Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's the same situation with semiconductors: quantity plus quality is very difficult to achieve. Plenty of companies can deliver one or the other, but at any given time there's usually only one capable of providing both--sometimes even none. Most companies when faced with this dilemma go with shipping quantity, but Apple's at least trying to preserve their business model of both. But the allure of substituting cheaper, inferior parts is a strong one.
 
Panasonic has the best tvs in the world.they have been the benchmark in plasmas for the last 4 years and have won back to back ces awards for there plasmas.

the new zt 60 is the best tv in the world right now and on the back Panasonic gladly writes beyond reference as last years vt 50 was tested and ranked the leader and set the bench for others to follow.for the past 3 years the vt seriers have been the benchmark and caused samsung to lower its price of there flagship model by 5 grand as the vts were cheaper.

The new zt 60 is hand built and you get the guys name that built your tv on a plaque behind it with big letters saying beyond reference.

I laughed so hard when you said sammy has a better tv when its well known that pannyvl with there kuru technology is the leader.

panny bought kuro tech from pioneer and has taken off where they left off.

this is the best tv you can buy right now,hand built and very limited quantities!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdqYAgjEq7g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Read post #71 :)
Not saying Panasonic plasma is bad but Samsung display ain't no slouch either

And yeah before we went off topic too far with plasma discussion (which wasn't my intend with the original post) you might wanna discuss about this somewhere else
 
Sorry - are we talking about iPhones or Plasma TVs. I thought this thread was about iPhone screens. Maybe we should get back to discussion screen qualities of the device in question?

Samsung and panny both make screens and he claims sansung is the best.apple could easily make a deal with panny for a new and better screen but they would never meet apples demand.
 
Could Samsung be petty and refuse to deal with Apple? Could cause Apple some problems at a time that Samsung's phones are outselling Apple's.
 
Could Samsung be pretty and refuse to deal with Apple? Could cause Apple some problems at a time that Samsung's phones are outselling Apple's.

Thankfully, this is not grade school and samsung knows that apple makes them money..
 
Read post #71 :)
Not saying Panasonic plasma is bad but Samsung display ain't no slouch either

And yeah before we went off topic too far with plasma discussion (which wasn't my intend with the original post) you might wanna discuss about this somewhere else

how are you a plasma guy and not know about the vt and the new zt models.

not trying to take this any more off topic but if you are a plasma guy you have no clue what a real tv is about.Does your sammy even allow full calibration with calman?

I dont see any samsung plasmas even close to the kuru 600 and panny put there screen right next to each other at ces and had them both professionaly calibrated.

it takes a lot of ballzs to do that as everyone but you knows that that last kuru that pioneer built is or was the best tv for the last 5 years and is the reason panny put byond reference on the new zt

a plasma guy rocking a sammy lol ill give it to there lcds but cmon everyone knows sammy cant compete with panny in plasmas.
 
Last edited:
It's best to avoid giving business to your competitors whenever possible, but if there are no comparable manufacturers, then that's that. As long as they don't give Samsung something that can be copied...
 
Roughly translated: Apple cut Samsung out of its display road map which gave them a far better position to bargain for future contracts with Samsung. I like Cooks style he operates the supply chain like a well played game of chess.

If by roughly translated you mean that you're going to twist the scenario around as much as you can to make it look like Apple is almighty... However it's more likely that Apple wanted to go their own way and found themselves unable to do so

Seriously. This is especially with reports surfacing that Apple's having a hard time squeezing lower prices from its own suppliers as Samsung pushes them aside in negotiations.

The part that's sad about fanboys is they're willing to delude themselves to believe anything but the inconvenient truth, even when the facts suggest otherwise.

What a sad world we live in when we regularly bash the religious for being fanatics.
 
Before Apple started to migrate display provision away from Samsung no other manufacturer was in a position to provide the quantities needed by Apple. Now there is LG and Sharp in a position to supply large volumes which puts Apple in a better position (quality issues aside) as there are now others that can provide competition at required volumes. In this respect there is now actual competition for contracts of this size which puts Apple in a stronger position and reduces the risk of total reliance in a single supplier. Apple can now drive a harder bargain as it now has other suppliers and Samsung has lost its leverage of being the only game in town at this supply level.

