities dedicated to the manufacture of mobile LCD panels.
It sounds like Samsung needs help keeping up with the demand for smaller LCDs for mobile devices, and is:
Shifting responsibilty for larger panels to Sharp
Planning for longterm help from Sharp for smaller mobile panels
If you own nearly a third of any company it's hard to imagine that anyone would tell you to "pound sand." His comment is about what you are allowed to by law. Surely you understand why a numerical demarkation point would be set. At 33% there might be a legal requirement but at 32.9% it would not be legally required.
First, he said that "I think in Japanese law you need to have about 33% to have a say in the company's decisions.". That means that if you don't have 33%, you don't have any say. My point was that even if the law said that 33% was required to have a say, no company in their right mind is going to completely ignore someone just because they "only" have 32.9%.
Second, I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence that there's any such law.
I think some of you maybe looking at this in the wrong way. Samsumg maybe doing to ensure they get some of the profits of apple doing business with Sharp. They may have lost apple's direct business but they can still profit elsewhere from apple's business.
First, he said that "I think in Japanese law you need to have about 33% to have a say in the company's decisions.". That means that if you don't have 33%, you don't have any say. My point was that even if the law said that 33% was required to have a say, no company in their right mind is going to completely ignore someone just because they "only" have 32.9%.
The logic of his statement is soundly written but your contention with it is not. He didn't say "You get not say in a Japanese company unless you own 33% or more" he clearly stated that by law you get a say at 33%. In no way did he imply that you can't be offered a seat on the board or any other position at less than 33%.
The logic of his statement is soundly written but your contention with it is not. He didn't say "You get not say in a Japanese company unless you own 33% or more" he clearly stated that by law you get a say at 33%. In no way did he imply that you can't be offered a seat on the board or any other position at less than 33%.
You're right. His contention on this occasion is known as 'Mad Hatter's Logic".
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emrul
Samsung is certainly hitting Apple where it hurts: squeezing elements of the supply chain. For Tim Cook, master of logistics, this must be some interesting challenge.
I think you are way off base, this will not hurt Apple and is not squeezing their supply chain, since contract law takes priority over investment law and Sharp are not the only supplier in the market.
Also with approx. 3% investment, that does not mean you can control the company.
Apple could buy majority stake in Sharp and dump the stock, just to burn Samsung "I think there was similar line in the film 'Wall Street' with Gordon Geko and Sir Lawrence Wildman.
Seriously I doubt this will be major issue for Apple and they probably have alternative supplies already aligned to support their needs.
Why is this even news? Pretty much every large tech company buys & sells from multiple other companies and/or has investments by, and in others as well. It's impossible to be an "island" in tech and do everything yourselves.
If you own nearly a third of any company it's hard to imagine that anyone would tell you to "pound sand." His comment is about what you are allowed to by law. Surely you understand why a numerical demarkation point would be set. At 33% there might be a legal requirement but at 32.9% it would not be legally required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JollyPaul
That investment and the announced "alliance" buys them access to internal Sharp information: what's in development (work for a customer that may be a Samsung competitor?), product sales, inventory levels (build up for a new Apple product release?), supplier details (upstream companies to interfere with?), etc. That's a great way to keep tabs on a supplier to a competitor.
All your points make sense. However, as I understand it, Samsung invested in Sharp. As far as I know they do not have a seat on the board nor do they have people in the executive team. Just because their investment is big, it doesn't mean that they have any more access to internal, and most certainly, undisclosed agreements of Sharp with its customers, than any other shareholder except of the financial report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Whatever happened to OLEDs are the future? /s
Samsung is a multi faceted company focusing on multiple areas all at once.
They use the diversification strategy to their advantage. This is what makes them survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bro2ma
So is samsung coping Apples investments also?
I believe you have a misspelling. Should be "copying".
Are they copying?
No. Sharp negotiated an investment from Foxconn but that didnt turn out well. So their next investment client was to look at Samsung.
Samsung then agreed to invest in Sharp as its already a supplier to them.
Samsung is a shrewd investor. This would throw a monkey wrench into Apple's strategy. What a brilliant move by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
While Sharp already supplies Samsung with a limited number of displays, the capital alliance will "provide a long-term, stable and timely supply of LCD panels for large-size TVs and small- and medium-size LCD panels for mobile devices such as notebook computers," release said.
...
Sharp plans to put the proceeds toward the development of high-definition LCD technologies and investment in facilities dedicated to the manufacture of mobile LCD panels.
It sounds like Samsung needs help keeping up with the demand for smaller LCDs for mobile devices, and is:
Shifting responsibilty for larger panels to Sharp
Planning for longterm help from Sharp for smaller mobile panels
First, he said that "I think in Japanese law you need to have about 33% to have a say in the company's decisions.". That means that if you don't have 33%, you don't have any say. My point was that even if the law said that 33% was required to have a say, no company in their right mind is going to completely ignore someone just because they "only" have 32.9%.
Second, I'm still waiting for him to provide evidence that there's any such law.
I think some of you maybe looking at this in the wrong way. Samsumg maybe doing to ensure they get some of the profits of apple doing business with Sharp. They may have lost apple's direct business but they can still profit elsewhere from apple's business.
The logic of his statement is soundly written but your contention with it is not. He didn't say "You get not say in a Japanese company unless you own 33% or more" he clearly stated that by law you get a say at 33%. In no way did he imply that you can't be offered a seat on the board or any other position at less than 33%.
You're right. His contention on this occasion is known as 'Mad Hatter's Logic".
(see Alice In Wonderland for details)
I would but I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date.