Samsung pushing hard for 'A13' chip orders from Apple

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    If Samsung can drop the entire Note 7 and come out relatively unscathed and Apple can delay the big screen iPhone 6 and also keep making the iPhone 8 while the X in in production, not to mention forgoing OLED screens for so long then it would seem that with iPhones having reached the point that they have, one (meaning me) wonders why they just don't skip a 7nm process and wait for TSMC to get their 5nm online. 
    What is the need to skip a 7nm process from TSMC? Are there any delays from TSMC, compared to Samsung's Fab? And what are the timelines from TSMC about their readiness for 5nm mass manufacturing?
  • Reply 22 of 39
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,934member
    I think Apple has kinda sent a precedent where every time they release a new phone they have a new CPU with 4x more power and x amount better graphics. Maybe they didn't intend to do that, but I guarantee that if Apple released a new phone and it didn't have much of a CPU improvement the internet would explode and Tim should definitely be fired!
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 23 of 39
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move. Any improvements Apple helps them make can be turned around and used in their own phones. At least with displays Apple is mostly just using the best displays Samsung can make. (I'm hoping they didn't have that much involvement in helping make he panel for the X). Also it's a weird choice to buy parts from a company that makes ads actively mocking your users, and who you've still got a legal case against for them ripping off your biggest money maker.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 24 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.



    watto_cobraAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 25 of 39
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 26 of 39
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,643member
    I believe Apple has come up with an effective way to punish businesses that don't do right by it rather than spending eons in court ... slowly let them twist in the wind while Apple goes to or invests in other suppliers. Samsung, meet Qualcomm ... your colleague in the timeout corner. Maybe stealing from Apple isn't a good long-term strategy after all, even if the courts don't punish you. The lawyer's fees and Wall Street's disapproval seems to be working a treat.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 27 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    watto_cobraAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 39
    claire1claire1 Posts: 510unconfirmed, member
    "Cool. Stop making iPhone knockoffs and we have a deal!"
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 29 of 39
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 30 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
  • Reply 31 of 39
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
    The difference is that Apple and Samsung is still engaged in a half billion dollar lawsuit because Samsung stole IP.  That’s not “childish hatred” but in the category “fool me once”.  Insight into Apples chip IP is even more valuable than design IP.

    TSMC, GF and Intel seem to be more trustworthy partners...and also more than Qualcomm for that matter. 

    Your attitude appears to be that all partners are equal and only technical ability matters and not ethics. They aren’t equal and ethics do matter in business partners.
    Alex1N
  • Reply 32 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
    The difference is that Apple and Samsung is still engaged in a half billion dollar lawsuit because Samsung stole IP.  That’s not “childish hatred” but in the category “fool me once”.  Insight into Apples chip IP is even more valuable than design IP.

    TSMC, GF and Intel seem to be more trustworthy partners...and also more than Qualcomm for that matter. 

    Your attitude appears to be that all partners are equal and only technical ability matters and not ethics. They aren’t equal and ethics do matter in business partners.
    Well, then stop supporting Apple or any other company that partners with Samsung (Qualcomm, Facebook, Miramax, and countless other companies). Or, you can realize how long this issue with Samsung has been going on, how Apple has continued to use Samsung for their fab because they get results, and instead of a myopic you'll see that this business venture for their multinational corporations is a more complex structure that's more complex than how a 9yo figures out friendship on the playground.

    How about letting Apple do what's best for their business needs instead of looking like a hypocrite for supporting a company when you making the sweeping claim that "ethics do matter" without doing anything about it? The smart move to find ways to remove Samsung from the equation, but that clearly takes time and hasn't yet happened so this soapbox your own with a decade's old lawsuit isn't helping your position on the matter.
    edited June 2018 Alex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 33 of 39
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
    The difference is that Apple and Samsung is still engaged in a half billion dollar lawsuit because Samsung stole IP.  That’s not “childish hatred” but in the category “fool me once”.  Insight into Apples chip IP is even more valuable than design IP.

    TSMC, GF and Intel seem to be more trustworthy partners...and also more than Qualcomm for that matter. 

