Foxconn's Terry Guo says he lobbied Apple to choose TSMC over Samsung for 'A9'
According to one of Apple's closest partners, the company's choice to award production contracts for its forthcoming "A9" chip to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. -- rather than single-sourcing parts from Samsung --?was the result of a concerted lobbying effort from fellow Taiwanese firms.
Foxconn boss Terry Guo said he pushed Apple to choose TSMC because Taiwanese companies must stick together against the "Korean Wave," according to UDN. The report was first noted by GforGames.
While the exact fabrication arrangement for the A9 is unknown, TSMC is thought to have won as much as 30 percent of the orders. Splitting A9 production between TSMC and Samsung is said to have been a "last-minute decision" on Apple's part.
As the CEO of Foxconn, Guo is one of Apple's closest allies and likely holds significant sway with Apple executives. Foxconn is responsible for the manufacturing and assembly of the lion's share of Apple products, helping Apple's operations team manage the company's staggering growth.
Samsung, meanwhile, maintains a somewhat testy relationship with Apple. The companies compete fiercely in smartphones and tablets, and while Samsung's foundry unit operates independently from its consumer electronics business, that animosity is believed to have soured both relationships.
Foxconn boss Terry Guo said he pushed Apple to choose TSMC because Taiwanese companies must stick together against the "Korean Wave," according to UDN. The report was first noted by GforGames.
While the exact fabrication arrangement for the A9 is unknown, TSMC is thought to have won as much as 30 percent of the orders. Splitting A9 production between TSMC and Samsung is said to have been a "last-minute decision" on Apple's part.
As the CEO of Foxconn, Guo is one of Apple's closest allies and likely holds significant sway with Apple executives. Foxconn is responsible for the manufacturing and assembly of the lion's share of Apple products, helping Apple's operations team manage the company's staggering growth.
Samsung, meanwhile, maintains a somewhat testy relationship with Apple. The companies compete fiercely in smartphones and tablets, and while Samsung's foundry unit operates independently from its consumer electronics business, that animosity is believed to have soured both relationships.
Comments
Again, no matter what Ming Chi says, you can not make the same SOC on two difference processes. Apple will choose one or the other, not both.
It wouldn't be necessary to have the same SOC. There are at least 4 different products that could take variations; iPad Air, iPad Mini, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6+.
Apple is in a position to afford to do two different processes if they wish, and risk reduction would be one of the reasons that I believe that both TSMC and Samsung/GF might be involved in A9 production. But, all rumors at this point.
Court papers have proven that Samsung does in fact cross lines and Samsung publicly stating it will shield its subsidiaries from other divisions as a result proved they were doing it. Samsung has zero cred.
Not sure what to make of the TSMC quote about it pushing Apple to choose them. Apple doesn't get "pushed" by anyone. It does the pushing. Sounds more like them doing a self-patting on the back.
You can't just take a chip designed for one process and use that design on a different process. If Apple hasn't dual-designed the A9 for both processes, then only one process will be used.
As for the paranoid worriers about Samsung - Samsung would not gain a lot, if anything, from seeing Apple silicon being made in their fabs - they might get an idea of how many cores/GPUs Apple is including on their next generation chip, but that's fat use when it takes a year to take a chip from conception to implementation.
The production split decision might have been last minute, but designing the A9 for TSMC's 16FF would have been in process for many months, just in case Apple needed/wanted to use TSMC alongside/insteadof Samsung.
You can't just take a chip designed for one process and use that design on a different process. If Apple hasn't dual-designed the A9 for both processes, then only one process will be used.
As for the paranoid worriers about Samsung - Samsung would not gain a lot, if anything, from seeing Apple silicon being made in their fabs - they might get an idea of how many cores/GPUs Apple is including on their next generation chip, but that's fat use when it takes a year to take a chip from conception to implementation.
I agree. I actually believe that both had tapeouts prior to any production decision, and when you think about the volumes over two years of production, you might be looking at 300 million A9's, so a split makes sense from the start.
At the moment, Apple doesn't seem to have many options outside Samsung.
I don't believe what Terry Guo says (the CEO of Foxconn, not Ming Chi the analyst) and the original source says that it was overheard during a private event (political fund raising?)
Terry Guo is known to say many things to advance his own/Foxconn's agenda, so take it with a grain of salt.
In my opinion Apple should've invested in TSMC instead of Samsung so that TSMC can improve their manufacturing throughput and Apple can have two strong manufacturers competing for their contract in case one (Samsung) should fall through.
At the moment, Apple doesn't seem to have many options outside Samsung.
I seem to recall a report/rumor that Apple tried to make such an investment, but TSMC rebuffed it, saying that they had the capital necessary for making the necessary investments.
It's hard to know whether that was a mistake on TSMC's part or not. It really depends on the amount of money involved and what kinds of strings Apple attaches to that money.
The A-series designs are so far ahead of the Arm reference designs that by the time Samsung could reverse engineered it and put something together Apple would be 2-3 generations beyond that... They just can't compete in this market so they stick with what all the other Droid's are doing.
Only if Apple also sold to competitors would that remotely make sense.
Again, no matter what Ming Chi says, you can not make the same SOC on two difference processes. Apple will choose one or the other, not both.
Sure you can. Called Common Platform. Just tell TSMC to be unofficially Common Platform compliant. Samsung already copied TSMC's 14 nm process, why can't TSMC?
The simple fact is that Apple needs all the capacity they can get. They need SoCs for iPhones past/present/future, iPad Air/Air2/Minis/upcoming iPad Pro, the Apple Watch, and the upcoming new AppleTV refresh.... and who knows what else is coming.
Hey why not?
Have Apple manufacture 2-gen old Apple chips for the competition. Droid manufacturers would kill for them.
The process/leftover chips would be cheap to manufacture. Keep the bottom feeders 2 years behind and bump that %94 mobile profit closer to %100 or more
I seem to recall a report/rumor that Apple tried to make such an investment, but TSMC rebuffed it, saying that they had the capital necessary for making the necessary investments.
It's hard to know whether that was a mistake on TSMC's part or not. It really depends on the amount of money involved and what kinds of strings Apple attaches to that money.
I recall that rumor too. It's laughable that Apple was trying to get TSMC to dedicate their foundries for meager $1B -- TSMC's expected to spend $10B in CapEx for their 16nm ramp-up this year, while Samsung is spending $15B. AMD and Qualcomm are reportedly ditching TSMC for Samsung 14nm processing as well, so Apple's offer wouldn't have made any difference.
No wonder Apple is so profitable (so little CapEx or R&D relatively speaking).
Sure you can. Called Common Platform. Just tell TSMC to be unofficially Common Platform compliant. Samsung already copied TSMC's 14 nm process, why can't TSMC?
@konqerror: eh? Common Platform is long gone. TSMC's processing is based on Intel's whereas CP from IBM's, but with IBM gone or now part of GF, Samsung is leading the pack (or GF). TSMC never had 14nm processing -- they are still trying to get 16+nm up and running later this year -- and Samsung copied TSMCM's 14nm process? Umm, which planet are you from?
For crying out loud, TSMC won the A9 manufacturing because Taiwanese suppliers lobbied Apple? Really? What was rumored, but amazingly went unpublished by AI because it made Samsung look bad, was that 16nm manufacturing process had become solid enough to produce the A9 and that TSMC had won.
Ming Kuo? Ming Kuo? Can you here me? Has TSMC been the winner of manufacturing the A9 using its reliable 16nm manufacturing process all along instead of the still unreliable Samsung 14nm manufacturing process? If so, can you "break news" now instead of "breaking news" in a few months?
The Samsung rumors were tiresome, but these excuse rumors of TSMC winning are just boring.
@konqerror: eh? Common Platform is long gone. TSMC's processing is based on Intel's whereas CP from IBM's, but with IBM gone or now part of GF, Samsung is leading the pack (or GF). TSMC never had 14nm processing -- they are still trying to get 16+nm up and running later this year -- and Samsung copied TSMCM's 14nm process? Umm, which planet are you from?
TSMC has sued Samsung for theft. Go figure.
TSMC has sued Samsung for theft. Go figure.
@leavingthebigG : TSMC never sued Samsung. TSMC sued a former TSMC employee, Liang Mong-song, who left the company almost 6 years ago for his breaching of noncompete agreement. If you believe that TSMC had a working 14nm processing back 2009, sure, Samsung did steal TSMC's tech. I'm, however, inclined to agree with ExtremeTech's Joel Hruska's take on the charges:
and, being that CommonWealth is a Taiwanese trade mag, I'm not too surprised by their spin on this. I suspect that it's all part of the campaign orchestrated by TSMC, Foxconn, and other competing Taiwanese interests.