Doubtful. TSMC already fabs chips for a few other very large and profitable companies, some in the consumer business, and hasn't shown any interest in switching businesses and scaring away these customers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TSMC to Begin Trial Production of Apple's A6X Chip This Quarter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Doubtful. TSMC already fabs chips for a few other very large and profitable companies, some in the consumer business, and hasn't shown any interest in switching businesses and scaring away these customers.
No, the issue is that you don't subsidy your competitor by buying parts from them so they can lower their own cost. Semiconductor price are very sensitive to the size of the order. If Apple order 10m unit DRAM from Samsung, Samsung can get the lower price for the 10m+1th to 20mth unit. Even though Samsung don't use the same plant for Apple and their own CPU production, what they learn in producing Apple CPU will be used in their own production. And Samsung will reinvest their profit from selling the part to Apple in making their phone stronger.. Why would any rational company want to continue to buy from our competitor if they have a choice?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm certain that Samsung didn't want to scare away Apple as a parts customer either. Then Samsung noticed how much money was being made and had a change of heart (or the desire for "mo money" trumped the fear of losing Apple as a parts customer).
The drive to grow profits motivates companies to think about where the new growth comes from. Sooner or later the parts maker starts thinking about building more and more of an end device. Then, it's only a little more imagination to think about building a whole device. Base lots of that whole device on one that is selling so well (and for which you are now expert at building it's parts) and you have a good chance of building an impressive, profitable device.
To me the sequence of events are as obvious as can be. Pulling away from Samsung for ripping off ideas from Apple by taking business to other players who commonly incorporate "best of" innovations from each other is just fueling the drive for several more Samsungs in the next few years. If anything, it just buys Apple a little time until the TSMCs, LGs, Sharps, etc ramp up their Samsung-like "copycats".
Alas, as all but two or so tech companies has found, putting together a bunch of phone parts does not produce a highly profitable product line. New growth has to come from something a company is good at.
It is less than 5% revenue for Samsung. Samsung can find other customers easily to fill spare production capacity. If TSMC is busy appeasing Apple, current TSMC customers will jump ship.
Question is if Apple cannot partner with industry leaders and has a bunch of low-rated suppliers can it maintain quality.
US Auto industry tried this trick for last 15-20 years. They demand 5%-10% price cut every year from suppliers and if supplier refuses the switch the supplier. By the time production from new supplier is stable, they start this cycle again. After few years with quality issues, customers loose faith and stop buying products.
TSMC isn't a do-it-all electronics company like Samsung, LG or Sharp. They specialize in making chips for others.
5% of the total Samsung electronics company. What about the chip-making division? In case anyone doesn't know this, each division gets their bonus and wage calculated separately based on the profitability of that division.
Try that with a 3G/s...it does the same.
Also give it a try with the Mighty Mouse, or even the Apple TV.
Are people really that shallow?
Benefits of the plastic case over the iPhone 5 metal case:
- Very durable
- If it breaks, replace it - ~$2 cost to you.
- Lighter
Vs the iPhone 5 case:
- Soft metal, scratches like a bitch (I own one....I know.)
- Very slippy surface
Both are 'decent' options. Neither is superior. Grow the heck up.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Boy you guys are tough. I'll just counter with:
Apple 2006 isn't a do-it-all smart phone company like RIM, Palm or Nokia. They specialize in making computers and music players.
OR
Apple 2000 isn't a do-it-all music player company like Sony, Samsung or Creative. They specialize in making computers.
Point: Passage of time allows a company to think beyond what it does now. The drive for growth motivates that kind of thinking. If you built parts for iDevices and wanted to grow beyond what you could make from such parts deals, what would be the natural next step? (hint: it won't be something complete different from what you know how to do now)
I'm not saying TSMC will immediately become Samsung-like. I'm saying that shifting from one manufacturer to another to get away from a "copycat" is begging for new copycats (and funding them... and teaching them how to build products like those that sell really well).
----------
Was Apple "good at" music players before iPod? Was Apple "good at" smart phones before iPhone?
I agree with the idea that one cannot slug together phone parts to make a new, quality phone but I also foresee these new players recognizing what made Apple and Samsung so much money... how it's just a bit more than what they are doing now to give that a try too, etc.
Some of us seem to think that there's just no way that other Asian manufacturers won't try the "copycat" approach proven so successful for Samsung. Why exactly? Because the new partners are not "good at" it? Was Samsung good at building smart phones before following Apple's lead? Was Samsung good at building tablets before following Apple's lead? Was Google good at mobile OSs before following Apple's lead? Were they even interested in mobile OS before getting a whiff of iOS? Etc. All you need to do is show a group of people how to build something that makes a lot of money and those people will want to build their own (and make a lot of money too). Asia in particular has the reputation of copying anything (see lightning cables flooding the market as just a very recent example)
Obviously Samsung decided that the profits in building their own versions of iDevices outweighed the risk of losing the parts & assembly business. Why do we think these new partners won't go through the very same process?