    Your attitude appears to be that all partners are equal and only technical ability matters and not ethics. They aren’t equal and ethics do matter in business partners.
    Well, then stop supporting Apple or any other company that partners with Samsung (Qualcomm, Facebook, Miramax, and countless other companies). Or, you can realize how long this issue with Samsung has been going on, how Apple has continued to use Samsung for their fab because they get results, and instead of a myopic you'll see that this business venture for their multinational corporations is a more complex structure that's more complex than how a 9yo figures out friendship on the playground.

    How about letting Apple do what's best for their business needs instead of looking like a hypocrite for supporting a company when you making the sweeping claim that "ethics do matter" without doing anything about it? The smart move to find ways to remove Samsung from the equation, but that clearly takes time and hasn't yet happened so this soapbox your own with a decade's old lawsuit isn't helping your position on the matter.
    You like arguing about stuff nobody says.  Yes, I do avoid bad vendors and use good ones when possible.  I don’t go to Walmart but I do go to Costco because the staff seems much happier.  When there aren’t viable alternatives I use companies like Amazon and Google.  

    This isnt any different than Samsung and Qualcomm.  As for Samsung, I don’t have any IP to steal so me buying a TV isn’t a big deal.  Still, I’ll go Sony or LG when I can when all else is equal.

    But what you said was wrong.  Samsung isn’t Apple’s only option vs making fewer.  Whether it’s worth the cost of enticing Intel or help getting a smaller foundry to the same node vs the risk of IP leakage is something only Apple can evaluate. 

    At the end of the day, Samsung is a competitor that has acted unethically toward Apple and Intel and TSMC are not competitors regardless of their ethics.  Apple doesn’t sell processors or have any foundry business units.

    Alex1N
  • Reply 34 of 39
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,069member
    If Samsung can drop the entire Note 7 and come out relatively unscathed and Apple can delay the big screen iPhone 6 and also keep making the iPhone 8 while the X in in production, not to mention forgoing OLED screens for so long then it would seem that with iPhones having reached the point that they have, one (meaning me) wonders why they just don't skip a 7nm process and wait for TSMC to get their 5nm online. 
    What is the need to skip a 7nm process from TSMC? Are there any delays from TSMC, compared to Samsung's Fab? And what are the timelines from TSMC about their readiness for 5nm mass manufacturing?
    There doesn't have to be a need but it could allow prices to be kept down by not unnecessarily moving to a 7nm process for minimal gain. Remember I'm just a random internet person throwing this out into cyberspace. I'm not au fait with the technicalities, I'm just using a bit of common sense.
  • Reply 35 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
    The difference is that Apple and Samsung is still engaged in a half billion dollar lawsuit because Samsung stole IP.  That’s not “childish hatred” but in the category “fool me once”.  Insight into Apples chip IP is even more valuable than design IP.

    TSMC, GF and Intel seem to be more trustworthy partners...and also more than Qualcomm for that matter. 

    Your attitude appears to be that all partners are equal and only technical ability matters and not ethics. They aren’t equal and ethics do matter in business partners.
    Well, then stop supporting Apple or any other company that partners with Samsung (Qualcomm, Facebook, Miramax, and countless other companies). Or, you can realize how long this issue with Samsung has been going on, how Apple has continued to use Samsung for their fab because they get results, and instead of a myopic you'll see that this business venture for their multinational corporations is a more complex structure that's more complex than how a 9yo figures out friendship on the playground.

    How about letting Apple do what's best for their business needs instead of looking like a hypocrite for supporting a company when you making the sweeping claim that "ethics do matter" without doing anything about it? The smart move to find ways to remove Samsung from the equation, but that clearly takes time and hasn't yet happened so this soapbox your own with a decade's old lawsuit isn't helping your position on the matter.
    You like arguing about stuff nobody says.  Yes, I do avoid bad vendors and use good ones when possible.  I don’t go to Walmart but I do go to Costco because the staff seems much happier.  When there aren’t viable alternatives I use companies like Amazon and Google.  

    This isnt any different than Samsung and Qualcomm.  As for Samsung, I don’t have any IP to steal so me buying a TV isn’t a big deal.  Still, I’ll go Sony or LG when I can when all else is equal.

    But what you said was wrong.  Samsung isn’t Apple’s only option vs making fewer.  Whether it’s worth the cost of enticing Intel or help getting a smaller foundry to the same node vs the risk of IP leakage is something only Apple can evaluate. 

