Apple's rumored chip switch from Samsung to TSMC may send shockwaves through industry

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 76

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Aren't Samsung using TSMC made Qualcomm based chips in their LTE capable phones?


     


    Oh, snap...


     


    ...dragon.



     


     


    Nope, partly..   Samsung also manufactures Qualcomm's snapdragons. 


     


    http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/04/qualcomm.partners.with.rival.samsung.on.s4.processor/


     


    goes on to show that TSMC probably doesn't have the kind of capacity or quality to meet Apple's demand. And Samsung's own Exynos now supports LTE:


     


    http://rootzwiki.com/news/_/articles/announcements/samsung-galaxy-note-2-marries-quad-core-exynos-to-lte-in-the-us-all-major-carriers-by-november-r1132

  • Reply 42 of 76

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post



    Samsung is the one burning its bridges.

    Samsung should just make peace and take Apple's offer for a license to its patents and vice versa, just as it has done with Microsoft, just as HTC has done with Apple, etc. before Samsung got greedy - not wanting to pay anyone's including for its previous licenses, and stubbornly kept copying.


     


    Nope, that's a Apple fanboy lie / propaganda.  Apple doesn't license its so-called core UX patents.  Apple's offer to Samsung in 2010 largely consisted of generic mobile OS / utility patents had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent lawsuits. 

  • Reply 43 of 76

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jeeves Staub View Post



    Just as Samsung is set to begin a $4 Billion expansion in Austin.

    http://gigaom.com/apple/samsungs-austin-plant-gets-overhaul-prep-for-new-iphone-ipad-chips/


     


    That must be part of the $40B capital investment Samsung is spending this year.  Samsung has maintained a $10B manufacturing complex in Austin, Texas for, I believe, almost two decades.  Ironically, from what I hear, Apple's chip engineering team also operates out of Samsung's FTZ there. 

  • Reply 44 of 76
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    blastdoor wrote: »
    Wow, you totally missed what I'm going to say. 

    I think that if Apple wants an exclusive supplier, they need to find somebody with good technology but a small marketshare. Seems to me that's IBM. Apple should come to IBM and say "here's the deal -- we'll pay for all your fabs if you use them to make POWER chips for yourself, ARM chips for us, and nothing for anybody else." If they can get over their past, it could be a great partnership. 

    You seem to mis a couple of things. The various foundries make chips based on processes they tune for specific needs. So even though Samsung and IBM use similar tools they tune those tools and their plants for different needs. IBM had never really been concerned with low thermal power chips so going with IBM would be less than ideal for Apple.

    The other thing to realize here is the assumption that TSMC has an inferior process. This does not appear to be the case at all. First you have to remember that Apple via Intrinsity is responsible for Samsung's success with low power semiconductors and the ARM chips they have been selling. There have been multiple leaks about where TSMC is with respect to its next gen process, frankly it is looking pretty good. Beyond that recent chip sets from TSMC (GPUs, LTE and other chip sets) have been performing rather impressively. The idea that going to TSMC would be a regression isn't based on solid fact, they reality is we might see an improvement thermally.
  • Reply 45 of 76
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member


    In other news - and just as shocking - I decided to buy some groceries at Walmart instead of Target - will the Retail giants be able to cover? 

  • Reply 46 of 76
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    You do realize that one of Samsungs biggest plants is in the US?

    Beyond that Apple can't just build a plant and steal somebody else's production techniques. These foundries invest huge amounts in technology development through various partnerships so for Apple to even have a crack at this they would have to buy into a partnership and probably engage in significant cash outlays for manufacturing rights.
    It is not an industry I know anything about, is it labor intensive? If not it seems Apple should looking to build it's own plant or at least partner with such a company and build it in the USA. I'm sure there could be incentives made available in many States for such a development.
  • Reply 47 of 76

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    See my response to "mstone." I forgot that chip fabs are mostly automated and thus partly excluded from the stupidity of "manufacturing things in the USA" argument.  


     


    As to the first two points, you're going to have to actually come up with something as to why I'm "stupid, stupid, stupid" (bonus points for those that know the origin of the quote), as an argument consists of more than just the automatic gainsaying of the other persons statement.  



     


    Samsung's Austin complex employs about two thousands highly-skilled tech workers (vs the vast majority of Apple's US employees who work at retail stores making pittance in wages).

  • Reply 48 of 76


    Apple wants to be rid of any relationship with Samsung and Google b/c, very simply, both have stolen IP from Apple.


     


    The motivation for severing ties to them both goes back to Job's saying, "To be successful in tech, you have to be 10 years ahead of the competition." 