Last edited:
That point is well taken but TSMC simply do not have any expertise in any similar area and isn't really comparable here. It's no different from worrying other suppliers such as Qualcomm or ARM will suddenly making smartphones. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
In this sense the much bigger threat to Apple is Foxconn, not TSMC.
Speaking of Apple, they were already making small tightly integrated electronics such as laptops, MP3 players, and especially PDA which is very much alike smartphone.
Look at HTC, Palm and RIM, all started off by making PDA.
Because TSMC isn't a do-it-all company and they do not make anything remote similar to smartphone. Samsung, Apple were all been making related products for a long time. Samsung had a ton of smartphones before making Android phones, it was a natural extension of their previous products. TSMC's fab business has nothing to do with making integrated electronics.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, I'm glad you have such faith. Apple was not expert on portable music devices before iPod. But they decided they wanted to go there. So what did they do? They hired/bought their way into that (hardware) space. Apple was not expert at smart phones before iPhones. But they decided they wanted to go there. So what did they do? They hired/bought their way into that (hardware) space too. That's how its done. When you want to enter a new market or build a new product and don't have the on-hand resources to pull it off, you hire or buy your way in.
I lack faith that TSMC and similar flush with cash from the lucrative parts business we're celebrating being taken away from Samsung can't hire/buy their way into being able to do more than they do now... just like Apple has done. They know that there is lots of money in it as they are happy to be getting the business they are getting now for just the parts that they are contributing to the whole. How hard it is to start wanting a few more parts of that whole to be their business too? Then, how hard is it to want to take a crack at making a whole variation themselves?
But I'll just buy your remarkable faith that there seems little chance of new partners trying to jump on the profitable path already proven by Samsung's actions. And we'll see how it plays out over time.
I lack faith that TSMC and similar flush with cash from the lucrative parts business we're celebrating being taken away from Samsung can't hire/buy their way into being able to do more than they do now... just like Apple has done. They know that there is lots of money in it as they are happy to be getting the business they are getting now for just the parts that they are contributing to the whole. How hard it is to start wanting a few more parts of that whole to be their business too? Then, how hard is it to want to take a crack at making a whole variation themselves?
But I'll just buy your remarkable faith that there seems little chance of new partners trying to jump on the profitable path already proven by Samsung's actions. And we'll see how it plays out over time.
The point is, Apple made consumer electronics of similar development path and related expertise. Smartphone is very closely related to PDA and Apple made PDAs before. As I've stated already, HTC, Palm and RIM all started out with PDAs before making smartphones.
TSMC has no "similar flush". They are straight up fab. They have no other consumer electronics division. Samsung has been making smartphones and other electronics for a long time well before Apple.
Again, Samsung has been making smartphones far longer than Apple. They had software development teams, supply chain, factories, etc, all set up before. TSMC doesn't have any of that.
Would you worry that Corning will suddenly start making smartphones? Should Apple stop buying Corning glass because they might start making phones with the money from Apple? Worrying about TSMC is no different. It's not "remarkable faith", it's just a common sense.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I appreciate your points again. No I wouldn't expect a glass manufacturer to jump into iDevices. However TSMC makes the key "guts". They need to add things like a metal case and glass around those guts. That's not even remotely similar to going from manufacturing a pane of glass to building chips.
And it's not just TSMC. It's also the other new partners Apple is trying to swap into from the old one (Samsung). LG does/has made phones/screens/etc: http://www.lg.com/levant_en/smartphones They don't even look that different than Samsung's models. Does Sharp want to be the smart portable device business? http://www.sharp-phone.com/fr/products/sh80f/index.html
Yes, TSMC would have to do more than these other partners but Apple had to do more to bring along OS X, iPods, iPhone, iPad too.
However, arguing it doesn't prove anything. You could be right or I could be right. Just stand by and let's see if the new Asian partners decide to follow the old Asian partner's profitable lead.
And it's not just TSMC. It's also the other new partners Apple is trying to swap into from the old one (Samsung). LG does/has made phones/screens/etc: http://www.lg.com/levant_en/smartphones They don't even look that different than Samsung's models. Does Sharp want to be the smart portable device business? http://www.sharp-phone.com/fr/products/sh80f/index.html
Yes, TSMC would have to do more than these other partners but Apple had to do more to bring along OS X, iPods, iPhone, iPad too.
However, arguing it doesn't prove anything. You could be right or I could be right. Just stand by and let's see if the new Asian partners decide to follow the old Asian partner's profitable lead.
Last edited:
The problem I see is that you're trying to compare TSMC, a pure part supplier, to Asian conglomerates such as Samsung, LG and Sharp who all have had consumer electronics division well before they did business with Apple. They didn't create new business out of nothing contrary to your claim, they all had related business as Apple did with before iPod and iPhone. Making "guts" doesn't give TSMC any extra expertise in putting a consumer electonics together, just as making "face" doesn't Corning any extra expertise, as with ARM with "soul/brain" with chip IP.