    At the end of the day, Samsung is a competitor that has acted unethically toward Apple and Intel and TSMC are not competitors regardless of their ethics.  Apple doesn’t sell processors or have any foundry business units.
    That's your fucking argument! They've never stopped working with Samsung despite going through this massive lawsuit. If you actually believed the crap you're stating you wouldn't be a hypocrite with your foolish all-or-nothing stance that's fine for you arm chairing how Apple should run but ignoring anything that involves Apple's unethical actions as a company or buying products from them when they use Samsung IP.

    Apple clearly knows that it needs Samsung for chip fabrication (and other components) for the time being; why can't you understand that? Instead, you make some bizarre comment about GlobalFoundries and Intel as some prolific statement as if Apple wouldn't have done their due diligence to see if these companies could meet their needs and would meet their needs.

    Since they haven't cut off Samsung completely at this point, with not only fabrication, but also a wide variety of components, you have to know there are clear business reasons for it. Well, a reasonable person would assume that. For fuck's sake it's been over 7 fucking years since litigation first started.
    edited June 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 39
    techconctechconc Posts: 30member
    blastdoor said:
    The cost curve for developing and deploying new semiconductor manufacturing processes is exploding. From what I've read about EUV, it is incredibly difficult to implement and the only reason it's being considered is that all alternatives are even more difficult. 

    I would not be at all surprised if one of the big chipmakers finds itself incapable of keeping up in this race. And the chipmaker to fall behind may very well be Intel, inconceivable as that might have been 5 years ago. By missing out on mobile, Intel has shut itself out of the revenue stream that can fund these increasingly expensive process nodes. 


    Sad but true regarding Intel. The worse part is, Apple went to them first with regard to manufacturing chips for the iPhone. Intel declined. There were apparently to proud to fabricate someone else's design and they doubted the iPhone's success. They clearly underestimated the mobile market in general. The irony here is that for years, Intel has led the market with mediocre chip designs, but they always had the leading manufacturing process. Now, they have been left behind. As other fabs are moving on to 7nm, Intel is just staring their 10nm process. Unbelievable.
  • Reply 37 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,187member
    techconc said:
    As other fabs are moving on to 7nm, Intel is just staring their 10nm process. Unbelievable.
    I don't understand how the numbers work, but I've read countless comments about how Intel's measurements are accurate and that all other fabs should be counted as a larger than stated.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    I think giving business to Samsung is just a bad move.
    I don’t think it’s that simple. If TSMC can only handle 80% of Apple’s chip needs and there’s no other option besides Samsung should Apple just sell 20% less than they intended for a given product launch and hope that customers wait around to buy iPhones mknths later? What if Samsung’s chips are faster with less heat, are more reliable, and cost less than what TSMC can offer? Should Apple still ignore a superior product from division of Samsung because of issues from a different division of Samsung?

    Dont get me wrong; I’d love to see Samsung get the boot, but to cut off your nose to spit your face is never a good tactic.
    They could always see if Intel is interested.  Intel is on record as saying it was a mistake to turn Apple down the first time around.
    This doesn't affect anything I said. If Intel is interested that's great. If they can great rid of Samsung and TSMC for better chips, that's great, but until there's anything that shows this will happen making blanket statements that something this complex is a bad movie when even simple scenarios like nothing about to chip production goals are a real problem without multiple foundaries (as we've repeatedly seen in the past). Why can't we be happy that Apple is no longer only using Samsung?
    It certainly does affect what you said. The option isn’t just to sell 20% less but to seek another foundry option.  Intel may not want to use its latest fabs to make apple processors vs Intel one’s but it’s a possibility given how successful TSMC has been.
    No, it doesn't. If Apple can only make enough chips to satisfy demand by going through multiple vendors (regardless of whom they are) then they need to do that, regardless of any posters here and their hatred for one for of these vendors. It doesn't help Apple or their customers by hindering iPhone sales by the the 10s of millions because of customers's childish hatred of another company's business partner.
    The difference is that Apple and Samsung is still engaged in a half billion dollar lawsuit because Samsung stole IP.  That’s not “childish hatred” but in the category “fool me once”.  Insight into Apples chip IP is even more valuable than design IP.

