Retina display production issues persist for Apple's new iPad
Samsung will remain the primary supplier of Retina displays for the new iPad for the foreseeable future, as Apple continues to face supply issues for the high-resolution screen.
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI Securities revealed to AppleInsider on Monday that Samsung was the sole supplier of iPad Retina displays to Apple in the first quarter of 2012. That's consistent with earlier reports, but also reveals that only Samsung was able to provide high-resolution screens to Apple for the entirety of the quarter.
In fact, it's likely that Samsung is still the only iPad Retina display supplier. Kuo said LG Display is expected to begin providing screens in the second quarter of calendar 2012, but did not indicate that Sharp has actually begun providing displays.
Even when LG does enter the supply chain, Samsung will remain the main supplier of Retina displays for the new iPad, Kuo said. Companies outside of Samsung have struggled to reliably build the new screens, which pack in more pixels than a 1080p high-definition television.
While LG is expected to begin supplying screens for the new iPad this quarter, Kuo said that Apple's other main display provider, Sharp, won't be able to build iPad Retina displays at a "normal rate" until the third quarter of 2012.
"Sharp Still has production yield and material stability issues unresolved due to the adoption of Oxide technology," Kuo wrote in a research note.
Kuo believes that constrained supply of the new iPad resulted in sales of 13.1 million units last quarter. However, last week there was a sign that availability of the new iPad is improving, when advertised shipping times from Apple shortened to just 5 to 7 days.
Kuo expects sales of 18.6 million total iPad units in the second quarter of calendar 2012, as supply improves and Retina display production ramps up.
He also offered commentary on the so-called "iPad mini," a rumored device with a 7.85-inch screen that has been the subject of considerable discussion recently. Kuo said he believes such a device could launch early in the fourth quarter of 2012, allowing it to go on sale ahead of the holiday buying season.
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with KGI Securities revealed to AppleInsider on Monday that Samsung was the sole supplier of iPad Retina displays to Apple in the first quarter of 2012. That's consistent with earlier reports, but also reveals that only Samsung was able to provide high-resolution screens to Apple for the entirety of the quarter.
In fact, it's likely that Samsung is still the only iPad Retina display supplier. Kuo said LG Display is expected to begin providing screens in the second quarter of calendar 2012, but did not indicate that Sharp has actually begun providing displays.
Even when LG does enter the supply chain, Samsung will remain the main supplier of Retina displays for the new iPad, Kuo said. Companies outside of Samsung have struggled to reliably build the new screens, which pack in more pixels than a 1080p high-definition television.
While LG is expected to begin supplying screens for the new iPad this quarter, Kuo said that Apple's other main display provider, Sharp, won't be able to build iPad Retina displays at a "normal rate" until the third quarter of 2012.
"Sharp Still has production yield and material stability issues unresolved due to the adoption of Oxide technology," Kuo wrote in a research note.
Kuo believes that constrained supply of the new iPad resulted in sales of 13.1 million units last quarter. However, last week there was a sign that availability of the new iPad is improving, when advertised shipping times from Apple shortened to just 5 to 7 days.
Kuo expects sales of 18.6 million total iPad units in the second quarter of calendar 2012, as supply improves and Retina display production ramps up.
He also offered commentary on the so-called "iPad mini," a rumored device with a 7.85-inch screen that has been the subject of considerable discussion recently. Kuo said he believes such a device could launch early in the fourth quarter of 2012, allowing it to go on sale ahead of the holiday buying season.
Comments
The sooner the other companies get their act together the better. Relying heavily on Samsung at the moment isn't ideal...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
The sooner the other companies get their act together the better. Relying heavily on Samsung at the moment isn't ideal...
Kuo hasn't provided any proof is his claims which read, in this case, more like he's trying to pump Samsung than comment either way about Apple.
Samsung wouldn't intentionally be dragging its feet on the displays in order to limit iPad production until they come out with their own competing product, would they? Naw, perish the thought.
I'm not sure I believe the report. Seems they always come out with negative report right before the quarterly results (and proven wrong time and again)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Samsung wouldn't intentionally be dragging its feet on the displays in order to limit iPad production until they come out with their own competing product, would they? Naw, perish the thought.
Some of you guys leave the dumbest comments. If Samsung wasn't reliable, do you think they'd still be manufacturing for Apple? They have contracts. They fill their contracts, so the relationship goes on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
The sooner the other companies get their act together the better. Relying heavily on Samsung at the moment isn't ideal...
I read this all the time, and yet Samsung would build phones either way. You guys have no imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Samsung wouldn't intentionally be dragging its feet on the displays in order to limit iPad production until they come out with their own competing product, would they? Naw, perish the thought.
Samsung has more than one division. I doubt the semiconductor/LCD divisions are going to limit the money they make from selling to Apple because of a fight between Samsung Mobile and Apple. More likely, those divisions are pissed at Samsung Mobile for taking actions that might make Apple want to switch to other suppliers over time and reduce their sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Samsung wouldn't intentionally be dragging its feet on the displays in order to limit iPad production until they come out with their own competing product, would they? Naw, perish the thought.
If they were found to be doing that, all existing lawsuits against them combined would pale in comparison to what Apple would bring down on them for that. And win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Some of you guys leave the dumbest comments. If Samsung wasn't reliable, do you think they'd still be manufacturing for Apple? They have contracts. They fill their contracts, so the relationship goes on.
Fill their contracts… well enough. Doesn't mean they're putting their heart into it. "No pressing need", as it were, when things go wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If they were found to be doing that, all existing lawsuits against them combined would pale in comparison to what Apple would bring down on them for that. And win.
Fill their contracts… well enough. Doesn't mean they're putting their heart into it. "No pressing need", as it were, when things go wrong.
I don't think that would happen. These are big companies. They would have contracts including contingency terms/clauses laid out in advance. It would not require lawsuits. I think you're editorializing too much here. Regarding consistency problems, you'd think they'd test ipads post assembly and set the display levels once the backlight has been fitted. Of course I don't know their exact manufacturing process or how many Foxconn commits to building monthly, so I can't even make an educated guess there.
Quite stupid of anyone to blame Samsung.
Lets look at the issue. Apple requires X amount of displays per year.
Samsung builds plant and says it can deliver Y amount of displays MAX. A facility cannot make an infinite amount of product after all
Apple says ok and goes to find another supplier to display the remaining Z amount of displays needed.
If you didn't realize, I'm using X = Y + Z
Samsung delivers on their contract as they have FOR YEARS to deliver their Y displays per year.
Other manufacturers (sharp, LG, Whirlpool, whoever) who have shoddy factories and shoddy QC, FAIL to deliver on their Z amount of displays like they promised they will.
What has Samsung done wrong? They are delivering how many they were contracted to deliver.
Meanwhile, blind fanboys want other manufacturers who cant produce these displays in large numbers to save their lives, to take over ALL ipad manufacturing.
REALLY? How much has fanboyism blinded some of you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
I'm not sure I believe the report. Seems they always come out with negative report right before the quarterly results (and proven wrong time and again)
Of course, what better way to make a little extra profit when Apple again outperforms even their own expectations. It drives me crazy, about as much as the fact that we also pay gas prices set by how much they expect Oil to cost in the coming weeks/months. When gas ends up costing less they say, "well, looks like gas won't rise as expected" as they pocket the extra cash they just got from charging more for something that didn't actually cost what they expected. Funny thing is I thought profit was supposed to be a percentage of actual cost to your company not "expected" cost. When tornado season starts every year we don't see corn prices suddenly rise in anticipation of possible losses to tornados. It all seems a bit criminal to me.
It's futile to reason with fanbois.. Some of them actually believe Samsung exists only because of Apple. Others believe Samsung is a mom and pop shop filled with unskilled workers akin to Foxconn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
The sooner the other companies get their act together the better. Relying heavily on Samsung at the moment isn't ideal...
Well, unfortunately, as I've been saying all along, Samsung is the *only* supplier big, technical, reliable enough to meet Apple's need. Apple can't just pick and choose any supplier of their choice or hire a bunch of unskilled workers to increase the output of those components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Samsung wouldn't intentionally be dragging its feet on the displays in order to limit iPad production until they come out with their own competing product, would they? Naw, perish the thought.
I guess they could. It's obvious that Apple really needs Samsung.. With Samsung's soaring revenue / profit, I don't think Samsung needs Apple that bad.
Samsung’s not the problem—it’s the other companies.
Anyway, if retina-screen supply constraints are true (and they likely are) then releasing a non-retina 8” iPad makes sense as a way to reach more of the demand for iPads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
…releasing a non-retina 8” iPad makes sense as a way to reach more of the demand for iPads.
No, it doesn't…
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Some of you guys leave the dumbest comments. If Samsung wasn't reliable, do you think they'd still be manufacturing for Apple? They have contracts. They fill their contracts, so the relationship goes on.
I read this all the time, and yet Samsung would build phones either way. You guys have no imagination.
I'm fully aware that Apple has a contract with Samsung and that they will continue to make Smartphones anyway. My point was that relying on just one supper (especially with all of the current legal wranglings going on) isn't ideal. I've nothing against Samsung personally but surely you can see that Apple relying on one of their main competitors for components isn't healthy.
The quicker the other suppliers get their act together the better.
In an ideal world, Apple would produce their own chips/components. Maybe that is the way things are heading...
In regards to me having no imagination (which is totally irrelevant), I'd have to disagree with you
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Samsung has more than one division. I doubt the semiconductor/LCD divisions are going to limit the money they make from selling to Apple because of a fight between Samsung Mobile and Apple. More likely, those divisions are pissed at Samsung Mobile for taking actions that might make Apple want to switch to other suppliers over time and reduce their sales.
not sure that's how it works. I'm guessing Samsung's own mobile division (now #1 smartphone / feature maker) generates enough demand that it doesn't have to bend over for Apple. Furthermore, all signs indicate that Apple has become more, not less, dependent on Samsung, even with all the legal battles. Apple's new iPad is now 50% Samsung (eg, cpu, memory, display, battery).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
not sure that's how it works. I'm guessing Samsung's own mobile division (now #1 smartphone / feature maker) generates enough demand that it doesn't have to bend over for Apple. Furthermore, all signs indicate that Apple has become more, not less, dependent on Samsung, even with all the legal battles. Apple's new iPad is now 50% Samsung (eg, cpu, memory, display, battery).
Samsung is a huge conglomerate, the mobile division is a completely different division from displays and chip fabs. Of which, there are other suppliers, three other major panel suppliers and several other custom semiconductor fabs, and there are five other major flash chip makers, I think Apple deals with all of them because they are half the market demand. My guess is Samsung was the lowest bidder for the parts on the third iPad.
With others sticking to lower resolutions it is certainly cost effective to stick with the one supplier rather than have minor but subtle variances from each supply chain.
Anyway, its all made up. What do we/they know?
Indeed. Love how everyone thinks Samsung is one, huge monolith. Samsung's components division needs to make money, and Samsung and Apple are currently in a supplier relationship where Samsung relies upon years of reputation for reliability. When there are billions of dollars of component sales at stake, Samsung won't one day decide to renege on its agreements.
As difficult as it may be for some people here to believe, this isn't some sandbox fight.