Foxconn looks to lessen reliance on iPhone, positions for potential Apple television

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A new profile of Foxconn describes how the company is looking beyond Apple, its largest manufacturing partner, even as it positions itself for the prospect of an Apple-built television.

Foxconn's somewhat paradoxical approach was described in a report this week from The New York Times, which said that Foxconn and its chairman, Terry Gou, are "contemplating life far, far beyond Apple." The company is reportedly interested in lessening its reliance on Apple, which has seen its growth slow in recent quarters.

Tim Cook at Foxconn
Apple CEO Tim Cook touring an iPhone production line at a Foxconn plant in Zhengzhou, China.


Instead, the company is now interested in developing products of its own, and has also begun designing and manufacturing high-definition television sets. Foxconn's interest in televisions led the company to buy a stake in panel maker Sharp.

Foxconn's interest in Sharp has helped to fuel rumors of a potential Apple television set ? a product that has long been rumored. And this week's Times story even noted that Foxconn's efforts to vertically integrate television manufacturing could "represent anticipation that orders for an Apple television" could land with the company.

And so, strangely, while Foxconn is allegedly working to lessen its reliance on Apple, the company is also making moves potentially driven, at least in part, by rumors of an unannounced Apple product.

Earlier this year, Foxconn's first-quarter revenue was down 19.2 percent year over year. Those losses were attributed largely to declining orders of the iPhone and iPad from Apple.

In a somewhat unexpected approach, Apple has not released any major products thus far in 2013. The company signaled that isn't likely to change anytime soon, as CEO Tim Cook signaled last week that major new products will be arriving this fall and throughout 2014.

The lack of new products has led to fewer orders, as a number of companies in Apple's supply chain have cryptically cited slipping demand from a major unnamed customer. In years past, iPhone and iPad launches were staggered throughout the year, allowing Apple to maintain hype and public mindshare through its two most popular product categories.

For its part, the Times has made Apple a target, particularly in its "iEconomy" series that investigated Asia's technology supply chain. That nine-part series had a particular focus on Apple, and netted the publication a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,765member
    Diversification is a good strategy. I'm sure someone will turn this into "Apple is failing in the face of Samsung." It is encouraged in the Arena for the amusement of the Providers.
  • Reply 2 of 56


    Foxconn has seen Sammy's success copying Apple, they will join the party next.


     


    Supplier companies always have their eyes on the leader, they would like to emulate the success and brand recognition of leading brands whether it be Sony, Apple, Caterpillar, BMW or whoever. Subcontracting/outsourcing is a gift in technology transfer and when the supplier is well known as has become the case with Foxconn making Apple products for so long they are bound to want to leverage their new found brand recognition. Nothing wrong with that, it's the way of business, the way of life, what is wrong is how Apple has let go of their core, the making of the products that bear their name and give them the brand recognition.

  • Reply 3 of 56
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member


    Forget ethics. Forget whom we are looting. Forget how we are earning. Forget whom we are ignoring. We have to be on top. Why only Sammy? Why not me?

  • Reply 4 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    It's dangerous whenever one company relies heavily on another. Look at what Walmart did to Rubbermaid.
  • Reply 5 of 56
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,612member


    It's probably good for Foxconn to contemplate life 'far, far beyond Apple' because Apple is quite likely contemplating life 'far, far beyond Foxconn' and if this book is to be believed - https://itunes.apple.com/au/book/radical-abundance/id638267782?mt=11 -, we might be looking at a very, very different manufacturing economy for everyone before too long.

  • Reply 6 of 56
    marokeromarokero Posts: 99member
    Foxconn, the new Samsung. I don't know, something about off-shoring production abroad seems to always come biting you in the ass down the road.
  • Reply 7 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [QUOTE=AppleInsider]Instead, the company is now interested in developing products of its own, and has also begun designing and manufacturing high-definition television sets.[/QUOTE]

    Could they be interested in making 4k sets?¡
  • Reply 8 of 56
    irelandireland Posts: 17,686member


    This New York Times article is bull. On the one hand they say they bought a stake on Sharp for themselves, and on the other the claim they bought it to prep for Apple's television? Which is it? Both? Typical nonsense article with no meat to it. Anyone can write this junk.

  • Reply 9 of 56
    irelandireland Posts: 17,686member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Could they be interested in making 4k sets?


     


    A 4K TV makes no sense for Apple. Bandwidth, Content, Cost. None of which would suit.


     


    Apple's TV would be perfect at 1080p. Across the board 4K content and bandwidth is years and years away. Heck, if the Apple TV or iTV really took off with 1080p content it would cause severe bandwidth issues everyone.

  • Reply 10 of 56
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,166member
    [B]Earlier this year, Foxconn's first-quarter revenue was down 19.2 percent year over year. Those losses were attributed largely to declining orders of the iPhone and iPad from Apple.[/B]

    Why does the losses have to be attributed solely to Apple? Foxconn supplies many companies along with Apple and could it possible some of the other companies participated in the losses?

