Losing billions of dollars by having a flagship product off the market for an extended period of time. Yes, that is an "inconvenience" as the word is used in Applespeak.
But in standard written English, it would be called a fucking disaster.
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
Losing billions of dollars by having a flagship product off the market for an extended period of time. Yes, that is an "inconvenience" as the word is used in Applespeak.
But in standard written English, it would be called a fucking disaster.
Well likely the iphone and ipad would suffer, so ~73% of revenues. Maybe even some ipod ones in there as well.
but the natural assumption would be that apple would ramp up the other provider prior to removing thier business from samsung, rather than just dump one and run to another asking if htey can help.
What really cracks me up is when people proclaim that they will never buy a Samsung product to show how "loyal" they are to Apple, while they unknowingly enrich Samsung with every Apple purchase.
Too funny!
Ultimately, it's still an Apple product and Apple is making a lot more money than Samsung. And Google... And Microsoft... In a few years Apple will dwarf these companies.
Well yea Samsung, Samsung has many phones and tablets that just use Samsung parts. Look at the tear down for Samsung's Galaxy 7.7 or the European version of the Note every part including the fricken screws were made in house.
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
Are you saying that LG & Sharp aren't trying to get Apple's business (or likewise for Apple to diversify away from Samsung)?
Or are you in denial that there is no other tech / manufacturer big or reliable enough to meet Apple's needs?
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
LG will step up eventually. LG is Samsung's primary rival in Korea and very capable of catching up with Samsung. In Korea, Samsung is like Coke and LG is like Pepsi: no love lost between those two behemoths. Apple will get chummier and chummier with LG as well as Sharp and whoever else can step up and provide what Apple needs. Apple is the customer here and Apple is the one that can decide where to get the stuff, not Samsung. Samsung's chip and display divisions just sit there, take orders, and ship the stuff out. But if Samsung stays ahead of their competition in these sectors, Apple will go with the best.
but the natural assumption would be that apple would ramp up the other provider prior to removing thier business from samsung, rather than just dump one and run to another asking if htey can help.
It's hard to trust a graph that refers to Mac sales as CPU sales.
Are you saying that LG & Sharp aren't trying to get Apple's business (or likewise for Apple to diversify away from Samsung)?
Or are you in denial that there is no other tech / manufacturer big or reliable enough to meet Apple's needs?
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if Samsung dropped Apple (which is a nonsensical proposition) those companies would be ramping up so fast to pull Apple in that they'd fix those issues. Or are you in denial that they can't possibly do it? Just because right now they can't meet the needs for what is a pretty brand new screen doesn't mean they will never be able to do so.
LG will step up eventually. LG is Samsung's primary rival in Korea and very capable of catching up with Samsung. In Korea, Samsung is like Coke and LG is like Pepsi: no love lost between those two behemoths. Apple will get chummier and chummier with LG as well as Sharp and whoever else can step up and provide what Apple needs. Apple is the customer here and Apple is the one that can decide where to get the stuff, not Samsung. Samsung's chip and display divisions just sit there, take orders, and ship the stuff out. But if Samsung stays ahead of their competition in these sectors, Apple will go with the best.
Which is exactly my point. LG might be having issues now, but it's absurd to think they will never fix the issues and that Apple has no other choices beyond Samsung in the long term.
Who designed these display panels, Apple or Samsung? Does Apple have the exclusive rights to use these panels?
Apple does not design any displays as it is not their core competency. They provide specifications and then test if any display specialist can manufacture them according to specifications. This is why they have to go with Samsung, the only ones that knew who to do it. And for those who hate Samsung, they simply have to cut off supply and now more iPad... but they will not do that because Apple is paying them lots of money.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if Samsung dropped Apple (which is a nonsensical proposition) those companies would be ramping up so fast to pull Apple in that they'd fix those issues. Or are you in denial that they can't possibly do it? Just because right now they can't meet the needs for what is a pretty brand new screen doesn't mean they will never be able to do so.
Seems like you are still in denial. Why else would Apple move away from its main iPad 2 display supplier, LG, in favor of Samsung, Apple's biggest competitor in both mobile and tablet market?
Because LG and Sharp are in no rush to fix their production problem?
Psstt, whatever, that's just silly. Samsung is one of the most innovative display manufactures in the world. Their screen manufacturing is bar none the finest that's available. Apple had no other choice to choose them and it's a good partnership.
And the point that the concern trolls are missing is that Samsung's divisions operate very autonomously, which is typical of how these Asian conglomerates are structured. Samsung's LCD display division operates separately from their consumer electronics and wireless operations, and each of these divisions have their own revenue streams and profit goals.