As you say, ultimately it is the consumer that benefits from all of this as competition brings more innovation, reduced cost and better end product.

Competition doesn't play into this when you're the leader in tech that a buyer wants. Again - Apple didn't gain any leverage. If anything - they lost it and/or have the same "leverage" they had before. If Apple goes back to Samsung - it's because the other suppliers aren't equipped. Do you think Samsung will just ignore the reality of the situation?

Let me put it another way. I make great lemonade. I charge you - a regular customer 25 cents a cup. Other people are making lemonade - they charge about the same - but it's not what you like or prefer. But you say - eh - you know what - I don't want to buy all my lemonade from you - I'm going to another guy. And you do. I keep on selling my lemonade. Now you come back to me and say - Hey - the other lemonade could quench my thirst - but it's not the best on the block. Yours is - how about you sell me your lemonade again. And oh - yeah - I want it for less than I used to pay.

That's what you imply Apple "can" do? No. They can may the same price. Or if I know you won't go anywhere else - I can charge you 30 cents now. No harm no foul. I either get more money from business I had already not counted on - or I maintain my status quo.


I'm amazed at the lengths people are going to try to make Apple look like the winner here. Do people ignore facts these days?

LG and Sharp simply do NOT compare to Samsung when it comes to providing panels in large quantities. If Samsung at one point was able to exercise a clause in the contract granting them a 20% price raise with Apple being able to do nothing about it at...and if Apple couldn't ask LG and Sharp to make more displays at the same or lower prices and had to return to its own competitor for supplies...yeah.

That doesn't look good. That looks bad. Now that their margins are eroding, there's more of an incentive than ever to keep its component prices low.
 
Seriously. This is especially with reports surfacing that Apple's having a hard time squeezing lower prices from its own suppliers as Samsung pushes them aside in negotiations.

The part that's sad about fanboys is they're willing to delude themselves to believe anything but the inconvenient truth, even when the facts suggest otherwise.

What a sad world we live in when we regularly bash the religious for being fanatics.

My point is, where no competition exists it is impossible to negotiate a better deal. Now that Apple has more than one supplier they have the option to do that. Think of it as a game of strategy, when Samsung had no real competition for the required volumes there was no reason for them to negotiate. Apple has helped other companies like Sharp ramp up production to usable quantities there by creating at least limited competition at this level. Now they have several suppliers to negotiate with and more than one supplier available should there be problems with production form any one of them. In time the other suppliers will sort out their production issues and be able to compete on level terms which is good news for everyone not just Apple as a potential monopoly in the display market will have been avoided.
 
After all that Samsung bashing by Apple, I would be surprised if Samsung would give them a really good deal. Apple is clearly hurting for a better screen, so why would Samsung help to improve its main competitor's product? It's a balance between losing business in the display front and gaining business on the phone.
 
Grabs the popcorn because you just know people are going to go ape over this and this thread will be fun to watch...

ETA: Especially those that insisted Apple didn't need Samsung...

And those people who are boycotting Samsung. They will have no choice but to boycott Apple too.
 
Why can't Apple just make the displays themselves? And assemble the phone themselves? Get rid of middle men which would get rid of the product leakers! Because they could have Cupertino-level secrecy in an Apple factory too!

Use their billions to make their own Apple factories!

It's way, WAY cheaper to outsource it.
 
My point is, where no competition exists it is impossible to negotiate a better deal. Now that Apple has more than one supplier they have the option to do that. Think of it as a game of strategy, when Samsung had no real competition for the required volumes there was no reason for them to negotiate. Apple has helped other companies like Sharp ramp up production to usable quantities there by creating at least limited competition at this level. Now they have several suppliers to negotiate with and more than one supplier available should there be problems with production form any one of them. In time the other suppliers will sort out their production issues and be able to compete on level terms which is good news for everyone not just Apple as a potential monopoly in the display market will have been avoided.

So you're saying if one company has a monopoly - they can't negotiate? And the PURCHASER has the upper hand?

