Samsung would be crazy to think that Apple aren't going to internalise supply - it's how businesses save costs, and Apple has been hard at work at this for years now. Samsung's persistent delinquent behaviour is a contributing factor for Apple to "go it alone" in new technologies. Apple could have involved their current partners in new chipset, gpu, wireless and now screen technology - it would bring it to market quicker: but instead they have realised that it's Apple's production volume which makes this technology viable, and there is no loyalty in building up other people's businesses.
If Samsung wants to compete they should put their "thousands" of engineers to work on creating something new - instead of just ripping off every product in the market place while contributing as little as possible towards technological progress.
I would day that Apple look to take design (& maybe production in future) in-house in order to have a differentiated experience. Which includes protecting intellectual property. Saving costs would be a lesser reason - and might not even be the true in some cases. Apple were reportedly not paying much to Imagination Technologies - bringing the full GPU design in-house will be more expensive. But Apple is able to fully control their own destiny, and competitors will not get any benefit.
This latter part might be a big problem - Apple often is very involved in the development of the production line for a new technology that they then source - but production knowledge eventually is used by competitors. Clearly even a company of Apple's size can only take so much in-house, so they have to be selective, and only do this with technologies that could have a significant differentiation. CPU & GPU are clearly in that category, NAND controllers. With potential AR, VR, and other "visual" technologies coming, perhaps displays are now moving into that category.
I would like to see Samsung churn out new technologies when they will not have anything to copy from Apple as Apple won't be sourcing anything from them in the future!
Like the below, right?
1. Super Amoled display in Samsung Galaxy Nexus in 2011, copied from iphone 8/X in 2017
2. Large screen display in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iphone 6 in 2015
3. Stylus support in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iPad Pro in 2015
4. Split screen multitasking in Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition (released in Nov-2013), copied from iOS 9 in 2015
5. Waterproofing in Samsung Galaxy S5 in Mar-2014, copied from iphone 7 in Sep-2016 (instead of Sony Xperia Z from Jan-2013)
6. UFS internal storage in Samsung Galaxy S6 in Jan-2015, copied from iphone 6S in Sep-2015
7. Dual Pixel camera sensor in Samsung Galaxy S7, copied from yet to be released iphone
8. UFS card slot in Samsung Galaxy S8, copied from yet to be released iphone
1) So AMOLED is an innovation for CE that only Samsung can use otherwise it's copying? Does that mean using LCD or even a keyboard on a notebook means Samsung is copying Apple because Apple used it long before Samsung was making laptops? Of course you wouldn't think that so stop making stupid comments.
2) Now a larger display is a Samsung invention? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?
3) If you're going to say that the iPad copied a smartphone then you have to go back to point two and say that the 2010 iPad came before he 2012 Note so that means that Samsung copied Apple's iPad on the Note. Again, you wouldn't say that either, because it sounds stupid.
4) You really have no concept of what adding a feature is v stealing IP is, do you?
5) Ah, the Galaxy S5 that had a door over the USB port when you wanted it to be waterproof and even then it failed miserably with many tests. Even now, Apple user promises and overdelivers with their waterproofing claims, and that's comparing to new Samsung devices.
6) The last three too ridiculous to even consider trying to respond, but I hope that one day you understand the difference between saying you have a feature so you can put it on a spec sheet and actually taking the time to engineer HW and SW to make an excellent experience for the user. For rational people who care about technology, that makes all the difference.
His comment was fine in the context of the post he was referring to.
There are far too many people that just repeat 'Samsung copied' this or that 'from Apple' without even the slightest care for reality.
When reality is pointed out, those same people simply change track and throw the 'but Aple fully bakes its products before release' line which is as equally untrue as the original claim.
The true reality, minus distortion field, is that this is a pendulum that swings both ways and if you only look at it when it's in one direction you are on shaky ground if you start making copycat claims you will likely get shot down.
Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others.
At some point there will be greater (and more secure) convergence of those devices and it will no doubt be another new selling point for them. The same applies to LG. It's one of their strong points. All Apple can do if it doesn't want to make microwave ovens, 3D glasses, TVs, washing machines, components or whatever, is provide platforms (Apple Pay, the various xxxkits, etc) and hope people build for them and/or they are allowed into the other 'gardens' when competing platforms take hold.