Apple can prepay for millions of displays at once with upfront cash. This goes straight to the LCD division's bottomline. If necessary, Apple will also make capital investments to upgrade their suppliers' production facilities. Samsung's LCD division is not going to screw over one of their biggest customers, especially one that will sign a guaranteed contract for tens of millions of units in one transaction.
Sure, Samsung can screw over Apple by reneging on their LCD supplier arrangement. But, why would they do that? Not only would Samsung lose billions in revenue, but also millions more in the breach of contract suit that follows. Furthermore, Apple would approach LG or Sharp, and ask them how many millions of dollars in production line investment they need to get their display assembly rolling at full speed. So, the end result for Samsung would be the loss of billions of easy dollars, and more formidable competitors thanks to the millions that Apple invested in upgrading their production lines.
I'm not sure if that is the American way. Conglomerates are certainly more common in Asia whereas here you get mostly talented ponies.... I can't think of many conglomerates in the states. Maybe GE?
And the point that the concern trolls are missing is that Samsung's divisions operate very autonomously, which is typical of how these Asian conglomerates are structured. Samsung's LCD display division operates separately from their consumer electronics and wireless operations, and each of these divisions have their own revenue streams and profit goals.
Apple can prepay for millions of displays at once with upfront cash. This goes straight to the LCD division's bottomline. If necessary, Apple will also make capital investments to upgrade their suppliers' production facilities. Samsung's LCD division is not going to screw over one of their biggest customers, especially one that will sign a guaranteed contract for tens of millions of units in one transaction.
Sure, Samsung can screw over Apple by reneging on their LCD supplier arrangement. But, why would they do that? Not only would Samsung lose billions in revenue, but also millions more in the breach of contract suit that follows. Furthermore, Apple would approach LG or Sharp, and ask them how many millions of dollars in production line investment they need to get their display assembly rolling at full speed. So, the end result for Samsung would be the loss of billions of easy dollars, and more formidable competitors thanks to the millions that Apple invested in upgrading their production lines.
Operating "autonomously" or not, all of the business operations are consolidated on a single financial statement at the end of each quarter. Each divisions dont generate their
own financial statements. It all gets combined together under Samsung Electronics.
The ironic thing about this business relationship is that one side is suing the living crap out of each other while the other side in the business realm, they are a cozy couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune
Samsung is Foxconn.
Foxconn doesnt produce their own goods but goods of others. But I understand your point. In fact, Samsung is starting to venture into the contract manufacturing semiconductor business as an additional revenue source for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexkhan2000
But Samsung relies on Android for the functionality of it. And they'll do a lot of Windows as well in the future. They have Bada but does anyone really believe they'll ditch Android for it? Samsung also has no real ecosystem of their own to speak of. They're totally dependent on Google on the software side of things and they're not very happy about that.
Apple doesn't and shouldn't be involved with the manufacturing of screws or camera lenses or mechanical buttons, etc. Apple still designs and specifies them and where they're made. What Apple does is much more cost-effective and efficient than trying to manufacture everything in house.
Vertical integration in electronics manufacturing is way more trouble than it's worth and offers very little flexibility. But Apple's vertical integration in terms of design, engineering, procurement, assembly, software (especially the OS), content (iTunes), and services (iCloud) all the way through retail is something no one else can match and why Apple has a net margin of 28%. Samsung's net margins isn't even near the ballpark.
Apple's net margins are higher only because they have very little to no fix costs in their balance sheet. On the other hand, Samsung, with its many, many factories and research centers situated around the globe, have lots of fixed cost infrastructures. Therefore, the net margins are much smaller. Take away all those fixed costs and Samsung's net margins will shoot up drastically.
Why doesnt Samsung get rid of all those fixed costs and outsource them? Secrecy is one reason, quality control, flexibility to create new product categories, influence the market by being a formidable player (LCD)...basically setting industry standards (screen sizes) and others.
I'm surprised that a company like Apple, who regards its corporate secrets as one of its top priorities, delegates the manufacturing of its core products to a third party source 3000 miles away in a communist country China and expect no one to leak product details. Doesnt that seem counter intuitive to what their goal is? If they want to keep their secret they should have full control of the production of their products and own the plants no? This just leaves me to one conclusion: cheap cost and thus profit margin.
This is probably why Samsung recently spun off its display business into a seperate company, so as to maintain its contracts with Apple whilst avoiding any further conflict of interest. Personally I'm glad they are using one supplier. At least if you buy an iPad 3 you know you're getting the best quality display, rather than wondering if you've ended up with a slightly inferior LG display version.
Comments
Losing billions of dollars by having a flagship product off the market for an extended period of time. Yes, that is an "inconvenience" as the word is used in Applespeak.