I'm not sure you could be more wrong with your logic.

ETA: Wait. Perhaps I misread your statement. (The part in bold). In a monopoly - you can't really negotiate. You then say there's competition. But the problem (still) with your logic is that the competition isn't competition if the purchaser (only) wants your product and not the competition.
 
I'm amazed at the lengths people are going to try to make Apple look like the winner here. Do people ignore facts these days?

LG and Sharp simply do NOT compare to Samsung when it comes to providing panels in large quantities. If Samsung at one point was able to exercise a clause in the contract granting them a 20% price raise with Apple being able to do nothing about it at...and if Apple couldn't ask LG and Sharp to make more displays at the same or lower prices and had to return to its own competitor for supplies...yeah.

That doesn't look good. That looks bad. Now that their margins are eroding, there's more of an incentive than ever to keep its component prices low.

But this destroys your own argument. Apple were in a situation where there were no other supplies capable of providing the quantities Apple required. This is a bad situation for any business to be in as it is a high risk. So Apple diversify their suppliers and in doing so help other suppliers get to a point where they can supply at those quantities. Now Apple can negotiate on a basis of Samsung no longer being a monopoly for the quantities Apple require and no longer have to rely on Samsung 100% for their supply. This would be a good strategic move for any business supply chain. Now if Samsung raise the price by 20% Apple can at least move a significant quantity to other suppliers where as before they were stuck.
 
But this destroys your own argument. Apple were in a situation where there were no other supplies capable of providing the quantities Apple required. This is a bad situation for any business to be in as it is a high risk. So Apple diversify their suppliers and in doing so help other suppliers get to a point where they can supply at those quantities. Now Apple can negotiate on a basis of Samsung no longer being a monopoly for the quantities Apple require and no longer have to rely on Samsung 100% for their supply. This would be a good strategic move for any business supply chain. Now if Samsung raise the price by 20% Apple can at least move a significant quantity to other suppliers where as before they were stuck.

But by being so obvious about "leaving" Samsung and then coming back - Samsung KNOWS that Apple needs them. So what advantage does Apple has. Sure Apple can go elsewhere. But not if they live by their core values in providing the best.

There's always been an option. Apple could have had others make their screens and suffered great delays. That's still a choice. They chose to not go that route.
 
So you're saying if one company has a monopoly - they can't negotiate? And the PURCHASER has the upper hand?

I'm not sure you could be more wrong with your logic.

ETA: Wait. Perhaps I misread your statement. (The part in bold). In a monopoly - you can't really negotiate. You then say there's competition. But the problem (still) with your logic is that the competition isn't competition if the purchaser (only) wants your product and not the competition.

No, I am saying that there was no competition before Apple started moving to other suppliers because none of them could provide the necessary volumes. That has now changed. If there is a monopoly the suppler has no reason to negotiate, that was my point. Apple did not want to be reliant on only Samsung to supply their displays so they helped others to ramp up their production to levels where they could supply significant parts of Apples requirements. Now Apple have multiple suppliers they reduced risk of any one supplier being able to force price increases or not being able to supply required quantities for any reason.
 
Roughly translated: Apple cut Samsung out of its display road map which gave them a far better position to bargain for future contracts with Samsung. I like Cooks style he operates the supply chain like a well played game of chess.

None of us have seen the new contracts. But if Apple contacted Samsung, I doubt that they are better for Apple than the previous ones.

Also, Samsung is having amazing growth right now, most likely a time will come when Samsung will start to demand things, if they already haven't.

I doubt Samsung will forget what Apple has done.

Edit: Apple has for a long time been able to demand things from carriers, manufacturers, etc. When and if Apple loses enough of its market share, those won't have forgotten past deals either.
 
Last edited:
No, I am saying that there was no competition before Apple started moving to other suppliers because none of them could provide the necessary volumes. That has now changed. If there is a monopoly the suppler has no reason to negotiate, that was my point. Apple did not want to be reliant on only Samsung to supply their displays so they helped others to ramp up their production to levels where they could supply significant parts of Apples requirements. Now Apple have multiple suppliers they reduced risk of any one supplier being able to force price increases or not being able to supply required quantities for any reason.

