I take it you've never worked for a company the size of Samsung? Companies of that size barely know how to get different departments talking to each other at the best of times. I've worked for a couple of Japanese corporations where the rivalry between different offices was far worse than any external competitor.
While what you said may be generally true, during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.
The end goal is for Apple to get into the fab business. Remember that Apple wants to build the whole widget. They have the money and could buy their way in.
Apple will get into the fab business when Jobs returns to run the company.
Apple is happy to be in the chip design business and will not ever start fabbing chips... besides the ARM chip fabbing business is highly competitive and thin margin business... that's why Intel is not interested in ARM as long as they have a fat margin making what they do now. Apple did try to get Intel into making ARM chips for them, but Intel rather would somehow get their ADAM chips to be less power hungry. They see that as their way to go.
Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a reliable mass supplier for one that hasn't proven itself yet?
Do you agree with the original article that Apple moved away from Samsung because they thought the courts would find in Samsung's favor over some minor patents?
Apple was put in a lose-lose situation by Samsung's clear copying and the discovery that the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division. Previous to the trial, Apple even tried to cut a deal with Samsung to license the IP that they were infringing on. Samsung was just determined to do it like they have done to other companies for years and years in the appliance business, for one example. I guess another way to ask your question would be, "Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a criminal mass supplier for one that hasn't proven it's unethical yet?"
... during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.
If Samsung did that, wouldn't Apple have sued them over it? At the least, that's an NDA breach and should have some penalty.
What did the component division supposedly report on? After all, they only provided the CPU and the Flash memory, and perhaps early displays... and there would be few surprises on any of those.
They wouldn't know anything else, like case design or radios or OS / UI / app software.
I suppose knowing that they were going to, say, a lower power CPU would be good intel, but again hardly something that couldn't be guessed at.
Anyone got a link to one of these reports or a story on them? Thanks!
I don't really think it's appropriate to have your main competitor making your chips for you. You don't want them having the power to cut off supply, and you also don't want them seeing the next gen designs. Apple is doing the right thing. And following the linked articles it's quite impressive how quickly TSMC have built new facilities.
While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it.
While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it.
Yes they would have to go to court and face the consequences, but *physically* they could cut off supply.
While I agree with you about TSMC (and they've been buying up new fab equipment by the boatload lately), your assessment that Intel would be 2-3 years away from being able to provide fab services, is a number pulled straight out of your ass. Something to consider when you've just said that someone else has "no idea what they're talking about".
LOL. May be i am. But you should prove it to me, with Facts. And i have repeated myself far too many times.
Majority People, like you; assume it is like a design handed out to Intel and Intel will produce it within 5 - 6 months with decent yield.
Majority People, like you; assume Intel is already producing chips for many FPGA company, and therefore isn't far from doing it from others.
I doesn't work like that.
Even if Intel decided today, right at this moment to Fab SoC for Apple, Intel will need to acquire all the relenvant IPs, and assuming that they did so at the exact same moment, they need to hand out design tools to Apple, let them design it, come back, samples, tune. This takes at least a year even with the best possible Engineers from Intel and Apple working and assuming no hike up in the process, which is unheard of in the industry.
And with the management changes in Intel, it is possibly up to the Next CEO to decide if they will jump into the Fab business or not.
However, Intel's interests are also opposed to Apple's at times. Look at the Ultrabook deal. Apple revolutionizes the laptop business and none of their competitors can come close to making a decent competing product. So Intel offers Apple's competitors a reference design and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
Apple really has no choice in the desktop and laptop space. Intel is really the only choice (AMD is always "wait until you see your next generation"). But for ARM processors, Apple has choices and would need to be very cautious about sending more money to Intel (which could easily be used to subsidize other tablet and phone makers just like Ultrabook makers).
You look good in your photo, you must have been about 5 when you started in the business
Re ban... Yep same digitalclips, but in fairness I was only guessing as to the source of the ban. I think reporting here on AI tag I was 'making up false stories' is a little elaborative. I had no other idea what it could have been and 'assumed' incorrectly that's all. I rarely used MacRumors always preferring AI and didn't look into it any further. I accepted their ruling that I'd done something wrong and moved on. To this day I have no idea what it was. If it was for calling you something rude after what you said it was worth the ban.
