Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:30 AM   #26
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordoflife View Post
At some point Apple will just find a new supplier and it'll hurt Samsung more in the end.

Good job.
since Apple has been doing that for a while might as well get all the money they can out of Apple. Apple going thermo nuclear is going to cost them.
Rodimus Prime is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:31 AM   #27
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
There's no money to be gained back by Samsung - they haven't had to pay (and may never have to pay) Apple 1B.

Seems like business as usual. 5 years without a price increase. And clearly Apple can't move away from Samsung as fast as posters here would like them to. If they could - they would have.

And news today is that Apple is being forced to pay for Samsung's legal fees in the UK...

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/11/u...ing-orders-fu/
samcraig is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:31 AM   #28
Muscle Master
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellhammer View Post
That's the lesson Apple needs to learn. Samsung produces everything from LCDs to NAND and SoCs which makes them independent, whereas Apple doesn't own a single factory. Without Samsung, Apple couldn't make a single iPhone or iPad but Samsung would do just fine without Apple, so who is feeding who?
This...

Another thing.. Samsung been doing this for years, do you really trust another company to meet and exceed expectations in production of chips

And you think you can't get a iPhone 5 now.. Ha
__________________
Apple Macbook Pro Retina '13 (Late 2012)
OS X Mountain Lion / Intel Core i5-3210M @ 3.1GHz / 8GB DDR3 1600MHz / Retina Display @ 2560x1600 / 128GB Solid State Drive | Apple iPhone 5S
Muscle Master is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:33 AM   #29
1080p
macrumors 68000
 
1080p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Planet Earth
From What I understand, Apple and Samsung have a contract for chips until 2014. Wouldn't prices be negotiated and set before signing any long term contracts? Calling BS on this article!
__________________
Hackintosh| Core i7 4770K, 16 GB RAM, Nvidia GTX 770 | OSX Yosemite | iPhone 6 | Synology NAS
1080p is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:34 AM   #30
WeegieMac
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow, UK
Oh great, that means WE foot the bill for the 20% hike via the asking price in future devices.

Last edited by WeegieMac; Nov 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM.
WeegieMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:34 AM   #31
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
And now we know the real reason behind the rumored sooner-than-expected iPhone 5S.

Edit: wait, I misread the article. TSMC's upcoming 20-nanometer process is scheduled for late 2013. Oh well.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:35 AM   #32
realeric
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: United States
It can't be true.
realeric is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:36 AM   #33
paulbennett95
macrumors 6502a
 
paulbennett95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeegieMac View Post
Oh great, that means WE foot the bill for the 20% hike via the asking price in futur pe devices.
The price increase is like $3.50 per chip, so we'll be paying an extra $50 or so.
paulbennett95 is offline   12 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:36 AM   #34
Satori
macrumors 6502a
 
Satori's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeegieMac View Post
Oh great, that means WE foot the bill for the 20% hike via the asking price in futur pe devices.
We don't know that's what will happen yet (or even whether this report is true!).
Satori is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:37 AM   #35
xofruitcake
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080p View Post
From What I understand, Apple and Samsung have a contract for chips until 2014. Wouldn't prices be negotiated and set before signing any long term contracts? Calling BS on this article!
but all these contract has clause in them to adjust price base on market price and cost change..
xofruitcake is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:37 AM   #36
zemoleman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Yonkers, NY
Send a message via Skype™ to zemoleman
Why doesn't Apple just build its own chip foundry? Perhaps here in the USA (I know, horribly naive)? If Apple is designing its own chips why not build them themselves? Sounds like Samsung has had the best of this relationship-getting paid by Apple for the parts and having access to Apple's secrets/R&D as a result of producing these parts.
zemoleman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:38 AM   #37
Ries
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbennett95 View Post
I can't wait to see what happens to Samsung after apple stops using them for components. A lot less money for Samsung to "innovate" with, hah.
If apple hadn't paid a single dime for any component they have bought from Samsung Electronics in 2011, that Samsung branch would still have had a profit of $4 billion.
Ries is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:40 AM   #38
pedromartins
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Porto, Portugal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
since Apple has been doing that for a while might as well get all the money they can out of Apple. Apple going thermo nuclear is going to cost them.
Yes... But since Apple is going to lose a few billions, tell me why they won't:

- Invest 20 billions on LG, resulting in samsungs loses (Apple business and the fact that LG will compete more with Samsung)
-Invest in Sharp (same thing with LG)
-TSMC (same)
-Sony.
-etc.

How many billions per year would samsung lose with all these companies upping their game with Apple paying them for memory, screens, flash, ram, etc? 10?20?50?

Don't forget foxconn.

With this sort of alternatives, Apple would win a lot, Samsung will suffer a lot.
Don't fool yourself, Apple can bring the hammer to samsung not only directly (small part) but also by investing in others. Also, samsung's credibility is down within other clients. What are the other companies thinking? Samsung can bite their hands too...
__________________
I'm just a fan of Apple products and the company in itself, as long as they keep following the path of awesomeness.
pedromartins is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:40 AM   #39
gto55
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tel Aviv
The present news explains this move from apple

http://cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_41728.html
"Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) to be the only supplier of 20nm process to Apple quad-core processors over the next one to two years, citing the company’s unmatched technological advance on 20nm process and Apple’s decision to adopt 20nm quad-core processors in its new products.
Citigroup Global Markets’ market research fellow, J.T. Hsu, pointed out that Apple began verifying TSMC’s 20nm process in August this year and may begin risk production in November with the process. Volume production is expected to start in the fourth quarter of 2013, raising the possibility that TSMC will hike capital expenditure to US$11-12 billion in 2013 and 2014. "
gto55 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:41 AM   #40
andyjam
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
I heard Apple have bought Alaska and have started setting up some missiles pointed right at Korea... I can't think why though.
andyjam is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:41 AM   #41
slughead
macrumors 68030
 
slughead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Payback's a bitch!