    Moving on...

    The NYT starts off writing how Foxconn is moving away from its dependence being a supplier of Apple only to finish writing about how Foxconn's television ambition has it wanting to be ready to supply... Wait for it... Apple more than ever!
  • Reply 11 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ireland wrote: »
    A 4K TV makes no sense for Apple. Bandwidth, Content, Cost. None of which would suit.

    Apple's TV would be perfect at 1080p. Across the board 4K content and bandwidth is years and years away. Heck, if the Apple TV or iTV really took off with 1080p content it would cause severe bandwidth issues everyone.

    No one said anything about 4K content as video from iTS.
  • Reply 12 of 56
    alexmitalexmit Posts: 112member
    Find a new pic. That pic is way overused. Just the Foxconn logo would be fine.
  • Reply 13 of 56
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


     


    A 4K TV makes no sense for Apple. Bandwidth, Content, Cost. None of which would suit.


     


    Apple's TV would be perfect at 1080p. Across the board 4K content and bandwidth is years and years away. Heck, if the Apple TV or iTV really took off with 1080p content it would cause severe bandwidth issues everyone.



    I agree with solipsism.   4k content 'transport' over the internet is silly now. 


     


    I typically run my content at 720p even though I have a 1080p... my TV's upscaling works pretty well for most content.  I will switch it when anticipating content where  1080p makes more sense (visually complex views...).  For anything less than an 60" TV, 4K 'raw' will be overkill.


     


    4K makes nice Airplay monitor for your Retina display MB, BluRay.


     


    4K makes a nice App display platform too. look at AppleTV plus Game Apps (using a iPod Touch or iPhone as a controller) as a nice 'game console'  (when voxels are transported, not image bits)

  • Reply 14 of 56
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post


    Foxconn has seen Sammy's success copying Apple, they will join the party next.


     


    Supplier companies always have their eyes on the leader, they would like to emulate the success and brand recognition of leading brands whether it be Sony, Apple, Caterpillar, BMW or whoever. Subcontracting/outsourcing is a gift in technology transfer.



    Apple has learned its lesson and is keeping the secret sauces away from key partners.   the A series Chips and the iOS OS are key to that.   If anything, a great assembled box, with a crappy chip and a crappy OS is not appealing to anyone.  It took Samsung 3 years to catch up...  Foxconn has less moving parts than them.

  • Reply 15 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    No one said anything about 4K content as video from iTS.

    There isn't 4K content anywhere, we're barely getting 1080p now.
  • Reply 16 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    There isn't 4K content anywhere, we're barely getting 1080p now.

    If there is barely 1080p content then why did Apple create a 2048x1536 resolution display instead of a 1920x1080 display? Are you saying there is no benefit to the Retina iPad's display over merely going 1080p simply because video that you get from iTunes Store or YouTube doesn't have a pixel-for-pixel encode for QXGA?
  • Reply 17 of 56
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,419member


    The NYT article can be summarized in 28 words "Foxconn wants to reduce dependence on Apple, has no clue how to do it, so hopes for more business from Apple. Read about analyst views on their predicament."


     


    Another vapid, vacuous, spurious bit of tech reporting from the NYT.

  • Reply 18 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If there is barely 1080p content then why did Apple create a 2048x1536 resolution display instead of a 1920x1080 display? Are you saying there is no benefit to the Retina iPad's display over merely going 1080p simply because video that you get from iTunes Store or YouTube doesn't have a pixel-for-pixel encode for QXGA?

    I didn't take into account the various forms of content but when it comes to a TV most live content is 1080i and current streamed 1080p compressed content leaves much to be desired.
  • Reply 19 of 56
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I didn't take into account the various forms of content but when it comes to a TV most live content is 1080i and current streamed 1080p compressed content leaves much to be desired.

    You're still thinking of a large display in the home as a "boob tube." Think of it as a monitor like you have with your PC, your tablet, your smartphone. Think of the things it can do outside of simply playing video. Think of an Apple TV in a few years from with 50,000 apps on its App Store. Do you still want that to be 1080p on a 60+" display in your living room whilst your 7.85" iPad mini sports a 2048x1536 display and smartphones today are being sold with 1920x1080 on a 5" display?
  • Reply 20 of 56
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    You're still thinking of a large display in the home as a "boob tube." Think of it as a monitor like you have with your PC, your tablet, your smartphone. Think of the things it can do outside of simply playing video. Think of an Apple TV in a few years from with 50,000 apps on its App Store. Do you still want that to be 1080p on a 60+" display in your living room whilst your 7.85" iPad mini sports a 2048x1536 display and smartphones today are being sold with 1920x1080 on a 5" display?

    Sorry but my limited mind doesn't see much potential for a static device other than it being viewed. Most apps will be channels or games, I mean look at cars, they've been around for 100 years and there's been a ton of innovations since then but they still only get you from point A to point B.
Sign In or Register to comment.