There is, unfortunately, another type of 'hiding' which you have failed, amongst many other things, to mention.
Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.
For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
Quote:
Those who hide behind the fact that it is technically impossible to prove everything that happened, all of the time.
In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial. There might've been, but I don't recall any.
Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.
For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial. There might've been, but I don't recall any.
I witnessed the trial, I've reviewed the publicly available documents you could have (were you not too busy pondering if they may or may not exist, and who really knows?!) ann frankly, the only people who have an interest in saying that Samsung didn't maliciously cheat, lie and backstab Apple are those who are desperately looking for success stories within the global failure that is the Android project.
Google is convinced enough that Android isn't working out to sideline Mr. Android himself and start with the damage control. It will be another 3-4 years before the fans realize they are cheering for a failed idol, just like BGR still hasn't quite got it that BlackBerry has failed and Paul Thurrott still has faith that WP8 can turn things around for Microsoft. Perhaps by then, Google will have rebadged Chrome OS as "Android 7" and everyone will have forgotten what a dead end it was to attempt to copy iOS as an "open" distro of Java/Linux, without a business model in place to sustain or manage any of it.
Speaking of thinking ahead - while Dilger waxes lyrical about TMSC and how they are planning on working on 20nm and 16nm next, Samsung has been busy actually building a fab for 20nm and 14nm which is due to come on-stream later this year, so Samsung could be producing 20nm Exynos dies early next year. They are already producing SOCs with ARM A15 cores. No doubt Apple will get around to A15 cores at some point and we will be told how bold and groundbreaking their innovation is. /s
I agree with K. Darling - It does appear Apple are biting off their nose to spite their face with their current attitude to Samsung.
Lets see, Apple's current chips are more efficient than Samsung's, They have proven they will copy Apple and then try to shame Apple into accepting it. Apple would be foolish to not cut their ties with Companies who will will use knowledge of their IP and production plans to compete against them. The same Applies to Google, it's clear Apple did fear competition with them but they shouldn't have to compete against themselves with the profit going to a other company.
Consider just the expression he used, "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." He's not saying that Apple is moving away from Samsung for business reasons that don't align with Apple (to put it mildly) he's saying that Apple, as a company, is not acting in its or its shareholder best interests.
He's saying Apple has no concern for its own well being so long as it can negatively affect Samsung's bottom line. He's saying Apple, a company, is so overwhelmed with anger and hate that it will damage itself greatly in order to damage Samsung even a little bit. How can you see that as a reasonable and rational response?
Yes this is what the Article is saying and it makes no sense. He is trying to maximize attention.
They are already producing SOCs with ARM A15 cores. No doubt Apple will get around to A15 cores at some point and we will be told how bold and groundbreaking their innovation is.
1) You really need to look into what A15 was designed for. There is a reason that big.LITTLE exists as a quasi-octocore SoC that can only use the quad-core A7 (not even a Cortex-A8 or A9) or quad-core A15 at one time. If the A15 was so ideal for a handheld device at all times then why not use a single quad-core A15. It would reduce cost, space and complexity. But they don't, for reasons that are well tread. Think about it? Have you ever seen dual-core ARM11 and dual-core A9 combined as a physically — but not functionally — quad-core SoC?
3) Let's remember that the goal is to have the highest performance possible within a power envelope. Apple is not only ahead of this game in their device designs, but their SoC designs and their OS coding. Some off the shelf ARM chip slapped on mostly predesigned board and stuck with Android simply isn't going to cut it. You can throw all the buzzwords you want it and claim Apple sucks because it's doesn't have big.LITTLE in an iPhone before Samsung but it's all stuff that shows you really just don't understand technology.
In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial. There might've been, but I don't recall any.
