Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 2, 2013, 06:14 PM   #51
louis.b
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celf View Post
I won't deny my iPad has a better build quality than my Note but to call the build quality of the last one "horrible" is pure nonsense. The Androidpolice "review" was one big rant and made a lot of readers very angry because a lot of stuff this guy wrote was just not true.
In Android land anything written that doesnt worship Android will be condemned. Kudo to him for having the gut to tell the truth !
louis.b is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 12:35 AM   #52
BvizioN
macrumors 68000
 
BvizioN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Manchester, UK
Send a message via Skype™ to BvizioN
Quote:
Originally Posted by irDigital0l View Post
Remember what happened to 'Bye bye, Google'?

hahahaha
Yes, how can it be forgotten??

The world stoped spinning!
The planet froze! Humanity entered the dark age!
We will never be the same again.
__________________
Born Albanian.
BvizioN is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:27 AM   #53
hchung
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
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.
Let's see.

LG is both an Apple supplier and a smartphone maker. That doesn't seem to be doing so well for them in the smartphone front.

To suggest TSMC even having the slight possibility of entering consumer electronics neglects the fact that TSMC gains very little from leaving their focus on semiconductor manufacturing. To think otherwise means that you don't understand the difference between Foxconn and TSMC, both Taiwanese companies who do manufacturing. I will also flat out say that there is no chance either company will ever become direct competitors, unless somebody makes a severely bad business decision, on the same scale of DEC, Commodore, and Osborne.

TSMC is in the dominant position of their field. A field which is also extremely hard to enter successfully. A field which is also extremely expensive and risky to expand in. If their business leaders were dumb enough to defocus, then I'm fairly sure pretty much all of their competitors would be cheering them on in their new ventures.
There's a reason AMD spun off GF, you know.

Who else would you suggest? Qualcomm? They LEFT the phone business because their chips make them more profits. Not surprising that it's a better move to focus on chips when everybody needs to license your stuff to implement 3G.
hchung is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 04:46 AM   #54
Compile 'em all
macrumors 601
 
Compile 'em all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by irDigital0l View Post
Remember what happened to 'Bye bye, Google'?

hahahaha
Google released Google Maps for iOS with turn by turn navigation?
__________________
Compile 'em all is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 08:12 AM   #55
louis.b
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post

Some of you turn everything into hyperbole. You're essentially talking about supplier contracts, yet call it a "ransom".
Not when you're the DOMINANT supplier.
louis.b is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 08:26 AM   #56
UBS28
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsWelshy View Post
Yay!

TSMC for Chips
Sharp for Screen

Bye Bye Samsdung....

Waiting for the headline "Samsung follow Apple into TSMC chip trial"
And how is this good news? Samsung is pretty much market leader in anything ( including smartphones ) for a reason. They produce quality.

Good luck for Apple if they are boycotting Samsung, it will hurt Apple more than Samsung in the end as Apple products will turn to garbage without the quality of Samsung.
UBS28 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 08:49 AM   #57
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hchung View Post
To suggest TSMC even having the slight possibility of entering consumer electronics neglects the fact that TSMC gains very little from leaving their focus on semiconductor manufacturing. To think otherwise means that you don't understand the difference between Foxconn and TSMC, both Taiwanese companies who do manufacturing. I will also flat out say that there is no chance either company will ever become direct competitors, unless somebody makes a severely bad business decision, on the same scale of DEC, Commodore, and Osborne.

TSMC is in the dominant position of their field. A field which is also extremely hard to enter successfully. A field which is also extremely expensive and risky to expand in. If their business leaders were dumb enough to defocus, then I'm fairly sure pretty much all of their competitors would be cheering them on in their new ventures. There's a reason AMD spun off GF, you know.
First, I said nothing about TSMC leaving their existing business to enter the consumer business. No need inventing stuff to make a point sound better.

If I'm TSMC, I keep doing the profitable business I'm doing and am always looking for my own next big thing. Where can I grow beyond what I'm doing now? (NOT how can I get rid of my current business and become something else)

If I can see myself as a modest equivalent of Samsung's "parts" business, then Samsung may be a good proxy of a big competitor in terms of how I might expand my business. Maybe TSMC dreams of becoming the next Samsung by looking at what they have that is similar to what Samsung has and where else Samsung is that they are not? Competitive analysis to drive business growth is a fundamental of strategic planning. What "we" are doing that is like Samsung is working well; what else is Samsung doing that we could do?