While they have their own multi million user base and cash in the bank, the short term looks rosy. I don't know what lies beyond the next major iPhone update but I do know that if someone does AI right, it will be difficult to compete with if they have a complete platform to integrate with.
But to say Samsung just copies is woefully short sighted.
Why the hell do you even post here, seriously, every single fracking posts from you is the same spiel. You didn't make your point by the way and neither did the guy your commenting about: Half baked, like Samsung.
And you don't know the answer to that question?
I will spell it out: I am a Mac user. I am an iOS user. I am an Android user. This is a discussion forum that covers all of those areas.
If you don't like my opinion you will simply have to live with it. If it is too much for you, ignore me. You have options.
If I were to take your attitude and style, perhaps I would say 'put up and shut up'. The reason I don't, is the difference between you and me.
And just to set things straight, you are wrong in your observations.
I would like to see Samsung churn out new technologies when they will not have anything to copy from Apple as Apple won't be sourcing anything from them in the future!
Like the below, right?
1. Super Amoled display in Samsung Galaxy Nexus in 2011, copied from iphone 8/X in 2017
2. Large screen display in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iphone 6 in 2015
3. Stylus support in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iPad Pro in 2015
4. Split screen multitasking in Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition (released in Nov-2013), copied from iOS 9 in 2015
5. Waterproofing in Samsung Galaxy S5 in Mar-2014, copied from iphone 7 in Sep-2016 (instead of Sony Xperia Z from Jan-2013)
6. UFS internal storage in Samsung Galaxy S6 in Jan-2015, copied from iphone 6S in Sep-2015
7. Dual Pixel camera sensor in Samsung Galaxy S7, copied from yet to be released iphone
8. UFS card slot in Samsung Galaxy S8, copied from yet to be released iphone
1) So AMOLED is an innovation for CE that only Samsung can use otherwise it's copying? Does that mean using LCD or even a keyboard on a notebook means Samsung is copying Apple because Apple used it long before Samsung was making laptops? Of course you wouldn't think that so stop making stupid comments.
2) Now a larger display is a Samsung invention? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?
3) If you're going to say that the iPad copied a smartphone then you have to go back to point two and say that the 2010 iPad came before he 2012 Note so that means that Samsung copied Apple's iPad on the Note. Again, you wouldn't say that either, because it sounds stupid.
4) You really have no concept of what adding a feature is v stealing IP is, do you?
5) Ah, the Galaxy S5 that had a door over the USB port when you wanted it to be waterproof and even then it failed miserably with many tests. Even now, Apple user promises and overdelivers with their waterproofing claims, and that's comparing to new Samsung devices.
6) The last three too ridiculous to even consider trying to respond, but I hope that one day you understand the difference between saying you have a feature so you can put it on a spec sheet and actually taking the time to engineer HW and SW to make an excellent experience for the user. For rational people who care about technology, that makes all the difference.
His comment was fine in the context of the post he was referring to.
There are far too many people that just repeat 'Samsung copied' this or that 'from Apple' without even the slightest care for reality.
When reality is pointed out, those same people simply change track and throw the 'but Aple fully bakes its products before release' line which is as equally untrue as the original claim.
The true reality, minus distortion field, is that this is a pendulum that swings both ways and if you only look at it when it's in one direction you are on shaky ground if you start making copycat claims you will likely get shot down.
Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others.
At some point there will be greater (and more secure) convergence of those devices and it will no doubt be another new selling point for them. The same applies to LG. It's one of their strong points. All Apple can do if it doesn't want to make microwave ovens, 3D glasses, TVs, washing machines, components or whatever, is provide platforms (Apple Pay, the various xxxkits, etc) and hope people build for them and/or they are allowed into the other 'gardens' when competing platforms take hold.
While they have their own multi million user base and cash in the bank, the short term looks rosy. I don't know what lies beyond the next major iPhone update but I do know that if someone does AI right, it will be difficult to compete with if they have a complete platform to integrate with.
But to say Samsung just copies is woefully short sighted.
It's interesting that in 31 lawsuits around the world between Apple and Samsung, Apple has won 28. Two of those losses, unsurprisingly, were in S Korea, though Apple did win one there, which shocked that country. Samsung is also one of the most sued companies over copying other's technologies.
its interesting that while Samsung copied Apple's "dress" patents, guess who has the most dress patents? If you guessed Samsung, you would be right. And guess who is the most often sued for stealing other's dress patents designs? If you again guessed Samsung, you get the prize.
you really don't know what you're talking about.
You need to re-read my post. The context is clear. You are seeing the pendulum in only one position.
Patent lawsuits are typically made up of varying patent issues. If you look into many of them you will find that the courts supported Apple on some, and Samsung on others, whereas in others, the court may to decide to throw all the claims out. But does it really matter? Nope.
Of course, in the context of these comments on this thread your reply has very little to do with the original point. A point that was clearly laid out.
Your points weren't well laid out, and they weren't even relevant for the most part. I understand patent suits very well. My own small company won the two we brought to court many years ago. How about you? The fact is that Samsung gets sued a lot, and they get sued over the same things that Apple sues them for. They also sue over the same things.
in addition they were fined hundreds of million of dollars three times for price fixing components. The old CEO was convicted of bribery twice, then pardoned to go back running the company. The current CEO is in jail awaiting his trial over bribery. There is just so much over this company, that it's hard to keep track.
i'd really like to know what major industry changes Samsung has made over the years. Also understand that a company doesn't just have to make all the parts to have an important impact. And sales are not necessarily an impact. Apple has changed the way we work and play in major ways, and Samsung isn't close to claiming that.
Samsung would be crazy to think that Apple aren't going to internalise supply - it's how businesses save costs, and Apple has been hard at work at this for years now. Samsung's persistent delinquent behaviour is a contributing factor for Apple to "go it alone" in new technologies. Apple could have involved their current partners in new chipset, gpu, wireless and now screen technology - it would bring it to market quicker: but instead they have realised that it's Apple's production volume which makes this technology viable, and there is no loyalty in building up other people's businesses.
If Samsung wants to compete they should put their "thousands" of engineers to work on creating something new - instead of just ripping off every product in the market place while contributing as little as possible towards technological progress.
I would day that Apple look to take design (& maybe production in future) in-house in order to have a differentiated experience. Which includes protecting intellectual property. Saving costs would be a lesser reason - and might not even be the true in some cases. Apple were reportedly not paying much to Imagination Technologies - bringing the full GPU design in-house will be more expensive. But Apple is able to fully control their own destiny, and competitors will not get any benefit.
This latter part might be a big problem - Apple often is very involved in the development of the production line for a new technology that they then source - but production knowledge eventually is used by competitors. Clearly even a company of Apple's size can only take so much in-house, so they have to be selective, and only do this with technologies that could have a significant differentiation. CPU & GPU are clearly in that category, NAND controllers. With potential AR, VR, and other "visual" technologies coming, perhaps displays are now moving into that category.
Having been an electronics manufacturer in the past, I can give some very good reasons why Apple doesn't want to actually manufacture their goods.
the first is up front costs. For Apple to manufacture a large part of their products would cost them somewhere in the order of $40 billion to buy or build their own plants and furnish them with equipment. That sounds like a large number, and it is. But it's estimated that a 14nm chip plant can cost up to $15 billion. Then figure in the rest of it. Batteries, circuit boards of various types, cases, etc. All that needs to be made somewhere, in a plant with updated equipment.
then there is the personnel. How many people would Apple need? Well, Foxconn has stated that they have 300 thousand people on iPhone assembly lines.
then there is the problem of keeping plants up to date. That's very expensive. Estimation of demand, and supply for that demand is difficult. It's impossible to predict demand for a product, particularly in the consumer space. What most people don't understand about manufacturing is that just a 5% rise in demand can bring production to a halt. Most plants run on about 85% capacity. That gives space for downtime, upgrades, problems on the lines, etc. So if demand exceeds that, you're screwed. Large companies like Foxconn have extra lines they can re-configure for that situation. But it takes time.
what if Apple did make most of their stuff, and demand rose? How would they make the extra parts? They couldn't. They would have to build another plant. This is a problem for all manufacturers. But the bigger you are, the more of a problem it is. But companies like the contract manufacturers have a number of customers, so they alsways have extra capacity. They can finagle this capacity around. If they build more, they can get more customers to fill the capacity.
but how would Apple do this? Over capacity is very expensive. It cost a good deal just to have. You can't just let it sit there. It needs to be constantly maintained. There are costs associated with this. There are costs associated with having parts sitting on a shelf.
i'm not saying it can't be done. But a good reason why more companies are going to these large contract manufacturers is because of the difficulties, which have been getting worse over time.
but contracting out means that Apple can enlarge and contract their orders without it costing them much extra. There's a lot more to be said about this, but I don't want to put any more people asleep than I have already.
I would like to see Samsung churn out new technologies when they will not have anything to copy from Apple as Apple won't be sourcing anything from them in the future!
Like the below, right?
1. Super Amoled display in Samsung Galaxy Nexus in 2011, copied from iphone 8/X in 2017
2. Large screen display in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iphone 6 in 2015
3. Stylus support in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iPad Pro in 2015
4. Split screen multitasking in Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition (released in Nov-2013), copied from iOS 9 in 2015
5. Waterproofing in Samsung Galaxy S5 in Mar-2014, copied from iphone 7 in Sep-2016 (instead of Sony Xperia Z from Jan-2013)
6. UFS internal storage in Samsung Galaxy S6 in Jan-2015, copied from iphone 6S in Sep-2015
7. Dual Pixel camera sensor in Samsung Galaxy S7, copied from yet to be released iphone
8. UFS card slot in Samsung Galaxy S8, copied from yet to be released iphone
1) So AMOLED is an innovation for CE that only Samsung can use otherwise it's copying? Does that mean using LCD or even a keyboard on a notebook means Samsung is copying Apple because Apple used it long before Samsung was making laptops? Of course you wouldn't think that so stop making stupid comments.
2) Now a larger display is a Samsung invention? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?
3) If you're going to say that the iPad copied a smartphone then you have to go back to point two and say that the 2010 iPad came before he 2012 Note so that means that Samsung copied Apple's iPad on the Note. Again, you wouldn't say that either, because it sounds stupid.
4) You really have no concept of what adding a feature is v stealing IP is, do you?
5) Ah, the Galaxy S5 that had a door over the USB port when you wanted it to be waterproof and even then it failed miserably with many tests. Even now, Apple user promises and overdelivers with their waterproofing claims, and that's comparing to new Samsung devices.
6) The last three too ridiculous to even consider trying to respond, but I hope that one day you understand the difference between saying you have a feature so you can put it on a spec sheet and actually taking the time to engineer HW and SW to make an excellent experience for the user. For rational people who care about technology, that makes all the difference.
His comment was fine in the context of the post he was referring to.
There are far too many people that just repeat 'Samsung copied' this or that 'from Apple' without even the slightest care for reality.
When reality is pointed out, those same people simply change track and throw the 'but Aple fully bakes its products before release' line which is as equally untrue as the original claim.
The true reality, minus distortion field, is that this is a pendulum that swings both ways and if you only look at it when it's in one direction you are on shaky ground if you start making copycat claims you will likely get shot down.
Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others.
At some point there will be greater (and more secure) convergence of those devices and it will no doubt be another new selling point for them. The same applies to LG. It's one of their strong points. All Apple can do if it doesn't want to make microwave ovens, 3D glasses, TVs, washing machines, components or whatever, is provide platforms (Apple Pay, the various xxxkits, etc) and hope people build for them and/or they are allowed into the other 'gardens' when competing platforms take hold.
While they have their own multi million user base and cash in the bank, the short term looks rosy. I don't know what lies beyond the next major iPhone update but I do know that if someone does AI right, it will be difficult to compete with if they have a complete platform to integrate with.
But to say Samsung just copies is woefully short sighted.