But in standard written English, it would be called a fucking disaster.
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
Losing billions of dollars by having a flagship product off the market for an extended period of time. Yes, that is an "inconvenience" as the word is used in Applespeak.
But in standard written English, it would be called a fucking disaster.
Well likely the iphone and ipad would suffer, so ~73% of revenues. Maybe even some ipod ones in there as well.
but the natural assumption would be that apple would ramp up the other provider prior to removing thier business from samsung, rather than just dump one and run to another asking if htey can help.
What really cracks me up is when people proclaim that they will never buy a Samsung product to show how "loyal" they are to Apple, while they unknowingly enrich Samsung with every Apple purchase.
Too funny!
Ultimately, it's still an Apple product and Apple is making a lot more money than Samsung. And Google... And Microsoft... In a few years Apple will dwarf these companies.
Well yea Samsung, Samsung has many phones and tablets that just use Samsung parts. Look at the tear down for Samsung's Galaxy 7.7 or the European version of the Note every part including the fricken screws were made in house.
So Wacom and Qualcomm are now part of Samsung?
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
Are you saying that LG & Sharp aren't trying to get Apple's business (or likewise for Apple to diversify away from Samsung)?
Or are you in denial that there is no other tech / manufacturer big or reliable enough to meet Apple's needs?
Hahah, yeah right. I'm more than sure that Apple plans for any such eventuality with lots of back stock. Secondly, do you think all the other manufacturers wouldn't absolutely kill to have Apple use them as their supplier? They'd be ramping up their manufacturing lines so fast to get that $10 billion in business.
LG will step up eventually. LG is Samsung's primary rival in Korea and very capable of catching up with Samsung. In Korea, Samsung is like Coke and LG is like Pepsi: no love lost between those two behemoths. Apple will get chummier and chummier with LG as well as Sharp and whoever else can step up and provide what Apple needs. Apple is the customer here and Apple is the one that can decide where to get the stuff, not Samsung. Samsung's chip and display divisions just sit there, take orders, and ship the stuff out. But if Samsung stays ahead of their competition in these sectors, Apple will go with the best.
Well likely the iphone and ipad would suffer, so ~73% of revenues. Maybe even some ipod ones in there as well.
image: http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new...ottomchart.jpg
but the natural assumption would be that apple would ramp up the other provider prior to removing thier business from samsung, rather than just dump one and run to another asking if htey can help.
It's hard to trust a graph that refers to Mac sales as CPU sales.
Are you saying that LG & Sharp aren't trying to get Apple's business (or likewise for Apple to diversify away from Samsung)?
Or are you in denial that there is no other tech / manufacturer big or reliable enough to meet Apple's needs?
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if Samsung dropped Apple (which is a nonsensical proposition) those companies would be ramping up so fast to pull Apple in that they'd fix those issues. Or are you in denial that they can't possibly do it? Just because right now they can't meet the needs for what is a pretty brand new screen doesn't mean they will never be able to do so.
LG will step up eventually. LG is Samsung's primary rival in Korea and very capable of catching up with Samsung. In Korea, Samsung is like Coke and LG is like Pepsi: no love lost between those two behemoths. Apple will get chummier and chummier with LG as well as Sharp and whoever else can step up and provide what Apple needs. Apple is the customer here and Apple is the one that can decide where to get the stuff, not Samsung. Samsung's chip and display divisions just sit there, take orders, and ship the stuff out. But if Samsung stays ahead of their competition in these sectors, Apple will go with the best.
Which is exactly my point. LG might be having issues now, but it's absurd to think they will never fix the issues and that Apple has no other choices beyond Samsung in the long term.
Who designed these display panels, Apple or Samsung? Does Apple have the exclusive rights to use these panels?
Apple does not design any displays as it is not their core competency. They provide specifications and then test if any display specialist can manufacture them according to specifications. This is why they have to go with Samsung, the only ones that knew who to do it. And for those who hate Samsung, they simply have to cut off supply and now more iPad... but they will not do that because Apple is paying them lots of money.
Or are you in denial that they can't possibly do it?
Obviously if they could do it they would have done it to not leave hundreds of millions on the table... duh.
I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if Samsung dropped Apple (which is a nonsensical proposition) those companies would be ramping up so fast to pull Apple in that they'd fix those issues. Or are you in denial that they can't possibly do it? Just because right now they can't meet the needs for what is a pretty brand new screen doesn't mean they will never be able to do so.
Seems like you are still in denial. Why else would Apple move away from its main iPad 2 display supplier, LG, in favor of Samsung, Apple's biggest competitor in both mobile and tablet market?
Because LG and Sharp are in no rush to fix their production problem?
So Wacom and Qualcomm are now part of Samsung?