Were you asleep during the entire trial? The documents were well publicized in nearly every forum that discusses Apple and/or Samsung:
"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"
Your denial that such documents exist is proof beyond any doubt that you're a shill and a troll. Anyone with even a shred of honesty wouldn't play the "there were no documents" card.
Not that I don't want them to eventually get it right, but they're not gonna get it right fast enough.
Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?
Comments
It most certainly means it's deliberate.
spite
verb [ with obj. ]
- deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone): he put the house up for sale to spite his family.
Re: Samsung, they're just reaping what they've sown. Pity, that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
I take it you've never worked for a company the size of Samsung? Companies of that size barely know how to get different departments talking to each other at the best of times. I've worked for a couple of Japanese corporations where the rivalry between different offices was far worse than any external competitor.
While what you said may be generally true, during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
The end goal is for Apple to get into the fab business. Remember that Apple wants to build the whole widget. They have the money and could buy their way in.
Apple will get into the fab business when Jobs returns to run the company.
Apple is happy to be in the chip design business and will not ever start fabbing chips... besides the ARM chip fabbing business is highly competitive and thin margin business... that's why Intel is not interested in ARM as long as they have a fat margin making what they do now. Apple did try to get Intel into making ARM chips for them, but Intel rather would somehow get their ADAM chips to be less power hungry. They see that as their way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a reliable mass supplier for one that hasn't proven itself yet?
Do you agree with the original article that Apple moved away from Samsung because they thought the courts would find in Samsung's favor over some minor patents?
Apple was put in a lose-lose situation by Samsung's clear copying and the discovery that the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division. Previous to the trial, Apple even tried to cut a deal with Samsung to license the IP that they were infringing on. Samsung was just determined to do it like they have done to other companies for years and years in the appliance business, for one example. I guess another way to ask your question would be, "Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a criminal mass supplier for one that hasn't proven it's unethical yet?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
... during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.
If Samsung did that, wouldn't Apple have sued them over it? At the least, that's an NDA breach and should have some penalty.
What did the component division supposedly report on? After all, they only provided the CPU and the Flash memory, and perhaps early displays... and there would be few surprises on any of those.
They wouldn't know anything else, like case design or radios or OS / UI / app software.
I suppose knowing that they were going to, say, a lower power CPU would be good intel, but again hardly something that couldn't be guessed at.
Anyone got a link to one of these reports or a story on them? Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I don't really think it's appropriate to have your main competitor making your chips for you. You don't want them having the power to cut off supply, and you also don't want them seeing the next gen designs. Apple is doing the right thing. And following the linked articles it's quite impressive how quickly TSMC have built new facilities.
While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
If Samsung did that, wouldn't Apple have sued them over it? At the least, that's an NDA breach and should have some penalty.
Anyone got a link to one of these reports or a story on them? Thanks!
There is, unfortunately, another type of 'hiding' which you have failed, amongst many other things, to mention.
Those who hide behind the fact that it is technically impossible to prove everything that happened, all of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup
While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it.
Yes they would have to go to court and face the consequences, but *physically* they could cut off supply.
Quote:Originally Posted by isaidso
While I agree with you about TSMC (and they've been buying up new fab equipment by the boatload lately), your assessment that Intel would be 2-3 years away from being able to provide fab services, is a number pulled straight out of your ass. Something to consider when you've just said that someone else has "no idea what they're talking about".
LOL. May be i am. But you should prove it to me, with Facts. And i have repeated myself far too many times.
Majority People, like you; assume it is like a design handed out to Intel and Intel will produce it within 5 - 6 months with decent yield.
Majority People, like you; assume Intel is already producing chips for many FPGA company, and therefore isn't far from doing it from others.
I doesn't work like that.
Even if Intel decided today, right at this moment to Fab SoC for Apple, Intel will need to acquire all the relenvant IPs, and assuming that they did so at the exact same moment, they need to hand out design tools to Apple, let them design it, come back, samples, tune. This takes at least a year even with the best possible Engineers from Intel and Apple working and assuming no hike up in the process, which is unheard of in the industry.
And with the management changes in Intel, it is possibly up to the Next CEO to decide if they will jump into the Fab business or not.
They do.
However, Intel's interests are also opposed to Apple's at times. Look at the Ultrabook deal. Apple revolutionizes the laptop business and none of their competitors can come close to making a decent competing product. So Intel offers Apple's competitors a reference design and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.
Apple really has no choice in the desktop and laptop space. Intel is really the only choice (AMD is always "wait until you see your next generation"). But for ARM processors, Apple has choices and would need to be very cautious about sending more money to Intel (which could easily be used to subsidize other tablet and phone makers just like Ultrabook makers).
You look good in your photo, you must have been about 5 when you started in the business
Re ban... Yep same digitalclips, but in fairness I was only guessing as to the source of the ban. I think reporting here on AI tag I was 'making up false stories' is a little elaborative. I had no other idea what it could have been and 'assumed' incorrectly that's all. I rarely used MacRumors always preferring AI and didn't look into it any further. I accepted their ruling that I'd done something wrong and moved on. To this day I have no idea what it was. If it was for calling you something rude after what you said it was worth the ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
There is, unfortunately, another type of 'hiding' which you have failed, amongst many other things, to mention.
Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.
For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
Quote:
Those who hide behind the fact that it is technically impossible to prove everything that happened, all of the time.
In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial. There might've been, but I don't recall any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.
For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial. There might've been, but I don't recall any.
I witnessed the trial, I've reviewed the publicly available documents you could have (were you not too busy pondering if they may or may not exist, and who really knows?!) ann frankly, the only people who have an interest in saying that Samsung didn't maliciously cheat, lie and backstab Apple are those who are desperately looking for success stories within the global failure that is the Android project.
Google is convinced enough that Android isn't working out to sideline Mr. Android himself and start with the damage control. It will be another 3-4 years before the fans realize they are cheering for a failed idol, just like BGR still hasn't quite got it that BlackBerry has failed and Paul Thurrott still has faith that WP8 can turn things around for Microsoft. Perhaps by then, Google will have rebadged Chrome OS as "Android 7" and everyone will have forgotten what a dead end it was to attempt to copy iOS as an "open" distro of Java/Linux, without a business model in place to sustain or manage any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
While I agree that much of this is interpretive BS
Daniel Eran Dilger is an anagram for "I grind near-dead dirge, earn all"
Coincidence? I don't think so ...
1) You really need to look into what A15 was designed for. There is a reason that big.LITTLE exists as a quasi-octocore SoC that can only use the quad-core A7 (not even a Cortex-A8 or A9) or quad-core A15 at one time. If the A15 was so ideal for a handheld device at all times then why not use a single quad-core A15. It would reduce cost, space and complexity. But they don't, for reasons that are well tread. Think about it? Have you ever seen dual-core ARM11 and dual-core A9 combined as a physically — but not functionally — quad-core SoC?
2) October 18th, 2011: http://www.arm.com/about/newsroom/arm-and-tsmc-tape-out-first-20nm-arm-cortex-a15-multicore-processor.php
3) Let's remember that the goal is to have the highest performance possible within a power envelope. Apple is not only ahead of this game in their device designs, but their SoC designs and their OS coding. Some off the shelf ARM chip slapped on mostly predesigned board and stuck with Android simply isn't going to cut it. You can throw all the buzzwords you want it and claim Apple sucks because it's doesn't have big.LITTLE in an iPhone before Samsung but it's all stuff that shows you really just don't understand technology.
Were you asleep during the entire trial? The documents were well publicized in nearly every forum that discusses Apple and/or Samsung:
Here's the information on the document.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Samsung-132Page-Document-Shows-Detailed-Design-Comparison-to-iPhone-504855/
And here's the information that it was from Samsung's Semiconductor Division:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230478/Closing_arguments_begin_in_Apple_vs_Samsung_patent_trial
"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"
Your denial that such documents exist is proof beyond any doubt that you're a shill and a troll. Anyone with even a shred of honesty wouldn't play the "there were no documents" card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They still make Atom chips?
Not that I don't want them to eventually get it right, but they're not gonna get it right fast enough.
Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?