Second, if it is indeed "A field which is also extremely hard to enter successfully. A field which is also extremely expensive and risky to expand in" they should be able to have some security in their deals with partners like Apple so that they could take some risk in growing beyond what they do now. If it is as hard and expensive to enter successfully as you imply, where's Apple going to go (back to Samsung)?

Third: "If their business leaders were dumb enough to defocus," Would "dumb" apply to Apple before Apple launched iPod? How about iPhone? In both of those, Apple had to "defocus" to try some new strategic thrusts. But let me guess, that was "different" because it was closer to their core business than TSMC and other partners defocusing from say- making the crucial guts of technology to putting those guts in a metal case with a glass front and using a free OS... just like Samsung. You know the case and the glass is not the hard or complicated parts to source and/or make.

Intel is apparently defocusing in trying to enter the consumer TV hub business soon. But that can't possibly happen because a chip maker would never try to break into some new business opportunities in the consumer products space. Let me guess: that's different too.

Google was just search. It would make no sense for a search-focused company to get into the mobile phone OS space... especially if they were going to give away that OS for free, right? How about cars that drive themselves? Solar panels? Cable TV subscriptions via fiber?

Kodak stuck with what they considered their core- the film business. And where did that relentless focus get them?

Nevertheless, I give here (for now). Clearly, we wish to celebrate Apple sticking it to Samsung for "ripping off" Apple's ideas and becoming a copycat competitor while at the same time finding it practically offensive/impossible/etc that any other Asian company partner might try to do the same. Samsung has done very well with that "strategy" and it makes perfect sense (apparently only to me) that other companies might look at Samsung's success doing exactly that and think about whether they could take a shot at doing something similar too.

Believe what you wish and we can let the passage of time (and the desire for business growth at companies other than just Apple) prove this out... or not.

Last edited by HobeSoundDarryl; Jan 3, 2013 at 09:23 AM.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 10:52 AM   #58
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
First, I said nothing about TSMC leaving their existing business to enter the consumer business. No need inventing stuff to make a point sound better.

If I'm TSMC, I keep doing the profitable business I'm doing and am always looking for my own next big thing. Where can I grow beyond what I'm doing now? (NOT how can I get rid of my current business and become something else)

If I can see myself as a modest equivalent of Samsung's "parts" business, then Samsung may be a good proxy of a big competitor in terms of how I might expand my business. Maybe TSMC dreams of becoming the next Samsung by looking at what they have that is similar to what Samsung has and where else Samsung is that they are not? Competitive analysis to drive business growth is a fundamental of strategic planning. What "we" are doing that is like Samsung is working well; what else is Samsung doing that we could do?
Once Apple leaves Samsung, Samsung will be their own only large customer. Texas Instruments is leaving the mobile chips business due to the difficulty of competing. Ericcson is abandoning their joint venture with ST, who can't get any major design wins. Marvell is relegated to parts of the market other than the SoC business. Does that sound like a good market to enter? Not to mention the fact that the only existing relationship between a fabless company using another company's fabs and competing in the same market (apple and Samsung) is a relationship about to dissolve. Why risk that?

Quote:
Second, if it is indeed "A field which is also extremely hard to enter successfully. A field which is also extremely expensive and risky to expand in" they should be able to have some security in their deals with partners like Apple so that they could take some risk in growing beyond what they do now. If it is as hard and expensive to enter successfully as you imply, where's Apple going to go (back to Samsung)?
They could go to global foundries or UBM.

Quote:
Third: "If their business leaders were dumb enough to defocus," Would "dumb" apply to Apple before Apple launched iPod? How about iPhone? In both of those, Apple had to "defocus" to try some new strategic thrusts. But let me guess, that was "different" because it was closer to their core business than TSMC and other partners defocusing from say- making the crucial guts of technology to putting those guts in a metal case with a glass front and using a free OS... just like Samsung. You know the case and the glass is not the hard or complicated parts to source and/or make.
Apple is a consumer electronics company. TSMC is largely a services company. Moreover, it's not even a service they can leverage with consumers like kindle or Zune. What confidence would they have that they can offer anything new or better someone else can't?

Quote:
Intel is apparently defocusing in trying to enter the consumer TV hub business soon. But that can't possibly happen because a chip maker would never try to break into some new business opportunities in the consumer products space. Let me guess: that's different too.
Intel makes wireless cards, motherboards, develops standards, creates technologies like WiDi, etc. All they would need to enter that space is a box for their components. TSMC would have to add hundreds of engineers to get the design expertise and shift their marketing focus for more consumer notice. It would be a huge undertaking.

