Very true. There are few semiconductor manufacturers with the capacity and expertise to churn out the latest chips in the quantities Apple requires. Someone else mentioned IBM and Intel. Apple is already dependent on Intel for the Mac line and tried IBM for the PowerPC with unsatisfying results. Talk to NVidia about the vagaries of foundries.
Your user name made me think of Jeong Hae-ri in High Kick! and her fondness for short ribs.
In the financial services industry it is often the case with a company that in one part of their building there is a team advising outside businesses. They will be intimately aware of their internal financial circumstances, and of any potential acquisitions, indeed they may well be recommending such a move. In another part of the same building, other employees of the same financial services company will be broking shares and earning commissions on such. There will be information in one part of the building that is worth millions to their colleagues in the other part of building. However, they will insist information is never passed on because there is a firewall, an imaginary barrier, between the two. Personally, I believe them. I also believe in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy.
I wonder how much Samsung's yearly revenue would be without Apple.
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.
Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.
If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY. Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.
Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap. That's THEIR market. They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.
That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive. Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.
Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.
If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY. Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.
Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap. That's THEIR market. They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.
That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive. Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
True. Though I'd dare say that Samsung might rely on Smartphone revenue more than we might think:
Being giddy over Samsung's market cap down $12B is quite childish. Like Tim Cook said, this isn't about money it's about values. Apple doesn't care about the mone they care about Samsung and others not copying them.
it's not about values... it's about business.
Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business. Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.
However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy. Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'
Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .
How much to build a chip manufacturing plant ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.
And that is just the 'Hard costs' Skilled Labor and management, the rest of the downstream supply chaing.... Not worth the Return on investment. Better to job this out...
What Apple wants to innovate in is what is made in the Fabs. Hence their purchase of PA Semi.
The key thing is to always have a second and third source.
The firewall is a fig leaf. The Samsung component division prepared a document on the iPhone that was used by the division making the Samsung phones. Got to be other fabs that can make the A4/5 chips. Intel? IBM? TXN? It makes sense to fab with a U company to keep trade secrets. The rest of the stuff is mostly generic, except for QCOM telecom chips and they are not going to mess with Apple.
That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!
PLUS gazillions in R&D to keep it pushing the envelope and not fall behind other fabbers... One does not jump in and out of this kind of business quickly.
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
While Apple only buys 3% of Samsung's chip business, I think it's a huge part of the special memory chip production Samsung makes that Apple uses in most of their products these days.
From iPods to the new retina MacBook Pros.
I think there was some talk between Apple and Intel on ARM chips, but that didn't happen for some reason.
Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business. Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.
However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy. Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'
It's just Business.
An entertaining, but otherwise insane post with no grounding in reality at all.
It's all "business"? ... and "business" in the sense of the Mafia? No room for values at all in your world?
Maybe go home and watch some old Soprano episodes while you weave these little fantasies of yours.
I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature.
Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker.
It's a family business though with different relatives heading up the various individual entities.
It's also an extremely corrupt entity operating in a country with super lax rules on corruption. Most of what passes for "regular business" in the USA is at root, corruption. Here we are talking about a company that operates in a much looser environment, but yet it's considered one of the most corrupt businesses even there.
Samsung would have been broken up into separate entities in almost any other western country years ago because of exactly these problems.
[SIZE=16px]That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!![/SIZE]
Exactly.
While Apple can't switch quickly from Samsung to someone else, anyone who can should do so. Clearly, Samsung can not be trusted.
Meanwhile, their continued dishonesty shows. While they TALK about a firewall between divisions, the component division sends a memo to the mobile division telling them everything that Apple is doing. Actions speak louder than words.
I wouldn't trust Samsung further than I can throw their headquarters building.
Apple and Samsung have current contracts that will be honored through this process that guarantee that Samsung can not raise the prices of components nor impede delivery without penalty, however, when the terms of the current contracts are completed, it stands to reason that Apple will select another supplier for significant portions of chips. While Apple may not be able to depend on another company to provide these parts exclusively, Apple does have the investment resources to encourage growth of smaller fabrication companies to produce parts for them with focused assistance from expertise internalized through their earlier purchase of PA Semi.
The likely move is not a brash one, but a strategic one where suppliers are not competitors. Qualified suppliers of components can be secured whom do not participate in manufacture of competing products, especially with significant investments made by Apple. Apple has also made public statements regarding wanting to move more production back to the US. This may very well be a motivating push toward returning business from South Korea through investments in, and purchase of parts from, smaller foundries in the US. This issue will likely be a defining moment for Tim Cook, his leadership abilities, and his supply chain prowess.
Lastly, this issue is visible to every one of Samsung's clients. They are all being made aware of Samsung's thievery and will likely also be weighing their options accordingly upon completion of their own contracts with Samsung. These other companies are headed by CEO's and Boards of Directors who ultimately must answer to shareholders. If shareholders are convinced that Samsung can not be trusted with Apple's business, they may feel that Samsung can not be trusted with their own. As a result, the damage Samsung has incurred will not be seen immediately, regardless of their current stock price, but will be seen when Samsung's clients are due to either renew or decline future contracts with Samsung. Considering that Samsung's actions are cultural in nature, shareholders of client corporations likely can not be reassured that significant changes in management will produce trustworthy results. Time will tell.
Don't under-estimate Samsung, in the past 2 decades. They've successfully defeated many large competitors with the same tactics. Producing lower cost copies.
Sony and Panasonic particularly lost a ton of business in the consumer market due to Samsung copying their VCRs, LCD, and Plasma technology. In any industry as long as it's hardware, Samsung can reverse engineer and copy it. For many years and over decades Samsung was the low-cost Sony clone.
Don't under-estimate Samsung, in the past 2 decades. They've successfully defeated many large competitors with the same tactics. Producing lower cost copies.
Sony and Panasonic particularly lost a ton of business in the consumer market due to Samsung copying their VCRs, LCD, and Plasma technology. In any industry as long as it's hardware, Samsung can reverse engineer and copy it. For many years and over decades Samsung was the low-cost Sony clone.
Yes, but which of those other companies stood up to Samsung to put a stop to their blatant theft?
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Apple decided that they had to do something. Maybe if someone else had stood up to Samsung years ago, they would have learned their lesson long ago.
Yes, but which of those other companies stood up to Samsung to put a stop to their blatant theft?
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Apple decided that they had to do something. Maybe if someone else had stood up to Samsung years ago, they would have learned their lesson long ago.
Internationally, it's nearly impossible to beat an organized company from stealing trade secrets and mass producing copies. There's no enforcement and typically consumer electronics have a very short shelf life before things lose their values quickly.
For many years Samsung was undercutting Sony's flat panel prices by 30% and force the price of panels to drop so low that most of the Japanese panel makers are out of business or bleeding red.
Samsung was also beating the Japanese in the dumb phone market, undercutting them in Asia.
The iPhone was the 1st device that they tried to copy at 1st but couldn't until they got the help from Google.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Samsung needs Apple and Apple needs Samsung.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/idINL3E8JR0PN20120827
Very true. There are few semiconductor manufacturers with the capacity and expertise to churn out the latest chips in the quantities Apple requires. Someone else mentioned IBM and Intel. Apple is already dependent on Intel for the Mac line and tried IBM for the PowerPC with unsatisfying results. Talk to NVidia about the vagaries of foundries.
Your user name made me think of Jeong Hae-ri in High Kick! and her fondness for short ribs.
In the financial services industry it is often the case with a company that in one part of their building there is a team advising outside businesses. They will be intimately aware of their internal financial circumstances, and of any potential acquisitions, indeed they may well be recommending such a move. In another part of the same building, other employees of the same financial services company will be broking shares and earning commissions on such. There will be information in one part of the building that is worth millions to their colleagues in the other part of building. However, they will insist information is never passed on because there is a firewall, an imaginary barrier, between the two. Personally, I believe them. I also believe in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges
I wonder how much Samsung's yearly revenue would be without Apple.
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.
Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.
If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY. Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.
Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap. That's THEIR market. They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.
That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive. Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.
Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.
If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY. Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.
Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap. That's THEIR market. They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.
That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive. Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
True. Though I'd dare say that Samsung might rely on Smartphone revenue more than we might think:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/samsung-profit-rises-as-phone-sales-mask-slump-in-lcd-panels.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardware/Samsung-Q2-falls-on-weak-LCD-sales/articleshow/9134922.cms
Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .
How much to build a chip manufacturing plant ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala
Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .
How much to build a chip manufacturing plant ?
$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Being giddy over Samsung's market cap down $12B is quite childish. Like Tim Cook said, this isn't about money it's about values. Apple doesn't care about the mone they care about Samsung and others not copying them.
it's not about values... it's about business.
Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business. Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.
However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy. Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'
It's just Business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala
Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .
How much to build a chip manufacturing plant ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.
And that is just the 'Hard costs' Skilled Labor and management, the rest of the downstream supply chaing.... Not worth the Return on investment. Better to job this out...
What Apple wants to innovate in is what is made in the Fabs. Hence their purchase of PA Semi.
The key thing is to always have a second and third source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD
The firewall is a fig leaf. The Samsung component division prepared a document on the iPhone that was used by the division making the Samsung phones. Got to be other fabs that can make the A4/5 chips. Intel? IBM? TXN? It makes sense to fab with a U company to keep trade secrets. The rest of the stuff is mostly generic, except for QCOM telecom chips and they are not going to mess with Apple.
That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.
PLUS gazillions in R&D to keep it pushing the envelope and not fall behind other fabbers... One does not jump in and out of this kind of business quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.
I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point. I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs. Rely less on Samsung might be better.
While Apple only buys 3% of Samsung's chip business, I think it's a huge part of the special memory chip production Samsung makes that Apple uses in most of their products these days.
From iPods to the new retina MacBook Pros.
I think there was some talk between Apple and Intel on ARM chips, but that didn't happen for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
As long as it doesn't look like Apple's firewall, I don't see a problem.
Samsung chose to copy a block of Swiss cheese for their firewall, rather than copying Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
it's not about values... it's about business.
Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business. Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.
However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy. Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'
It's just Business.
An entertaining, but otherwise insane post with no grounding in reality at all.
It's all "business"? ... and "business" in the sense of the Mafia? No room for values at all in your world?
Maybe go home and watch some old Soprano episodes while you weave these little fantasies of yours.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature.
Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker.
It's a family business though with different relatives heading up the various individual entities.
It's also an extremely corrupt entity operating in a country with super lax rules on corruption. Most of what passes for "regular business" in the USA is at root, corruption. Here we are talking about a company that operates in a much looser environment, but yet it's considered one of the most corrupt businesses even there.
Samsung would have been broken up into separate entities in almost any other western country years ago because of exactly these problems.
"The Samsung component division prepared a document on the iPhone that was used by the division making the Samsung phones."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!
And should give pause to any potential new Samsung business clients as well. "Firewall" lip service or no.
Exactly.
While Apple can't switch quickly from Samsung to someone else, anyone who can should do so. Clearly, Samsung can not be trusted.
Meanwhile, their continued dishonesty shows. While they TALK about a firewall between divisions, the component division sends a memo to the mobile division telling them everything that Apple is doing. Actions speak louder than words.
I wouldn't trust Samsung further than I can throw their headquarters building.
Apple and Samsung have current contracts that will be honored through this process that guarantee that Samsung can not raise the prices of components nor impede delivery without penalty, however, when the terms of the current contracts are completed, it stands to reason that Apple will select another supplier for significant portions of chips. While Apple may not be able to depend on another company to provide these parts exclusively, Apple does have the investment resources to encourage growth of smaller fabrication companies to produce parts for them with focused assistance from expertise internalized through their earlier purchase of PA Semi.
The likely move is not a brash one, but a strategic one where suppliers are not competitors. Qualified suppliers of components can be secured whom do not participate in manufacture of competing products, especially with significant investments made by Apple. Apple has also made public statements regarding wanting to move more production back to the US. This may very well be a motivating push toward returning business from South Korea through investments in, and purchase of parts from, smaller foundries in the US. This issue will likely be a defining moment for Tim Cook, his leadership abilities, and his supply chain prowess.
Lastly, this issue is visible to every one of Samsung's clients. They are all being made aware of Samsung's thievery and will likely also be weighing their options accordingly upon completion of their own contracts with Samsung. These other companies are headed by CEO's and Boards of Directors who ultimately must answer to shareholders. If shareholders are convinced that Samsung can not be trusted with Apple's business, they may feel that Samsung can not be trusted with their own. As a result, the damage Samsung has incurred will not be seen immediately, regardless of their current stock price, but will be seen when Samsung's clients are due to either renew or decline future contracts with Samsung. Considering that Samsung's actions are cultural in nature, shareholders of client corporations likely can not be reassured that significant changes in management will produce trustworthy results. Time will tell.
Don't under-estimate Samsung, in the past 2 decades. They've successfully defeated many large competitors with the same tactics. Producing lower cost copies.
Sony and Panasonic particularly lost a ton of business in the consumer market due to Samsung copying their VCRs, LCD, and Plasma technology. In any industry as long as it's hardware, Samsung can reverse engineer and copy it. For many years and over decades Samsung was the low-cost Sony clone.
Yes, but which of those other companies stood up to Samsung to put a stop to their blatant theft?
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Apple decided that they had to do something. Maybe if someone else had stood up to Samsung years ago, they would have learned their lesson long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, but which of those other companies stood up to Samsung to put a stop to their blatant theft?
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Apple decided that they had to do something. Maybe if someone else had stood up to Samsung years ago, they would have learned their lesson long ago.
Internationally, it's nearly impossible to beat an organized company from stealing trade secrets and mass producing copies. There's no enforcement and typically consumer electronics have a very short shelf life before things lose their values quickly.
For many years Samsung was undercutting Sony's flat panel prices by 30% and force the price of panels to drop so low that most of the Japanese panel makers are out of business or bleeding red.
Samsung was also beating the Japanese in the dumb phone market, undercutting them in Asia.
The iPhone was the 1st device that they tried to copy at 1st but couldn't until they got the help from Google.