Again (and I'm repeating myself for the last time) if those other suppliers can't meet demands and/or have an inferior product - Apple is not in a better bargaining position. You keep trying to suggest they are. Yet everything rumored points to the opposite.
 
Samsung make good quality components, so good news for those of us who like the tech and don't take part in the politics/fanboyism.
 
Again (and I'm repeating myself for the last time) if those other suppliers can't meet demands and/or have an inferior product - Apple is not in a better bargaining position. You keep trying to suggest they are. Yet everything rumored points to the opposite.

But they have been able to meet demand for iPhone 5, iPad mini and half of iPad 4 so Apple can now balance supply between all their manufacturing partners including Samsung rather than be overly reliant on just one. Strategically from a supply chain perspective this is a huge benefit for Apple which was the crux of my argument. Cook has managed to balance supply across multiple sources rather than having to rely on only one. Which means in the future they can move demand between suppliers based on a range of factors rather than be forced to rely on a single supplier. This has not been an easy task given where the market was when this process started, with delays and quality issues, but it has now been more or less achieved. All this crap about Apple ditching Samsung has come from the rumour mill and the media who are just listening to the rumour mill and trying to sensationalise the story.
 
But they have been able to meet demand for iPhone 5, iPad mini and half of iPad 4 so Apple can now balance supply between all their manufacturing partners including Samsung rather than be overly reliant on just one. Strategically from a supply chain perspective this is a huge benefit for Apple which was the crux of my argument. Cook has managed to balance supply across multiple sources rather than having to rely on only one. Which means in the future they can move demand between suppliers based on a range of factors rather than be forced to rely on a single supplier. This has not been an easy task given where the market was when this process started, with delays and quality issues, but it has now been more or less achieved. All this crap about Apple ditching Samsung has come from the rumour mill and the media who are just listening to the rumour mill and trying to sensationalise the story.

From the original article here:
As the thin glass process was adopted to the production of touch screen panels, the related industry is expected to show stiff growth every year - there are very few Japanese or Taiwanese competitors in the thin glass market.

The industry is guessing that one of the reasons Apple decided to come back to Samsung Display is because of the thin glass. Samsung Display’s thin glass vendors have made a very visible growth in the industry, because Samsung Display, unlike LG Display, relies on its vendors for most of the thin glass processes.
 
But they have been able to meet demand for iPhone 5, iPad mini and half of iPad 4 so Apple can now balance supply between all their manufacturing partners including Samsung rather than be overly reliant on just one. Strategically from a supply chain perspective this is a huge benefit for Apple which was the crux of my argument. Cook has managed to balance supply across multiple sources rather than having to rely on only one. Which means in the future they can move demand between suppliers based on a range of factors rather than be forced to rely on a single supplier. This has not been an easy task given where the market was when this process started, with delays and quality issues, but it has now been more or less achieved. All this crap about Apple ditching Samsung has come from the rumour mill and the media who are just listening to the rumour mill and trying to sensationalise the story.

The idea of balancing supply isn't a very good one if one display is clearly inferior to the other.

Search for Apple LG panel class suit.
 
My point is, where no competition exists it is impossible to negotiate a better deal. Now that Apple has more than one supplier they have the option to do that. Think of it as a game of strategy, when Samsung had no real competition for the required volumes there was no reason for them to negotiate. Apple has helped other companies like Sharp ramp up production to usable quantities there by creating at least limited competition at this level. Now they have several suppliers to negotiate with and more than one supplier available should there be problems with production form any one of them. In time the other suppliers will sort out their production issues and be able to compete on level terms which is good news for everyone not just Apple as a potential monopoly in the display market will have been avoided.


Sharp has been a panel supplier for a decade if not even longer. I understand you're relying on this assumption that Sharp assembling panels is something new, but I hope you realize Samsung never had an exclusive monopoly on panel supply.

Believe it or not, the history of component manufacturing stretches back decades further than the year the iPhone was first released in 2007.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.