Quote:
Google was just search. It would make no sense for a search-focused company to get into the mobile phone OS space... especially if they were going to give away that OS for free, right? How about cars that drive themselves? Solar panels? Cable TV subscriptions via fiber?
Most of what google does drives their ad revenue and user data mountains. Most of what they do speaks to that ultimate end. Their fiber service allows more people to use their services. A driverless car leverages their location data. They don't do stuff for the hell of it.

Quote:
Kodak stuck with what they considered their core- the film business. And where did that relentless focus get them?
And executed poorly and got beat by people who didn't like Nikon and Canon. You make it sound like no one cam succeed in the camera business.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:05 PM   #59
fertilized-egg
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Maybe TSMC dreams of becoming the next Samsung by looking at what they have that is similar to what Samsung has and where else Samsung is that they are not?
Samsung has built its consumer business for decades and it has always been their business to try everything. TSMC doesn't have that. Again, the same reasoning can be used for every single supplier of Apple, including Corning the glass maker. Making the physical chip doesn't give TSMC any advantage in putting a phone together outside cheaper chips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Kodak stuck with what they considered their core- the film business. And where did that relentless focus get them?
Except Kodak didn't have a "relentless focus". They invented the first digital camera and released the first professional digital camera too. Plus they always had a wide range of business, including supplying military and NASA with digital sensors and mirrors. Also Kodak had numerous consumer digital cameras, printers as well as picture frames. Does that sound like a "relentless focus" to you??

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Believe what you wish and we can let the passage of time (and the desire for business growth at companies other than just Apple) prove this out... or not.
It's not matter of "believe". It's backing up what you believe with sound reasoning and evidence. Many people on this thread have given you how TSMC differs from Samsung or LG but you keep refusing all the facts.
fertilized-egg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:29 PM   #60
hchung
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
First, I said nothing about TSMC leaving their existing business to enter the consumer business. No need inventing stuff to make a point sound better.
I said nothing about leaving their existing business. I said leaving their focus on semiconductor manufacturing; as in, trying to do unrelated stuff on the side such as consumer electronic devices. "No need inventing stuff to make a point sound better."

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
If I'm TSMC, I keep doing the profitable business I'm doing and am always looking for my own next big thing. Where can I grow beyond what I'm doing now? (NOT how can I get rid of my current business and become something else)

If I can see myself as a modest equivalent of Samsung's "parts" business, then Samsung may be a good proxy of a big competitor in terms of how I might expand my business. Maybe TSMC dreams of becoming the next Samsung by looking at what they have that is similar to what Samsung has and where else Samsung is that they are not? Competitive analysis to drive business growth is a fundamental of strategic planning. What "we" are doing that is like Samsung is working well; what else is Samsung doing that we could do?
Except TSMC isn't "a modest equivalent of Samsung's "parts" business".
Samsung's semiconductor business has two different parts.
One is the manufacturing. That's TSMC's game, where with the exception of Intel, they're top of the world.
The other is chip design, which is what all of TSMC's clients (and Samsung's competititors) do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Second, if it is indeed "A field which is also extremely hard to enter successfully. A field which is also extremely expensive and risky to expand in" they should be able to have some security in their deals with partners like Apple so that they could take some risk in growing beyond what they do now. If it is as hard and expensive to enter successfully as you imply, where's Apple going to go (back to Samsung)?
TSMC's already got security. They control their expansion of fabs, which are of higher demand than clients. They turned down exclusivity deals on existing fabs with Qualcomm and Apple already, if you haven't read. If Apple or Qualcomm want guaranteed production capacity, Apple and/or Qualcomm will have to either take the existing deal like everybody else, or help fund the costs of a new factory, therefore taking on the expansion risks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Third: "If their business leaders were dumb enough to defocus," Would "dumb" apply to Apple before Apple launched iPod? How about iPhone? In both of those, Apple had to "defocus" to try some new strategic thrusts. But let me guess, that was "different" because it was closer to their core business than TSMC and other partners defocusing from say- making the crucial guts of technology to putting those guts in a metal case with a glass front and using a free OS... just like Samsung. You know the case and the glass is not the hard or complicated parts to source and/or make.
I was one of the first people who as soon as the iPod launched, thought they were nuts.
But given that they were in a shaky market position, and had to change, it turned out to be worth it.

But yes, going from exclusively semicon manufacturing to consumer electronics is significantly farther in core competencies than from large computer to small computer, especially given that the iPod wasn't even close to being Apple's first portable electronics device.
I'd assume you have no electrical engineering experience, or else you'd know this.