It's interesting that in 31 lawsuits around the world between Apple and Samsung, Apple has won 28. Two of those losses, unsurprisingly, were in S Korea, though Apple did win one there, which shocked that country. Samsung is also one of the most sued companies over copying other's technologies.
its interesting that while Samsung copied Apple's "dress" patents, guess who has the most dress patents? If you guessed Samsung, you would be right. And guess who is the most often sued for stealing other's dress patents designs? If you again guessed Samsung, you get the prize.
you really don't know what you're talking about.
You need to re-read my post. The context is clear. You are seeing the pendulum in only one position.
Patent lawsuits are typically made up of varying patent issues. If you look into many of them you will find that the courts supported Apple on some, and Samsung on others, whereas in others, the court may to decide to throw all the claims out. But does it really matter? Nope.
Of course, in the context of these comments on this thread your reply has very little to do with the original point. A point that was clearly laid out.
Your points weren't well laid out, and they weren't even relevant for the most part. I understand patent suits very well. My own small company won the two we brought to court many years ago. How about you? The fact is that Samsung gets sued a lot, and they get sued over the same things that Apple sues them for. They also sue over the same things.
in addition they were fined hundreds of million of dollars three times for price fixing components. The old CEO was convicted of bribery twice, then pardoned to go back running the company. The current CEO is in jail awaiting his trial over bribery. There is just so much over this company, that it's hard to keep track.
i'd really like to know what major industry changes Samsung has made over the years. Also understand that a company doesn't just have to make all the parts to have an important impact. And sales are not necessarily an impact. Apple has changed the way we work and play in major ways, and Samsung isn't close to claiming that.
The post was perfectly well laid out. Relevance is relative but what relevance does how many patent trials I've been involved with have to do with this thread?
It wouldn't change a thing if I had been in 0 or 100.
Not all copying leads to a patent suit.
Price fixing is what big companies tend to do until they get caught. Apple is not immune to this behaviour.
Just out of curiosity, what major industry changes are you referring to?
It's the second time some has put the word 'impact' or 'impactful' referring to Apple and Samsung supposedly copying them.
I would like to see Samsung churn out new technologies when they will not have anything to copy from Apple as Apple won't be sourcing anything from them in the future!
Like the below, right?
1. Super Amoled display in Samsung Galaxy Nexus in 2011, copied from iphone 8/X in 2017
2. Large screen display in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iphone 6 in 2015
3. Stylus support in Samsung Galaxy Note in Jan-2012, copied from iPad Pro in 2015
4. Split screen multitasking in Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition (released in Nov-2013), copied from iOS 9 in 2015
5. Waterproofing in Samsung Galaxy S5 in Mar-2014, copied from iphone 7 in Sep-2016 (instead of Sony Xperia Z from Jan-2013)
6. UFS internal storage in Samsung Galaxy S6 in Jan-2015, copied from iphone 6S in Sep-2015
7. Dual Pixel camera sensor in Samsung Galaxy S7, copied from yet to be released iphone
8. UFS card slot in Samsung Galaxy S8, copied from yet to be released iphone
1) So AMOLED is an innovation for CE that only Samsung can use otherwise it's copying? Does that mean using LCD or even a keyboard on a notebook means Samsung is copying Apple because Apple used it long before Samsung was making laptops? Of course you wouldn't think that so stop making stupid comments.
2) Now a larger display is a Samsung invention? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?
3) If you're going to say that the iPad copied a smartphone then you have to go back to point two and say that the 2010 iPad came before he 2012 Note so that means that Samsung copied Apple's iPad on the Note. Again, you wouldn't say that either, because it sounds stupid.
4) You really have no concept of what adding a feature is v stealing IP is, do you?
5) Ah, the Galaxy S5 that had a door over the USB port when you wanted it to be waterproof and even then it failed miserably with many tests. Even now, Apple user promises and overdelivers with their waterproofing claims, and that's comparing to new Samsung devices.
6) The last three too ridiculous to even consider trying to respond, but I hope that one day you understand the difference between saying you have a feature so you can put it on a spec sheet and actually taking the time to engineer HW and SW to make an excellent experience for the user. For rational people who care about technology, that makes all the difference.
His comment was fine in the context of the post he was referring to.
There are far too many people that just repeat 'Samsung copied' this or that 'from Apple' without even the slightest care for reality.
When reality is pointed out, those same people simply change track and throw the 'but Aple fully bakes its products before release' line which is as equally untrue as the original claim.
The true reality, minus distortion field, is that this is a pendulum that swings both ways and if you only look at it when it's in one direction you are on shaky ground if you start making copycat claims you will likely get shot down.
Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others.
At some point there will be greater (and more secure) convergence of those devices and it will no doubt be another new selling point for them. The same applies to LG. It's one of their strong points. All Apple can do if it doesn't want to make microwave ovens, 3D glasses, TVs, washing machines, components or whatever, is provide platforms (Apple Pay, the various xxxkits, etc) and hope people build for them and/or they are allowed into the other 'gardens' when competing platforms take hold.
While they have their own multi million user base and cash in the bank, the short term looks rosy. I don't know what lies beyond the next major iPhone update but I do know that if someone does AI right, it will be difficult to compete with if they have a complete platform to integrate with.
But to say Samsung just copies is woefully short sighted.
It's interesting that in 31 lawsuits around the world between Apple and Samsung, Apple has won 28. Two of those losses, unsurprisingly, were in S Korea, though Apple did win one there, which shocked that country. Samsung is also one of the most sued companies over copying other's technologies.
its interesting that while Samsung copied Apple's "dress" patents, guess who has the most dress patents? If you guessed Samsung, you would be right. And guess who is the most often sued for stealing other's dress patents designs? If you again guessed Samsung, you get the prize.
you really don't know what you're talking about.
You need to re-read my post. The context is clear. You are seeing the pendulum in only one position.
Patent lawsuits are typically made up of varying patent issues. If you look into many of them you will find that the courts supported Apple on some, and Samsung on others, whereas in others, the court may to decide to throw all the claims out. But does it really matter? Nope.
Of course, in the context of these comments on this thread your reply has very little to do with the original point. A point that was clearly laid out.
Your points weren't well laid out, and they weren't even relevant for the most part. I understand patent suits very well. My own small company won the two we brought to court many years ago. How about you? The fact is that Samsung gets sued a lot, and they get sued over the same things that Apple sues them for. They also sue over the same things.
in addition they were fined hundreds of million of dollars three times for price fixing components. The old CEO was convicted of bribery twice, then pardoned to go back running the company. The current CEO is in jail awaiting his trial over bribery. There is just so much over this company, that it's hard to keep track.
i'd really like to know what major industry changes Samsung has made over the years. Also understand that a company doesn't just have to make all the parts to have an important impact. And sales are not necessarily an impact. Apple has changed the way we work and play in major ways, and Samsung isn't close to claiming that.
The post was perfectly well laid out. Relevance is relative but what relevance does how many patent trials I've been involved with have to do with this thread?
It wouldn't change a thing if I had been in 0 or 100.
Not all copying leads to a patent suit.
Price fixing is what big companies tend to do until they get caught. Apple is not immune to this behaviour.
Just out of curiosity, what major industry changes are you referring to?
It's the second time some has put the word 'impact' or 'impactful' referring to Apple and Samsung supposedly copying them.
To you, I suppose, as you wrote it.
i mentioned my experience with patents, because you don't seem to understand the significance of them.
wow! You make some very big, and unwarranted assumptions. Every big company does it? You're really jaundiced in your outlook.
im referring to you statement, in another post:
"Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others."
Making a lot of different things in different industries doesn't mean that anything they've done has changed the way we do things. Which is what we're talking about.
and yes, if Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their sales would be lower, and Apple's higher. So yes, it has impact. Oh, I know you don't believe that, but then, you don't seem to think anything is important.
Confirmed. Apple has a RD facility working on advanced micro LED technology in Taiwan. This was the R&D facility started by Qualcomm, but later acquired by Apple.
But Micro LED has a lot of manufacturing challenges. However, if successful will be superior to OLED technology in many ways.
