@JamesBB Since iPhone 6s is partly Samsung and partly TSMC, unless the iPhone 6 ( A8, TSMC 20nm only ) is selling like hotcakes that covers the volume lost of Samsung 14nm A9, it is hard to relate how TSMC's record has anything to do with Apple.
My take is that a lot of product are now heading into 20nm production, and since only TSMC has 20nm volume production ( Samsung went straight to 14nm, their 20nm never turned to public ) it is likely this win is what drove TSMC's revenue. The good news is TSMC has figure out a way to make 16nm FFC projected cost cheaper then 28nm. So purely in terms of Moore's Law Cost perspective, TSMC has managed to bring this down from 28nm to 16nm FFC. But that will be down the road, so may be those third party will migrate to 20nm now, and move on to 16nm FFC in the next few years.
The transcript also mention TSMC has already finished 16nm FFC, slightly ahead of schedule. My guess is that iPhone 5e or whatever it is called may be using a new SoC that is based on that. Cheaper in the long run and uses way less power.
Another point is that Qualcomm is still using TSMC depending on product. After all there is only finite amount of leading edge 16/14nm Fab capacity available around the world.
Down another $10 billion today after being down $15 billion yesterday. Down 30% from its peak last year. The stock has lost $230 billion in less than a year.
All this based on LIES and RUMORS. Lies and Rumors that Tim Cook refuses to address. Instead he allows hard working Americans to lose thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands in wealth. Good job Tim Cook you POS CEO.
Sog, may be this is the last time i will reply to you. Pretty much like your previous post on issuing new Stocks for Time Warner or this one on Tim Cook addressing Rumours. ( Which he can only do as much according to SEC rules ) Your post shows concern of the Apple stock, which i agree and do feel the same, but more often your suggestion just show your lack of understanding in the stock market or pure ignorance. You are either troll, or spending FUD.
Please next time you want to post something on stock again, do us a flavour do a google search first on the reason "why".
The Apple CEO does none of this. Instead of showing vision and a future of growth he simply emphasizes quarterly units sold and 'building the best product'. When he should really be emphasizing LONG-TERM goals of building a INSTALL BASE and growing SERVICES.
More interestingly, GS made that bullish pitch on Nov 18th, when the stock was still trading at 114... and it ran up to 120, before all the supply chain nonsense came out...
Question: Do you think GS were long or short the stock Dec 1st?
I read somewhere that GS makes a profit on +98% of all their trades, so you go figure... ;-)
DED is a democrat, highly skilled in ignoring the facts and delivering the party line no matter how much credibility gets trashed. I find it shocking that so many lap up his nonsense.
Excuse me?
I love the republican stool pushers on this site. They live in an alternate reality. They endorse Apple products yet haven't a clue to nearly a person the company is democrat/liberal driven.
A bit of Spinning and selective reporting going on in this article.
TSMC also said this:
"Demand for high-end smartphones has started the
year weak, while in other segments there are already signs of upward
demand momentum in emerging markets including China, the world's biggest
for smartphones, TSMC said." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tsmc-results-idUSKCN0US11720160114
I read the Bloomberg report about an hour BEFORE reading DED's article. I am wondering in what exact realm of reality was DED in when he wrote this glowing report about TSMC when the Bloomberg report was referenced. The Bloomberg report is an extremely dire report that offers very little light. Even though TSMC had a profit of NT$72.8 billion, which beat the NT$68.5 billion projected by 26 analysts, Bloomberg made it clear the fourth-quarter net income fell 9%. Bloomberg did not give nearly an inch of good news. Unless there was another version of this story, I am surprised how DED was able to find sweet lemonade from the lemons dished out by Tim Culpin of Bloomberg! And, even though TSMC supplies chips to other companies, ONLY Apple is the cause of TSMC's weakness according to Bloomberg.
DED is a democrat, highly skilled in ignoring the facts and delivering the party line no matter how much credibility gets trashed. I find it shocking that so many lap up his nonsense.
I find it shocking that you even post such an idiotic comment. Your Republican bias is showing it's toxicity.
Further, do try to improve your reading comprehension skills, the Bloomberg article also stated, "Chinese government data released this week suggested the iPhone fared better than expected in the final quarter of 2015. Shipments of smartphones not using Google Inc.’s Android software, the vast majority of which would be iPhones, increased by about 33 percent from a year earlier, according to analysts’ calculations."
Using the phrase "peak <insert boojum here>" is lame, unless it is used sarcastically, as in peak stupidity. "Peak oil" was a phrase used by poorly educated people that don't understand economics. I don't think it was people trying to drive it to $140/b that coined it, but people that were wanting soo bad to switch to alternative energy and trying to build the case. and a lot of people were just fine with that.
Anyway JamesBB, i notice that after three months of selling, last week the 6s had 9.8% penetration (cf 6 @ 31.4%) and 6s plus is 3.9% (cf 6 plus @ 11.3%). Interesting. I would say the 6s's are selling just as well, if not better, as they have only been for sale about 20 per cent of the time of the 6 and 6 plus. I think eventually though they will probably sell less, as you say, while overall iphone sales will be higher.
Heck the senior citizen entropys just bought two 6, to my 6s and mrs entropy is sticking with her 6 plus for the time being.
I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business. I like to think of my self as environmentally minded, but I never really understood the hate directed at big oil. There are some strange personalities in the environmental movement.
As for "peak iPhone" well that is bound to happen sometime. Every product ever conceived by man eventually finds market equilibrium. I serious doubt though that this will happen in 2016.
On a side note I'm close to becoming a one percenter. Still rocking an iPhone 4. I'm not sure if it will make it to the next iPhone release though. IPhone 7 sounds very interesting though it is likely to be too big for my tastes.
"I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business."
It's a class of people that are anti-science / technology and anti-industrialization. I just prefer to call them hippies
I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business. I like to think of my self as environmentally minded, but I never really understood the hate directed at big oil. There are some strange personalities in the environmental movement.
As for "peak iPhone" well that is bound to happen sometime. Every product ever conceived by man eventually finds market equilibrium. I serious doubt though that this will happen in 2016.
On a side note I'm close to becoming a one percenter. Still rocking an iPhone 4. I'm not sure if it will make it to the next iPhone release though. IPhone 7 sounds very interesting though it is likely to be too big for my tastes.
"I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business."
It's a class of people that are anti-science / technology and anti-industrialization. I just prefer to call them hippies
The person who coined the term 'peak oil' in 1956, was born in 1903 and was a geophysicist. I doubt he was a hippie. He appears to have been wrong, but a lot of discoveries have been made since 1956 so he might have been right given the information available at the time
I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business. I like to think of my self as environmentally minded, but I never really understood the hate directed at big oil. There are some strange personalities in the environmental movement.
As for "peak iPhone" well that is bound to happen sometime. Every product ever conceived by man eventually finds market equilibrium. I serious doubt though that this will happen in 2016.
On a side note I'm close to becoming a one percenter. Still rocking an iPhone 4. I'm not sure if it will make it to the next iPhone release though. IPhone 7 sounds very interesting though it is likely to be too big for my tastes.
"I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business."
It's a class of people that are anti-science / technology and anti-industrialization. I just prefer to call them hippies
Stupidity seems to have become a key trait of some people posting to AI these days. Why don't we open up a conversation about the 10's of thousands of synthetic chemicals that are now produced by our "industrialized" nation, which go unregulated, with many being highly toxic, and now showing up in the blood and tissue of nearly every American - and even in people in extremely remote parts of the world. Meanwhile lobbyists for these big companies effectively had legislation passed that prevents the EPA from even testing these chemicals unless a problem is brought to their attention first. And the chemical companies do their own testing - the fox is guarding the hen house.
It is truly amazing how thorough the dumbing down of America has become based on the beating of the Republican mantra. It's literally killing people. Why don't you go talk to the people in Flint Michigan, or those in Parkersburg West Virginia and see how they feel, literally.
And yes, we know there is no global warming, George Bush told us so, so it must be true. And we're going to bring democracy, freedom, stability, and peace to Iraq, because Dick Cheney told us so. And yes, let's let more unregulated money fly into the political system so we can continue to have the greatest "democracy" in the world, bought and paid for.
But why should we distrust big business. Oh, that's right, they also brought us the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. And yet despite all the illegal activity associated with this financial crisis, no one went to jail.
Phones, tablets, watches (or gadgets in whatever form factor) are consumables. You can argue whether phones are discretionary anymore (I certainly don't consider my phone discretionary). They are continuously replaced in fairly steady cycles although they may evolve and change form factor.