This probably is a bad move on Samsung's part unless it was actually necessary. Apple might find a competitor able to sell at a lower price.
slughead is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:43 AM   #42
Tankmaze
macrumors 65816
 
Tankmaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
what happen to this samesung

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1429815

well... business is business i guess, nothing personal
__________________
Check out our game Tank Maze
Tankmaze is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:43 AM   #43
starbird
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ries View Post
What makes you think, that the others can do it cheaper?
They don't have to be able to do it cheaper. They have to be able to do it for the same.
__________________
 13" MacBook Pro with Retina display 
 Verizon iPhone 6 Space Grey (64GB)  iPad (32GB Black WiFi 3rd gen)  3rd gen TV 
starbird is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:43 AM   #44
H2SO4
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muscle Master View Post
This...

Another thing.. Samsung been doing this for years, do you really trust another company to meet and exceed expectations in production of chips

And you think you can't get a iPhone 5 now.. Ha
You two are joking right?
Think how many mobile device manufacturers there are out there. Do all of them use Samsung? Probably not which means there must be other sources of supply.
Samsung make batteries do they? Because I don't think that the Galaxy SIII would work too well without one. Samsung, just like AAPL are NOT independent.
This could be just the impetus a contractor needs to up their game and fill in where Samsung left off.
All companies go through this and the vast majority survive.
H2SO4 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:43 AM   #45
Macboy Pro
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordoflife View Post
At some point Apple will just find a new supplier and it'll hurt Samsung more in the end.

Good job.
or, it may hurt Apple with inferior parts. Arrogance and litigation are Apples problem now. It is hurting their ability to innovate.
Macboy Pro is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:45 AM   #46
Jimmdean
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Samsung is just another supplier in this relationship.

All Apple really cares about here is yield - price is really an afterthought.

Apple owns the design(s) in their entirety - they'll make a business decision to move to someone else for a particular part if/when yield is acceptable - not necessarily price.
Jimmdean is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:45 AM   #47
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
 
Saladinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
We don't know the motivation behind this - it could be due to things unrelated with the court case; such as a more complex design or more advanced tooling required.

But, of course, it's just extra motivation for Apple to try and find other suppliers. Samsung know Apple can't just switch to someone like TSMC overnight, so they're going to have to take that price increase.

Apple need to sort their supply chain. They're being forced from Samsung, which means any other suppliers will be free to hold them to ransom.

LCDs and CPUs seem the hardest right now. If I were Tim, I'd...

- Buy Sharp and turn it in to a subsidiary. Re-tool, hire new engineers and move forward. Total cost? $5-10 Bn.

- Get people on the boards of Intel and TSMC. Make some strategic investments to keep the close. Intel might be more difficult, but they've indicated some potential willingness to fab non-x86 chips for others. They desperately need a business that grows as the mobile market grows - at the moment, they're shut out of that enormous growth and tied to the failing PC sector.
Saladinos is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:46 AM   #48
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post
With this sort of alternatives, Apple would win a lot, Samsung will suffer a lot.
Don't fool yourself, Apple can bring the hammer to samsung not only directly (small part) but also by investing in others. Also, samsung's credibility is down within other clients. What are the other companies thinking? Samsung can bite their hands too...
Do you realize how successful Samsung is? Can Apple make a dent - sure - but make Samsung suffer "a lot" - not really.

And please explain how Samsung's credibility is down within other clients. Which clients? How is it down? Is this your opinion, or are there any - you know - actual facts to support it?

I have read more negativity in the press about Apple and what they are doing vs Samsung over the past several months. I still don't think Apple's business is suffering (at the moment).
samcraig is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:47 AM   #49
slughead
macrumors 68030
 
slughead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by zemoleman View Post
Why doesn't Apple just build its own chip foundry? Perhaps here in the USA (I know, horribly naive)? If Apple is designing its own chips why not build them themselves? Sounds like Samsung has had the best of this relationship-getting paid by Apple for the parts and having access to Apple's secrets/R&D as a result of producing these parts.
Distribution of labor and specialization works better than consolidation. Apple might be able to build its own chips, but likely it's better just to leave chip building to the chipbuilders, and when one falls behind, just switch to the next--that's what Apple's been doing with Macs for years. Motorola -> IBM -> Intel -> ?

If Apple built their own chips, they couldn't very well switch to someone doing it better, now could they? What happens if Apple builds its own chips and then Intel releases something twice as fast for half the price? Apple would be stuck with inferior technology and an albatross of a production line. It is naive to think Apple could do it better forever, since it seems no company seems to be able to stay in the lead. It's better then to have the freedom to dump a company that stops creating competitive products.
slughead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2012, 09:48 AM   #50
barkomatic
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Manhattan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sora View Post
The customer won't notice this increase.
Pricing structure is already engrained into Apple's customer base.
They might notice when their iPhones are made out of plastic again to save costs.
barkomatic is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Reportedly Negotiating with Carriers for $100 Price Increase on iPhone 6 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 569 Apr 17, 2014 09:57 PM
Apple Reportedly Signs Deal with Samsung for 14-nm A9 Chips Starting in 2015 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 126 Jul 16, 2013 06:36 PM
Samsung's Exclusive Contract for iOS Device Chips Expiring in June as A7 for iPhone 6 Heads to TSMC? MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 157 May 2, 2013 03:09 PM
Samsung Denies Claims of Price Hikes for iOS Device Chip Production MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 110 Nov 18, 2012 02:28 PM
Samsung raises price of chips sold to Apple by 20% kdarling Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 2 Nov 12, 2012 11:52 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC