Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Karma is great. Two years ago Samsung paid 538M to Apple in design copycat settlement. Now they get that money back and $400M on top.

In a way, Samsung does not get the money back from Apple. Apple pay to Samsung SDI/Display not to Samsung Electronics.

Samsung SDI/Display is a separate subsidiary, but Samsung Electronic/Samsung Group owns Samsung SDI/Display
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious how this can be only OLED. The only Apple devices with OLED are iPhone 11 Pro, Pro Max, and apple watch. I think the watch is produced by a different manufactured. So at $950M, if the screens cost $200 each, that would mean Apple was 4.75M short of sales. But wouldn't Apple be better off simply buying those extra screens and having them in inventory? So perhaps instead of paying full price for reduced orders, Apple pays a fraction of the price of the screen as a penalty. That would mean that Apple was likely 9-12M phones short.

Read my reply above. And the screen cost less than a $100. So in unit volume it is a lot more.
 
Apple addressed those issues with iPhone trade-in promotions ...

Anybody here know the significance of that ?

NO ONE on Wall Street has yet figured it out !
[automerge]1594670425[/automerge]
Read my reply above. And the screen cost less than a $100. So in unit volume it is a lot more.

I believe AAPL pays ~$65 per screen (the benefit of a very large order).
 
Even if Apple in-houses its displays. it will still outsource the manufacturing. For example. The A-13 bionic is designed by Apple and manufactured by TSMC. TSMC can never sell that chip to anyone else. It is an Apple designed, Apple patented technology. But TSMC manufacturers it. In a way Apple's displays are already in-house. Even if Samsung or LG manufacturers them, Apple displays have certain color reproduction qualities and technologies that are never there in the manufacturer's own consumer products.

This is incorrect. Apple has a certain bar they want manufacturers to meet. Manufacturers have to use their own technology to reach Apple's bar.
 
I’m intrigued how the mind of a Samsung fan works, please explain how this will benefit you. 😂

Im not a Samsung fan (but a Samsung phone owner presently), but clearly receiving $950M is better than not receiving it and perhaps that money can be invested in R&D which might otherwise not have taken place...perhaps into better OLED displays to fit to Samsung phones in the future? Are really that intrigued?
 
  • Like
Reactions: V_Man
That's false, go to Best Buy and you will see the difference between an iPhone 11 with LCD and an iPhone 11 Pro with OLED. The difference is night and day. OLED makes you want to use the phone, it isn't boring.

I recently upgraded from a LCD iPhone to a OLED one. While the blacker blacks are nice, I didn't notice any dramatic improvements over what I had previously. I personally wouldn't mind going back to a LCD phone if I find a good option down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
Im not a Samsung fan (but a Samsung phone owner presently), but clearly receiving $950M is better than not receiving it and perhaps that money can be invested in R&D which might otherwise not have taken place...perhaps into better OLED displays to fit to Samsung phones in the future? Are really that intrigued?

It’s more likely that they budgeted for a certain minimum amount of revenue from Apple, which they’ve only met thanks to this payment. They’re still in a worse position than they would have been without the pandemic hurting sales, so there’s little chance of them ramping up R&D spending. The original glib comment doesn’t really make any sense - neither Samesung nor Apple is “winning” in this situation.
 
It was $950 million. The estimated cost of each iPhone X panel is $110. Or roughly 8.6 million display panels. Apple sold about 60 million iPhone X during the 10 month period between 2017-2018.

$5 billion is way off the mark. That would be 45 million units of iPhone X panels.

That seems crazy to pay it that way then.
Thanks for better numbers, that's why I used the word "guess" a few times there...
 
It never ceases to amaze me how many “experts” the Internet has.

So many of them this thread saying that Apple should have done this or that or the other thing.

I’m sure the legal and commercial minds at the one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies know more about negotiating a multi-billion dollar contract than the vast majority of the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickgovier
I wonder how many people refuse to use the iPad Pro because the LCD is "boring."

Not saying its boring, its just that you have an option with the iPhone, so not taking the latter would be boring. You however don't have a choice with the iPad Pro, which brings me to my next point: Taking an iPad Air over a iPad Pro would be boring since the air is 60 HZ versus the Pro's 120 HZ.

Your point is invalid for that reason. The higher end will always be more interesting and fun.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: nickgovier
Genuinely surprised there was no clause in there for circumstances so dire they could affect sales. For example, why didn't it say, "We will buy XXXXX panels for sure, otherwise we'll pay you a penalty of XXXXX no doubt, unless of course there's a global pandemic or something that causes us not to need so many. I mean, let's be real here..." lol

I mean...isn't that what some insurances do???
 
It's crazy that Apple entered into a contract to either pay for buying the panels...or pay for not buying the panels.

Seems like it'd make a lot more sense to buy the panels either way, and just use them as needed. They'll be selling iPhone XS, XS Max, 11 Pro, etc. for years to come. Might as well spend the money on something tangible that you can eventually make your money back on.
I would be more than curious to indeed understand how this works.

I mean, does even Apple pay that Billion dollars and receives back a billion dollar worth of screen panels?

If someone in the know has any insight, I’m all ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist
Genuinely surprised there was no clause in there for circumstances so dire they could affect sales. For example, why didn't it say, "We will buy XXXXX panels for sure, otherwise we'll pay you a penalty of XXXXX no doubt, unless of course there's a global pandemic or something that causes us not to need so many. I mean, let's be real here..." lol

I mean...isn't that what some insurances do???


From Samsung’s POV, they received an order to make X displays, they want assurance that Apple will purchase X displays. What Apple does with them is not Samsung’s business.

Such a clause would probably serve to increase the cost per display, since there is now a chance that Apple won’t have to buy anything, and this will simply be factored into the final price.
 
I think Apple really messed up when they switched to OLED. I think they could've stuck with LCDs, because not many people would say OLEDs look different from LCDs. It's just too expensive for little benefit.

You really wanna be stuck on LCD over OLED? Oh my...
 
I would be more than curious to indeed understand how this works.

I mean, does even Apple pay that Billion dollars and receives back a billion dollar worth of screen panels?

If someone in the know has any insight, I’m all ears.

I suspect Apple may not want to have anything to do with those displays. They don’t need the extra supply right now, and storing those displays in a warehouse somewhere just ends up incurring extra costs. Apple is just going to write it off as an added expense and move on.
 
Quality 10bit LCDs are more expensive than OLED, that's the whole point why manufacturers have switched to OLED. It gives them better image than run of the mill LCD for lesser cost than high end LCD and it's better for overall packaging cause they are thinner and have less components.

Everything else such as OLED battery savings, peak brightness is nothing but marketing talk. Pentile OLED has less subpixels and bigger gap between subpixels than RGBW LCD so they are not even comparable in resolution. It takes Sony Xperia 1 II "4K" Pentile OLED panel to properly display 1080p with all of it's RGB.

Mobile panels don't get any better than Sharp's IGZO but they are super pricey and thus why they are only available on Sharp's flaghsips.

Hardly anyone has 10 bit monitors. Generally only graphic designers because they are so expensive. No phone would ever go to 10bit LCD. Makes zero sense.
[automerge]1594678928[/automerge]
I think that's their plan for microLED, but ultimately they will want to in-house very component.

MicroLED blacks still isn't better then OLED. It does get brighter though.
 
I would be more than curious to indeed understand how this works.

I mean, does even Apple pay that Billion dollars and receives back a billion dollar worth of screen panels?

If someone in the know has any insight, I’m all ears.

So this sort of production line require massive amount of setup and tooling etc. So Orders Clauses are used all the time.

All Rough Estimates and figures here on out.

Ok So say they were Contracted to buy $12B of screens say 200 Million screens

Samsung will have geared up to produce that many over time. Supply chain in place, people, Factories, Transport etc. To be made and delivered week by week.

Apple Targets are low ( Say 150 million ) they only need so lower the order triggering the under order clause where they probably pay about 25% on the under delivery which would be about $950 Million of the $4 Billion

Note - the displays will not have been made yet. Apple are all about Just in time production. So no warehousing of parts. 100K Screens are delivered at beginning of week 1 to Foxconn and 100K iPhones Plop out full made and boxed at the end of week one.

The Negative - Obvs Losing $950 Million.
The Positive - Save $3 Billion Dollars.

The Alternative Pay the Full amount - Warehouse 50 Million screens with Associated Transport / Storage / Security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
A $1B windfall of money that they didn't have to lift a finger to pursue. That's more money for their R&D, marketing, talent acquisition, etc. Shareholders and consumers will benefit greatly.
It's more a compensation for lost profits and investments to meet that high target, it could well be a zero-sum game for Samsung.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
It's crazy that Apple entered into a contract to either pay for buying the panels...or pay for not buying the panels. Seems like it'd make a lot more sense to buy the panels either way, and just use them as needed.

Apple likely has an annual purchasing quota, so buying more than they need this year would just mean they'd have too many panels on order next year unless they saw an increase in iPhone sales to cover the excess. This is unlikely considering how iPhone sales have generally stabilized (and there would also be all the other components Apple would need to make those phones beyond just the panels).


I think Apple really messed up when they switched to OLED. I think they could've stuck with LCDs, because not many people would say OLEDs look different from LCDs. It's just too expensive for little benefit.

If they had used LCD instead of OLED, the "spec hounds" would be baying all over this forum how the iPhone X / 11 / 12 was "crap". :rolleyes:


Apple has a certain bar they want manufacturers to meet. Manufacturers have to use their own technology to reach Apple's bar.

Pretty much.

Apple uses their own optimization of Samsung's panels through a proprietary precision display calibration. The result is the best OLED smartphone panels available and they are exclusive to Apple. Hence why Apple and Samsung have this minimum purchase clause.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.