Comments
This latter part might be a big problem - Apple often is very involved in the development of the production line for a new technology that they then source - but production knowledge eventually is used by competitors. Clearly even a company of Apple's size can only take so much in-house, so they have to be selective, and only do this with technologies that could have a significant differentiation. CPU & GPU are clearly in that category, NAND controllers. With potential AR, VR, and other "visual" technologies coming, perhaps displays are now moving into that category.
I will spell it out: I am a Mac user. I am an iOS user. I am an Android user. This is a discussion forum that covers all of those areas.
If you don't like my opinion you will simply have to live with it. If it is too much for you, ignore me. You have options.
If I were to take your attitude and style, perhaps I would say 'put up and shut up'. The reason I don't, is the difference between you and me.
And just to set things straight, you are wrong in your observations.
in addition they were fined hundreds of million of dollars three times for price fixing components. The old CEO was convicted of bribery twice, then pardoned to go back running the company. The current CEO is in jail awaiting his trial over bribery. There is just so much over this company, that it's hard to keep track.
i'd really like to know what major industry changes Samsung has made over the years. Also understand that a company doesn't just have to make all the parts to have an important impact. And sales are not necessarily an impact. Apple has changed the way we work and play in major ways, and Samsung isn't close to claiming that.
the first is up front costs. For Apple to manufacture a large part of their products would cost them somewhere in the order of $40 billion to buy or build their own plants and furnish them with equipment. That sounds like a large number, and it is. But it's estimated that a 14nm chip plant can cost up to $15 billion. Then figure in the rest of it. Batteries, circuit boards of various types, cases, etc. All that needs to be made somewhere, in a plant with updated equipment.
then there is the personnel. How many people would Apple need? Well, Foxconn has stated that they have 300 thousand people on iPhone assembly lines.
then there is the problem of keeping plants up to date. That's very expensive. Estimation of demand, and supply for that demand is difficult. It's impossible to predict demand for a product, particularly in the consumer space. What most people don't understand about manufacturing is that just a 5% rise in demand can bring production to a halt. Most plants run on about 85% capacity. That gives space for downtime, upgrades, problems on the lines, etc. So if demand exceeds that, you're screwed. Large companies like Foxconn have extra lines they can re-configure for that situation. But it takes time.
what if Apple did make most of their stuff, and demand rose? How would they make the extra parts? They couldn't. They would have to build another plant. This is a problem for all manufacturers. But the bigger you are, the more of a problem it is. But companies like the contract manufacturers have a number of customers, so they alsways have extra capacity. They can finagle this capacity around. If they build more, they can get more customers to fill the capacity.
but how would Apple do this? Over capacity is very expensive. It cost a good deal just to have. You can't just let it sit there. It needs to be constantly maintained. There are costs associated with this. There are costs associated with having parts sitting on a shelf.
i'm not saying it can't be done. But a good reason why more companies are going to these large contract manufacturers is because of the difficulties, which have been getting worse over time.
but contracting out means that Apple can enlarge and contract their orders without it costing them much extra. There's a lot more to be said about this, but I don't want to put any more people asleep than I have already.
It wouldn't change a thing if I had been in 0 or 100.
Not all copying leads to a patent suit.
Price fixing is what big companies tend to do until they get caught. Apple is not immune to this behaviour.
Just out of curiosity, what major industry changes are you referring to?
It's the second time some has put the word 'impact' or 'impactful' referring to Apple and Samsung supposedly copying them.
i mentioned my experience with patents, because you don't seem to understand the significance of them.
wow! You make some very big, and unwarranted assumptions. Every big company does it? You're really jaundiced in your outlook.
im referring to you statement, in another post:
"Samsung has brought far more to the consumer and professional markets than Apple ever will simply because Samsung is a sprawling conglomerate that makes untold kinds of devices. Technology from some devices will logically seep into others."
Making a lot of different things in different industries doesn't mean that anything they've done has changed the way we do things. Which is what we're talking about.
and yes, if Samsung hadn't copied Apple, their sales would be lower, and Apple's higher. So yes, it has impact. Oh, I know you don't believe that, but then, you don't seem to think anything is important.