Markets will grow VERY fast as long as you have relatively unexplored markets (which we still do - think Africa, India, Asia etc).
I don't consider my iPhone a consumable. Products should last at least 10 years. It's a huge waste to recycle products when you don't have to and companies should strive to better products that are easily upgradable and serviceable. At least if they want to keep an environment friendly image.
Economic thinking is per definition growth based and is one of the biggest mistakes ever; growth will always end, and that moment is 'peak'.
The real story in all this supply chain nonsense is this: The 6s/6sP is selling less relative to 6/6P, and they may have to adjust the production mix, but the combined pair of 6/6P/6s/6sP(+6e?) will almost certainly outperform total sales of the 6/6P/5s/5c portfolio (as Tim Cook said it would...). Just look at the weekly Fiksu stats and that is the exact picture it paints. 2016 will be a stellar year for Apple.
The problem with showing percentages is that the user base continues to grow and the numbers don't tell a sales story, they only give you a look at model mix. Without actual sales figures we cannot judge or say if the new models are selling better or worse. In all likely hood they are in fact selling a lot more 6S models than 6 models during the same time frame.
"I do seem to remember that the "peak oil" crowd was made up of mostly environmentalist. Actuall fringe environmentalists. It is a class of people that for whatever reason feel personally threatened by big business."
It's a class of people that are anti-science / technology and anti-industrialization. I just prefer to call them hippies
The person who coined the term 'peak oil' in 1956, was born in 1903 and was a geophysicist. I doubt he was a hippie. He appears to have been wrong, but a lot of discoveries have been made since 1956 so he might have been right given the information available at the time
Of course he was right, we know the oil reserves are limited; its when, not if. Predicting when is actually very important because it could mean an easy solution to carbon emissions (which seem to bother a lot of people nowadays).
The real story in all this supply chain nonsense is this: The 6s/6sP is selling less relative to 6/6P, and they may have to adjust the production mix, but the combined pair of 6/6P/6s/6sP(+6e?) will almost certainly outperform total sales of the 6/6P/5s/5c portfolio (as Tim Cook said it would...). Just look at the weekly Fiksu stats and that is the exact picture it paints. 2016 will be a stellar year for Apple.
The problem with showing percentages is that the user base continues to grow and the numbers don't tell a sales story, they only give you a look at model mix. Without actual sales figures we cannot judge or say if the new models are selling better or worse. In all likely hood they are in fact selling a lot more 6S models than 6 models during the same time frame.
Let me help you there. This is where Excel comes in handy... you know the accumulated sales (~820 mio by Sep'15), you can now calculate the decommissioning of old phones based on the missing usage numbers and you then have installed user base in absolute numbers (572 mio according to my model). You then apply the percentages back on the user base and voila - you have monthly sales estimates. Takes a bit of modeling and some assumptions around decommissioning, but indeed doable.
It has proven incredibly accurate in past quarters.
Phones, tablets, watches (or gadgets in whatever form factor) are consumables. You can argue whether phones are discretionary anymore (I certainly don't consider my phone discretionary). They are continuously replaced in fairly steady cycles although they may evolve and change form factor.
Markets will grow VERY fast as long as you have relatively unexplored markets (which we still do - think Africa, India, Asia etc).
I don't consider my iPhone a consumable. Products should last at least 10 years. It's a huge waste to recycle products when you don't have to and companies should strive to better products that are easily upgradable and serviceable. At least if they want to keep an environment friendly image.
Economic thinking is per definition growth based and is one of the biggest mistakes ever; growth will always end, and that moment is 'peak'.
ROFLOL! What planet are you living on? Technology is moving much faster than ever before so saying "products should last at least 10 years"Is just plain nonsense. If that were the case we would all still be using flip phones, and 100's of millions of people around the world would have no computing device, capabilities their smartphones now provide.
I don't consider my iPhone a consumable. Products should last at least 10 years. It's a huge waste to recycle products when you don't have to and companies should strive to better products that are easily upgradable and serviceable. At least if they want to keep an environment friendly image.
Economic thinking is per definition growth based and is one of the biggest mistakes ever; growth will always end, and that moment is 'peak'.
ROFLOL! What planet are you living on? Technology is moving much faster than ever before so saying "products should last at least 10 years"Is just plain nonsense. If that were the case we would all still be using flip phones, and 100's of millions of people around the world would have no computing device, capabilities their smartphones now provide.
The same I think, do you know another planet people live on? You do understand the word 'should'? But your right, I'm wrong: products like phones should last at least 15 years. Being environment friendly is an important driving factor, and will be even more so in the future.
Remember the days when the Big Bad Apple put the screws to suppliers, who couldn't make any money because Apple was such a hardass business negotiator?
Haven't seen one of those stories in a while; seems now that the suppliers with cutting-edge expertise and ability to work with a big, tightly-managed customer, do MORE than OK.
Remember the days when the Big Bad Apple put the screws to suppliers, who couldn't make any money because Apple was such a hardass business negotiator?
Haven't seen one of those stories in a while; seems now that the suppliers with cutting-edge expertise and ability to work with a big, tightly-managed customer, do MORE than OK.
That story's still alive and well for Invensense. Cirrus Logic got that treatment a couple of times in 2013. I don't know what evidence there is that Apple is somehow in a weakened position now WRT suppliers.
All this report means is that analysts were almost certainly wrong with their supply chain analysis and predictions that Apple iPhone sales would be weak. But there is still a small chance that sales will be down according to several less-than-credible supply chain analysts.
Guess which one most Wall Street investors will make their bets with?
I read the Bloomberg report about an hour BEFORE reading DED's article. I am wondering in what exact realm of reality was DED in when he wrote this glowing report about TSMC when the Bloomberg report was referenced. The Bloomberg report is an extremely dire report that offers very little light. Even though TSMC had a profit of NT$72.8 billion, which beat the NT$68.5 billion projected by 26 analysts, Bloomberg made it clear the fourth-quarter net income fell 9%. Bloomberg did not give nearly an inch of good news. Unless there was another version of this story, I am surprised how DED was able to find sweet lemonade from the lemons dished out by Tim Culpin of Bloomberg! And, even though TSMC supplies chips to other companies, ONLY Apple is the cause of TSMC's weakness according to Bloomberg.
I too was a bit surprised by the negative slant by Bloomberg given that TMSC was in line or ahead of estimates, including guidance for Q1. It suggests that analysts were all expecting a fall in revenue, but that the fall was not as much as predicted. Perhaps analysts were expecting much more weakness in TMSC numbers because of the other supply chain reports. Bottom line is that iPhone sales likely did not decline last quarter but they will not increase much for next quarter. I give Bloomberg report a 8/10 yawn score - more fodder for analyst to manipulate AAPL.
No need to be surprised. For some reason journalism school teaches you to write your story, then go get some quotes/sound bites/visuals for colour. No get out and find out what is going on anymore. The odd, and I mean odd journo that actually investigates what is really going on, regardless of the zeitgeist, is essentially a lonely chap these days. Bloomberg had its angle and the story written well before TMSC announced its earnings. What actually happened wasn't relevant.
I wonder who is held in more contempt: establishment politicians or journalists?
Comments
My take is that a lot of product are now heading into 20nm production, and since only TSMC has 20nm volume production ( Samsung went straight to 14nm, their 20nm never turned to public ) it is likely this win is what drove TSMC's revenue.
The good news is TSMC has figure out a way to make 16nm FFC projected cost cheaper then 28nm. So purely in terms of Moore's Law Cost perspective, TSMC has managed to bring this down from 28nm to 16nm FFC.
But that will be down the road, so may be those third party will migrate to 20nm now, and move on to 16nm FFC in the next few years.
The transcript also mention TSMC has already finished 16nm FFC, slightly ahead of schedule. My guess is that iPhone 5e or whatever it is called may be using a new SoC that is based on that. Cheaper in the long run and uses way less power.
Another point is that Qualcomm is still using TSMC depending on product. After all there is only finite amount of leading edge 16/14nm Fab capacity available around the world.
Sog, may be this is the last time i will reply to you. Pretty much like your previous post on issuing new Stocks for Time Warner or this one on Tim Cook addressing Rumours. ( Which he can only do as much according to SEC rules ) Your post shows concern of the Apple stock, which i agree and do feel the same, but more often your suggestion just show your lack of understanding in the stock market or pure ignorance. You are either troll, or spending FUD.
Please next time you want to post something on stock again, do us a flavour do a google search first on the reason "why".
Interestingly Goldman Sachs said that they saw Apple transitioning into a services company with more steady income as a result of subscription based hard/software and gave Apple a huge buy endorsement on that background.
More interestingly, GS made that bullish pitch on Nov 18th, when the stock was still trading at 114... and it ran up to 120, before all the supply chain nonsense came out...
Question: Do you think GS were long or short the stock Dec 1st?
I read somewhere that GS makes a profit on +98% of all their trades, so you go figure... ;-)
TSMC also said this:
"Demand for high-end smartphones has started the year weak, while in other segments there are already signs of upward demand momentum in emerging markets including China, the world's biggest for smartphones, TSMC said." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tsmc-results-idUSKCN0US11720160114
Wall St Journal:
"Apple’s Slowing iPhone Sales Take Bite Out of Suppliers’ Revenues
Taiwan’s TSMC expects first-quarter revenue to fall more than 10% on slower demand for smartphones" http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-slowing-iphone-sales-take-bite-out-of-suppliers-revenue-1452773860
TAIPEI—Companies that make parts for Apple Inc. are warning of lower first-half revenues, in a sign of slowing sales of the latest iPhones.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. , which manufactures the chips that run iPhones and other popular electronic devices, forecast Thursday its first-quarter revenue would decline by as much as 10.8% from the previous year, citing demand weakness for high-end smartphones." http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-slowing-iphone-sales-take-bite-out-of-suppliers-revenue-1452773860
Apple components contribute 20% of sales for TSMC, the world’s largest contract chip maker, according to a Credit Suisse report.
Largan Precision Co. , which supplies iPhone camera modules, said it expected “quite a weak” first quarter, while Catcher Technology Co. , a maker of iPhone metal casings, said its revenue for the first half would be flat from a year earlier."http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-slowing-iphone-sales-take-bite-out-of-suppliers-revenue-1452773860
Seems to be a bit of variance from DED's quite astonishing interpretation of TSMC's results. Looks like he ignored what they actually said.
Further, do try to improve your reading comprehension skills, the Bloomberg article also stated, "Chinese government data released this week suggested the iPhone fared better than expected in the final quarter of 2015. Shipments of smartphones not using Google Inc.’s Android software, the vast majority of which would be iPhones, increased by about 33 percent from a year earlier, according to analysts’ calculations."
It's a class of people that are anti-science / technology and anti-industrialization. I just prefer to call them hippies
The person who coined the term 'peak oil' in 1956, was born in 1903 and was a geophysicist. I doubt he was a hippie. He appears to have been wrong, but a lot of discoveries have been made since 1956 so he might have been right given the information available at the time
It is truly amazing how thorough the dumbing down of America has become based on the beating of the Republican mantra. It's literally killing people. Why don't you go talk to the people in Flint Michigan, or those in Parkersburg West Virginia and see how they feel, literally.
And yes, we know there is no global warming, George Bush told us so, so it must be true. And we're going to bring democracy, freedom, stability, and peace to Iraq, because Dick Cheney told us so. And yes, let's let more unregulated money fly into the political system so we can continue to have the greatest "democracy" in the world, bought and paid for.
But why should we distrust big business. Oh, that's right, they also brought us the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. And yet despite all the illegal activity associated with this financial crisis, no one went to jail.
So if you want to bring up politics here, go take your bullshit somewhere else. Meanwhile, for your reading pleasure, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html
It's a huge waste to recycle products when you don't have to and companies should strive to better products that are easily upgradable and serviceable.
At least if they want to keep an environment friendly image.
Economic thinking is per definition growth based and is one of the biggest mistakes ever; growth will always end, and that moment is 'peak'.
The problem with showing percentages is that the user base continues to grow and the numbers don't tell a sales story, they only give you a look at model mix. Without actual sales figures we cannot judge or say if the new models are selling better or worse. In all likely hood they are in fact selling a lot more 6S models than 6 models during the same time frame.
Predicting when is actually very important because it could mean an easy solution to carbon emissions (which seem to bother a lot of people nowadays).
It has proven incredibly accurate in past quarters.
The same I think, do you know another planet people live on?
You do understand the word 'should'?
But your right, I'm wrong: products like phones should last at least 15 years.
Being environment friendly is an important driving factor, and will be even more so in the future.
Guess which one most Wall Street investors will make their bets with?
I wonder who is held in more contempt: establishment politicians or journalists?