I said some, not all and they licensed the technology from Wacom, the parts are still made in house.
Samsung is Foxconn.
Psstt, whatever, that's just silly. Samsung is one of the most innovative display manufactures in the world. Their screen manufacturing is bar none the finest that's available. Apple had no other choice to choose them and it's a good partnership.
Apple can prepay for millions of displays at once with upfront cash. This goes straight to the LCD division's bottomline. If necessary, Apple will also make capital investments to upgrade their suppliers' production facilities. Samsung's LCD division is not going to screw over one of their biggest customers, especially one that will sign a guaranteed contract for tens of millions of units in one transaction.
Sure, Samsung can screw over Apple by reneging on their LCD supplier arrangement. But, why would they do that? Not only would Samsung lose billions in revenue, but also millions more in the breach of contract suit that follows. Furthermore, Apple would approach LG or Sharp, and ask them how many millions of dollars in production line investment they need to get their display assembly rolling at full speed. So, the end result for Samsung would be the loss of billions of easy dollars, and more formidable competitors thanks to the millions that Apple invested in upgrading their production lines.
Yes. An extememly talented pony.
Nevertheless, Apple is not diversified.
I'm not sure if that is the American way. Conglomerates are certainly more common in Asia whereas here you get mostly talented ponies.... I can't think of many conglomerates in the states. Maybe GE?
And the point that the concern trolls are missing is that Samsung's divisions operate very autonomously, which is typical of how these Asian conglomerates are structured. Samsung's LCD display division operates separately from their consumer electronics and wireless operations, and each of these divisions have their own revenue streams and profit goals.
Apple can prepay for millions of displays at once with upfront cash. This goes straight to the LCD division's bottomline. If necessary, Apple will also make capital investments to upgrade their suppliers' production facilities. Samsung's LCD division is not going to screw over one of their biggest customers, especially one that will sign a guaranteed contract for tens of millions of units in one transaction.
Sure, Samsung can screw over Apple by reneging on their LCD supplier arrangement. But, why would they do that? Not only would Samsung lose billions in revenue, but also millions more in the breach of contract suit that follows. Furthermore, Apple would approach LG or Sharp, and ask them how many millions of dollars in production line investment they need to get their display assembly rolling at full speed. So, the end result for Samsung would be the loss of billions of easy dollars, and more formidable competitors thanks to the millions that Apple invested in upgrading their production lines.
Operating "autonomously" or not, all of the business operations are consolidated on a single financial statement at the end of each quarter. Each divisions dont generate their
own financial statements. It all gets combined together under Samsung Electronics.
The ironic thing about this business relationship is that one side is suing the living crap out of each other while the other side in the business realm, they are a cozy couple.
Samsung is Foxconn.
Foxconn doesnt produce their own goods but goods of others. But I understand your point. In fact, Samsung is starting to venture into the contract manufacturing semiconductor business as an additional revenue source for them.
But Samsung relies on Android for the functionality of it. And they'll do a lot of Windows as well in the future. They have Bada but does anyone really believe they'll ditch Android for it? Samsung also has no real ecosystem of their own to speak of. They're totally dependent on Google on the software side of things and they're not very happy about that.
Apple doesn't and shouldn't be involved with the manufacturing of screws or camera lenses or mechanical buttons, etc. Apple still designs and specifies them and where they're made. What Apple does is much more cost-effective and efficient than trying to manufacture everything in house.
Vertical integration in electronics manufacturing is way more trouble than it's worth and offers very little flexibility. But Apple's vertical integration in terms of design, engineering, procurement, assembly, software (especially the OS), content (iTunes), and services (iCloud) all the way through retail is something no one else can match and why Apple has a net margin of 28%. Samsung's net margins isn't even near the ballpark.
Apple's net margins are higher only because they have very little to no fix costs in their balance sheet. On the other hand, Samsung, with its many, many factories and research centers situated around the globe, have lots of fixed cost infrastructures. Therefore, the net margins are much smaller. Take away all those fixed costs and Samsung's net margins will shoot up drastically.
Why doesnt Samsung get rid of all those fixed costs and outsource them? Secrecy is one reason, quality control, flexibility to create new product categories, influence the market by being a formidable player (LCD)...basically setting industry standards (screen sizes) and others.
I'm surprised that a company like Apple, who regards its corporate secrets as one of its top priorities, delegates the manufacturing of its core products to a third party source 3000 miles away in a communist country China and expect no one to leak product details. Doesnt that seem counter intuitive to what their goal is? If they want to keep their secret they should have full control of the production of their products and own the plants no? This just leaves me to one conclusion: cheap cost and thus profit margin.
iPad = Samsung Device + Apple Sticker