Furthermore, cases and glass are deceptively difficult.
Prior to the iPhone, there was no source for Gorilla Glass, and no mass manufacturing method for cutting/shaping it.
You should read up on why the unibody macs were significant. And how Gorilla Glass works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Intel is apparently defocusing in trying to enter the consumer TV hub business soon. But that can't possibly happen because a chip maker would never try to break into some new business opportunities in the consumer products space. Let me guess: that's different too.
Intel is a different story.
Intel faces several problems:
1) Shift to ARM slowly kills their cash cow. Both in terms of developer expertise and demand. Intel knows this because it's been their tactic for the last several decades. Now they're on the receiving end of it.
2) Semicon process manufacturing r/d is slowing down because it's simply harder. So they know it'll be hard to maintain their gap over other foundries. If they were simply a foundry, not a big deal. The problem here is that that's how they've maintained an advantage over AMD, and that advantage is extremely important for getting Atom to be somewhat competitive to ARM in terms of power efficiency.

Intel isn't actually trying to enter the consumer TV service business. They're trying to develop a base platform they can sell to tv service companies in order to ensure people still keep buying Intel chips. Just like their smartphone initiatives.

With that said, Intel's also known for making some pretty dumb marketing-driven-engineering decisions.

When will TSMC face this sort of problem you might ask?
1) If other foundries catch up in production capacity, it'll be harder to maintain clients.
2) If a breakthrough new integrated electronics manufacturing technique is pioneered, which is cheaper than silicon and more performant.
If these happen, then it's time to diversify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Google was just search. It would make no sense for a search-focused company to get into the mobile phone OS space... especially if they were going to give away that OS for free, right? How about cars that drive themselves? Solar panels? Cable TV subscriptions via fiber?
Google's product is eyeballs. Everything else is an overall money sink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Kodak stuck with what they considered their core- the film business. And where did that relentless focus get them?
Like I said above, if a breakthrough new integrated electronics manufacturing technique is pioneered. And TSMC ignores it. Then it's a Kodak (business) moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
Nevertheless, I give here (for now). Clearly, we wish to celebrate Apple sticking it to Samsung for "ripping off" Apple's ideas and becoming a copycat competitor while at the same time finding it practically offensive/impossible/etc that any other Asian company partner might try to do the same. Samsung has done very well with that "strategy" and it makes perfect sense (apparently only to me) that other companies might look at Samsung's success doing exactly that and think about whether they could take a shot at doing something similar too.

Believe what you wish and we can let the passage of time (and the desire for business growth at companies other than just Apple) prove this out... or not.
And I counter with: LG has not done very well with that "strategy". So you can't expect that to be a certainly reasonable direction for any company to go.
hchung is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 05:32 PM   #61
name99
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio View Post
Try this on for size

Apple still needs Samsung.

At this point tsmc cannot produce enough chips.
Maybe, maybe not.
Apple has, over the past few years, showing a remarkable willingness to finance the expansion of plant and tools of its suppliers (subject, of course, to various covenants about who owns the improvements, and how they can be used). For all we know, Apple has helped TSMC build a complete new fab line, and has grand plans for how it might be used, but those plans include restrictions like it only gets used to make Apple's chips, and the very latest Broadcom and Qualcomm chips (which will only be sold to Apple, not on the open market).
name99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 10:22 PM   #62
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
TSMC will have no difficulty keeping up with the demand for Apple chips. They have more than enough capacity for millions of devices a week.
thewitt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 10:45 PM   #63
MaxUlysses
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
TSMC and A6X, A7 definitely

if you someone can read TAIWANESE (Chinese Traditional)

There is a good & detail article below...

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail....&last=40972875
MaxUlysses is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 11:06 PM   #64
MaxUlysses
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
TSMC enter the consumer business ?

TSMC enter the consumer business ?

From my view been a Local person here (in TAIWAN)

Simply not, and unnecessary

Simply not the type of of TSMC' CEO (Morris Chang)

He is a visionary person with sense of obligation and justice
MaxUlysses is offline   0 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's A8 Chip Production for iPhone 6 Underway at TSMC MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 119 Apr 30, 2014 01:51 PM
Apple to Begin Production of Next iPhone This Quarter, Summer Launch Possible MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 109 Apr 8, 2013 05:28 AM
Apple Shifting to TSMC for A-Series Chip Production Earlier Than Expected? MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 65 Jan 2, 2013 03:07 AM
Apple to Begin Trial Production of iPhone 5S for Earlier Than Expected Launch? nizmoz iPhone 9 Nov 13, 2012 01:21 AM
Apple Unsuccessfully Tried to Purchase Exclusive Access to TSMC Chip Production for iOS Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 134 Sep 5, 2012 11:48 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 AM.

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

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