     


    Even with a few miss steps, Apple is doing this. Certainly in hardware design, i.e., screens, batteries, enclosures, etc. Software they're leagues ahead in OSX and iOS.


     


    Distancing themselves from the IP thieves at Samsung and Google will go along way ensuring this.

  • Reply 49 of 76
    lilgto64 wrote: »
    In other news - and just as shocking - I decided to buy some groceries at Walmart instead of Target - will the Retail giants be able to cover? 

    Depends on the size of your grocery order.
  • Reply 50 of 76
    Seems a lot of comments here aren't using the correct meaning of the term "shockwave" as it applies to this article.
  • Reply 51 of 76
    Distancing themselves from the IP thieves at Samsung and Google will go along way ensuring this.

    As long as Apple has its bases covered.

    Apple could fall a long way with a screw up in chip fabrication.

    The devil you know etc.
  • Reply 52 of 76
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    A brand new from the ground up manufacturing plant is more like 2.5 to 5 billion dollars to cover Apples needs. These plants aren't cheap and outdate quickly. Worst in Apples case what do they do with the plant afterward.

    You see TSMC can continue to make use of a plant after a couple of years to feed customers with lesser demands. Apples options are far more limited as a plant could become fairly useless to them after 4 years. In effect you end up selling for scrap metal prices before you have even paid for the machinery. Not good. Could Apple find a way to DIY, possibly but I'm not too sure it would have a positive impact on the product line.
    sockrolid wrote: »
    Re: "Another rumor that surfaced in August claimed that Apple made an offer for around $1 billion that would have made TSMC a dedicated chip producer to Apple alone."

    Apple should offer $1 billion (or more) toward the construction of an all-new fab for AX chip production. TSMC wouldn't need to use any existing capital equipment to make the Apple chips. They would just need to hire and train new workers (and probably transfer workers from other fabs to the "Apple fab" temporarily, until the new hires get up to speed.)
  • Reply 53 of 76
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post


    ... http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/04/qualcomm.partners.with.rival.samsung.on.s4.processor/


     


    goes on to show that TSMC probably doesn't have the kind of capacity or quality to meet Apple's demand ...



     


    Don't bother answering as I have you blocked because of your poor/offensive posts in the past but ...


     


    You lie.  


     


    The article doesn't back up your statement at all.  


    It must be nice to have such a fine pair of rose coloured glasses that everything you read seems to support your point of view.  

  • Reply 54 of 76

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    You seem to mis a couple of things. The various foundries make chips based on processes they tune for specific needs. So even though Samsung and IBM use similar tools they tune those tools and their plants for different needs. IBM had never really been concerned with low thermal power chips so going with IBM would be less than ideal for Apple.

    The other thing to realize here is the assumption that TSMC has an inferior process. This does not appear to be the case at all. First you have to remember that Apple via Intrinsity is responsible for Samsung's success with low power semiconductors and the ARM chips they have been selling. There have been multiple leaks about where TSMC is with respect to its next gen process, frankly it is looking pretty good. Beyond that recent chip sets from TSMC (GPUs, LTE and other chip sets) have been performing rather impressively. The idea that going to TSMC would be a regression isn't based on solid fact, they reality is we might see an improvement thermally.


     


    Ok, Intrinsity was Samsung's business partner when they developed Hummingbird SoC.  Apple bought Intrinsity afterward (in 2010) and likewise it's silly to claim that "Apple" is responsible for Samsung's success - only in Apple fanbois wet dream.


     


    As for TSMC's next gen process, "Nvidia deeply unhappy with TSMC, claims 20nm essentially worthless"


      http://www.extremetech.com/computing/123529-nvidia-deeply-unhappy-with-tsmc-claims-22nm-essentially-worthless

  • Reply 55 of 76
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    The headline as written here is a bit ambiguous about what it is exactly that's causing concern.


     


    The headline at original source made this clear:


     


    Apple CPU orders raise concerns over TSMC production capacity


    http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20121128PD204.html

     



    There was another article suggesting they turned down a previous bid from Apple. I think it was also from digitimes. Here is a link.


     


    Quote:


     


    Even with a relatively limited arrangement for a dedicated facility, TSMC is aware that there are still risks as the mobile device market continues to evolve. “You have to be careful. Once that product migrates, what are [we] going to do with that dedicated fab?” said Lora Ho, TSMC’s Chief Financial Officer. “We would like to keep the flexibility.”




    It's an understandable concern.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    Expect huge layoff in the manufacturing arm. This will be very public too as some of that production is in the US.

     


     


    I'd expect it to be somewhat dependent on their growth. If they are still constrained in other areas or able to bring in more smaller contracts, it would limit some of this. You'd have to look at what they aren't taking on right now. It's likely easier to retrofit existing facilities than build new ones. We also don't know the rates negotiated by Apple. If the margins aren't as great, it may take less total revenue to replace that amount of operating income. Layoffs could still come in that scenario, but you seem to be stuck on the big number there.

  • Reply 56 of 76
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    There are other foundries like UMC and Global Foundries to name a few. It would be wiser if Apple spreads the risk between them.
  • Reply 57 of 76
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member
    It is not like Lego where you simply hand them the design and they built it. The design has to be optimize for each node and each foundry using their tools. So you cant really port your A6 to TSMC when the design and tuning has been with Samsung in mind.

    And this is the same even if the Foundry are within the same IBM alliance. The difficulty will be lower but still an easy task. So to simply put, it is not technically and economically feasible to design a chip with two foundry in mind.

    TSMC doesn't have the capacity for Apple yet, but they are working very hard in making them available. Not once in history of TSMC have I seen them ramp up production and expansion schedule as quick and as fast as they are now.

    Intel is another candidate. Intel is having idle Fab sitting around and they are costing them dearly. With the change of CEO it could be possible that Intel Fab chips for Apple. And Intel has more then enough capacity in doing so, however Intel simply dont have enough experience in being a Fab partner while TSMC has been doing a great job, That could change of course, but i am not sure if Intel has decided on their path yet, become a Fab partner, or continue with their own path on x86 SoC.
  • Reply 58 of 76
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    tooltalk wrote: »

    Ok, Intrinsity was Samsung's business partner when they developed Hummingbird SoC.  Apple bought Intrinsity afterward (in 2010) and likewise it's silly to claim that "Apple" is responsible for Samsung's success - only in Apple fanbois wet dream.
    Some time ago Apple was using 80% of Samsungs capacity to manufacture custom chips. This isn't a wet dream and frankly I believe the numbers are higher today. Apple is using a huge nmber of custom chips that directly drive the success of Samsungs foundries.
    As for TSMC's next gen process, "<span style="font-size:12px;color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;line-height:30px;">Nvidia deeply unhappy with TSMC, claims 20nm essentially worthless"</span>
    Note that that is NVidia that couldn't get its chips to work on the same process AMD had no problem with. So do you really want to believe NVidia?

    It is hardly worthless. It might have taken awhile to arrive but chips are coming off the lines and performing well. These aren't NVidia chips but that is more NVidias problems than TSMC.
  • Reply 59 of 76
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    ksec wrote: »
    It is not like Lego where you simply hand them the design and they built it. The design has to be optimize for each node and each foundry using their tools. So you cant really port your A6 to TSMC when the design and tuning has been with Samsung in mind.
    Well yes and no. It certainly isn't as simple as some here would like to believe. However I suspect that Apple has a high level representation of their processor architecture that can simplify porting to different processes.
    And this is the same even if the Foundry are within the same IBM alliance. The difficulty will be lower but still an easy task. So to simply put, it is not technically and economically feasible to design a chip with two foundry in mind.
    More importantly even though the alliance member tools are similar they optimize processes for different needs. Samsung focused on low power for example.

    However I have to dismiss this idea that designing a chip for two foundries isn't feasible. It really depends upon your volumes and the exposure you have if a partner fails. Samsung has been cranking out a lot of processors for Apple, it wouldn't take much of a glitch to suddenly not meet demand. When you hit 80 to 90 percent of a partners capability you have problems.
    TSMC doesn't have the capacity for Apple yet, but they are working very hard in making them available. Not once in history of TSMC have I seen them ramp up production and expansion schedule as quick and as fast as they are now.
    TSMC seems to be over the growing pains they had with the last node roll out. At one time there was talk of skipping a node because development was going so well.
    Intel is another candidate. Intel is having idle Fab sitting around and they are costing them dearly. With the change of CEO it could be possible that Intel Fab chips for Apple. And Intel has more then enough capacity in doing so, however Intel simply dont have enough experience in being a Fab partner while TSMC has been doing a great job, That could change of course, but i am not sure if Intel has decided on their path yet, become a Fab partner, or continue with their own path on x86 SoC.

    The problem is Intel doesn't want to go into the low margin foundry business. Also most of their idle production capability is at older nodes. It would be nice though as their fabs are in a leadership position. Maybe as the idle fabs start to hurt Intel a bit policy will change.
  • Reply 60 of 76
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    This will only end in more trouble for Apple. TSMC has had HISTORIC issues with fabs. This is weak sauce from Apple. "Prefer to settle" with Samsung, ProView etc... Then go behind their backs to axe Samsung from the supply chain going with a likely inferior fabricator.

    The true nature of the ~new~ Apple is now revealed?
Sign In or Register to comment.