    TSMC, GF and Intel seem to be more trustworthy partners...and also more than Qualcomm for that matter. 

    Your attitude appears to be that all partners are equal and only technical ability matters and not ethics. They aren’t equal and ethics do matter in business partners.
    Well, then stop supporting Apple or any other company that partners with Samsung (Qualcomm, Facebook, Miramax, and countless other companies). Or, you can realize how long this issue with Samsung has been going on, how Apple has continued to use Samsung for their fab because they get results, and instead of a myopic you'll see that this business venture for their multinational corporations is a more complex structure that's more complex than how a 9yo figures out friendship on the playground.

    How about letting Apple do what's best for their business needs instead of looking like a hypocrite for supporting a company when you making the sweeping claim that "ethics do matter" without doing anything about it? The smart move to find ways to remove Samsung from the equation, but that clearly takes time and hasn't yet happened so this soapbox your own with a decade's old lawsuit isn't helping your position on the matter.
    You like arguing about stuff nobody says.  Yes, I do avoid bad vendors and use good ones when possible.  I don’t go to Walmart but I do go to Costco because the staff seems much happier.  When there aren’t viable alternatives I use companies like Amazon and Google.  

    This isnt any different than Samsung and Qualcomm.  As for Samsung, I don’t have any IP to steal so me buying a TV isn’t a big deal.  Still, I’ll go Sony or LG when I can when all else is equal.

    But what you said was wrong.  Samsung isn’t Apple’s only option vs making fewer.  Whether it’s worth the cost of enticing Intel or help getting a smaller foundry to the same node vs the risk of IP leakage is something only Apple can evaluate. 

    At the end of the day, Samsung is a competitor that has acted unethically toward Apple and Intel and TSMC are not competitors regardless of their ethics.  Apple doesn’t sell processors or have any foundry business units.
    That's your fucking argument! They've never stopped working with Samsung despite going through this massive lawsuit. If you actually believed the crap you're stating you wouldn't be a hypocrite with your foolish all-or-nothing stance that's fine for you arm chairing how Apple should run but ignoring anything that involves Apple's unethical actions as a company or buying products from them when they use Samsung IP.

    Apple clearly knows that it needs Samsung for chip fabrication (and other components) for the time being; why can't you understand that? Instead, you make some bizarre comment about GlobalFoundries and Intel as some prolific statement as if Apple wouldn't have done their due diligence to see if these companies could meet their needs and would meet their needs.

    Since they haven't cut off Samsung completely at this point, with not only fabrication, but also a wide variety of components, you have to know there are clear business reasons for it. Well, a reasonable person would assume that. For fuck's sake it's been over 7 fucking years since litigation first started.
    Always angry.  Over what isn’t quite clear.
  • Reply 39 of 39
    chyang888chyang888 Posts: 8unconfirmed, member
    The reason why TSMC is using EVU on 7nm node only on a limited basis, is because EUV processing is extremely slow and expensive.   TSMC managed to figure out a way to print 7nm features using multi-patterning with conventional UV lithography techniques.  Something that other contract manufacturers could not achieve with reasonable yield.  As a result,  TSMC's 7nm process is going to be much cheaper than competitors.  This is the main reason why TSMC secured 2018/2019 7nm orders not only from Apple, but Nvidia, AMD (GPU and surprise!  CPU), Qualcomm, and host of other chip makers.

    TSMC may use more EVU in its 5nm process node and possibly full EUV in its 3nm process node.   As to TSMC "struggling with EVU"?   Perhaps it could be reasonably characterized for 3nm process?  The challenge with EVU is not the technology itsself but rather infrastructure.   Full manufacturing with EVU will use a huge amount of electricity.  It is estimated the daily electricity usage for a single 3nm fab will amount to a medium sized US city.     Given that that TSMC has announced 3nm fab will be built in Southern Taiwan and the Taiwan socialist government policy to completely shut down all nuclear power plant from its electrical grid.  The island is struggling to find a consistent and reliable power source, so much so that it restarted its coal burning power plants as green sourced energy could not meet the need of the power grid.   The Taiwanese government policy may ultimate push TSMC to build its future 2nm or 1nm fab in the United States.

Sign In or Register to comment.