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.
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.
Apple May Be Shifting Back to Samsung for Future Display Production
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
And those people who are boycotting Samsung. They will have no choice but to boycott Apple too.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 Displays 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.
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.
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.