TSMC makes a single component, a chip. Apple buys (TSMC-made) modem chips from Qualcomm, buys chip IP from ARM, and glass from Corning. Any of them could jump into making smartphone but none of them makes integrated products which is vastly different from Samsung, LG, or Sharp who all had been making phones for ages, making an Android phone.
I'd worry much more about Foxconn before I worry about TSMC.
on the macbooks, samsung's screens are better quality than the LG ones. with people swapping them until they get a samsung screen. cant believe this makes you happy. quite sad really
This is not entirely true. It all depends on the screen size and MacBook model. For the MacBook Air 13", at least for the 2011 models I found the LG panels to be superior in terms of viewing angles and raw calibration. The gamma profile and colours were better with the LG panel.
With the 11" model it all seemed to be the other way around, but when it comes to LCD panels you can't really compare between sizes as the Samsung 11" panel is vastly different from the 13" ones, same goes for the LG panels. If someone measures the LG panel of the 11" to be inferior to the Samsung panels you would be foolish to think this counts for the 13", Pro 13" and Pro 15" as well.
When I had my MacBook Pro 17" 2010 model (Samsung) and MacBook Pro 17" 2011 model (LG) side-by-side there was no doubt about the LG one being superior to the Samsung one. Samsung has this bad habit of over-saturated colours making for horrid gamma profiles and calibrations way out of any kind of natural charts. It might look good for some, but it's not remotely close to being realistic.
To be honest Samsung doesn't go all out on the colour saturation on the panels used on Apple notebooks and this is most likely due to Apple's very strict quality control and demands from their suppliers but my experience from MacBook Air 13" and MacBook Pro 17 the last years the LG panels have mostly been superior if you are looking for the best calibrated panels out of the lot.
The iMac 27" doesn't feature Samsung panels at all, and the 2012 models are one of the best "out-of-box" calibrated monitors for it's price range currently on the market. I don't know about the 21,5" one, but considering it's now all IPS and Samsung tends to not do IPS I guess they aren't involved in those either and they've had some pretty decent reviews as well.
Not the mention the Retina models, all being non-Samsung IPS panels and they are looking great with really good out-of-the-box calibration and gamma profile for notebooks.
If you take a look at computer monitors as a whole, Samsung doesn't really offer much in the high-end calibrated market at all. They mostly have some decent PVA panels, and some horrid TN-panels with colours way out of the chart and that's mostly it. You would normally be looking at Eizo, NEC or Dell if you wanted some decent calibrated ones and possibly Asus's Pro line if you aren't willing to pay the premium for the other brands.
Hell, take a look at Samsung's own line of premium notebooks and tablets and you see next to none capable of being close to anything premium in terms of colour calibration and gamma profile out-of-the-box. They are beaten by Asus on quite a few notebooks and their Inifity tablet beats all current Samsung ones.
And you have a pretty good example with this whole Samsung does their own PLS thing instead of IPS. PLS is basically Samsung own proprietary answer to IPS and they are both pretty much the same thing, rocking the same good viewing angels and whatnot but whereas we have many decent calibrated IPS monitors, all PLS monitors comes oversaturated out-of-the-box.
Same goes for Samsung televisions, they all feature horrible colour profiles out-of-the-box pushing contrast way off the chart. They look awesome once you've gone through some serious calibration, but lets face it barley anyone actually calibrate their display in any sensible way resulting in you being better of with a high quality Panasonic Plasma or something other than a Samsung LED-LCD television in terms of colour reproduction.
All in all, I can't see the sad part in Samsung being left out in the dust in terms of display panels. When it comes to SSD's though I certainly hope Apple don't drop the ball on Samsung until they have either Intel or Micron on the team. Going all Toshiba SSD would be downright silly in terms of both performance and stability.
I don't know about you but I prefer a Maps apps that actually works on my iPhone 4.
Google Maps got me
-turn by turn navigation
-transit
-street view
-traffic
-offline maps (soon)
Also your basically saying that Apple was stupid because it was Apple who created and designed the YouTube app. Google only provided the license, Apple chose not to renew it after 5 years of utter crap so Google released a better version.
If I understand correctly Samsung is using fab in Texas and TSMC is planning their facility in Oregon. Texas will loose jobs and Oregon will gain jobs. If you are aware Texas lawmakers don't take easy on any company causing job loss in Texas.
So if you buy from any supplier based in Texas, you can never leave that supplier?
on the macbooks, samsung's screens are better quality than the LG ones. with people swapping them until they get a samsung screen. cant believe this makes you happy. quite sad really
You should be sadder when Samsung holds Apple ransom if they're still the dominant supplier.
----------
Counting down till the Samsung "enthusiasts" barge in here to admonish Apple and praise Samsung' technology
This is nothing more than baseless fear mongering. Samsung existed in consumer electronics prior to fabbing chips for Apple. They didn't enter the market that way. The same goes for LG. Sharp doesn't even have the money to invest here. Are you suggesting Apple should purchase a foundry when they have no prior experience in fabrication? None of these shops started off with such large orders.
Some of you turn everything into hyperbole. You're essentially talking about supplier contracts, yet call it a "ransom".
Last edited: