Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Agrees to 100% Price Hike on Samsung Memory Chips

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


Apple has agreed to pay Samsung twice as much for the LPDDR5X memory chips that it needs for ongoing iPhone 17 production, claims a report from Korean outlet Dealsite.

iPhone-Chips.jpg

According to the report's sources, Apple recently held emergency meetings with Samsung's semiconductor division to negotiate delivery volumes of RAM for the first half of this year. The 12GB LPDDR5X modules used in the iPhone Air and iPhone 17 Pro have already roughly doubled in price since early 2025, rising from around $30 to approximately $70.

Samsung is said to have originally planned to push for a 60% price increase on LPDDR5X modules supplied to Apple. Instead, however, Samsung opened with a 100% markup as a negotiating tactic – and Apple apparently accepted it on the spot.

If the publication's industry sources are accurate, Apple's immediate acceptance just goes to show how desperate smartphone makers have become to lock down memory supply. Chipmakers like SK Hynix and Micron have been redirecting production capacity toward high-bandwidth memory (HBM) for AI servers, and that has left mobile DRAM in extremely short supply.

Samsung's own mobile division isn't immune to the squeeze, either. The same report says initial Galaxy S26 production is using a 50/50 split of LPDDR5X from Samsung's semiconductor division and Micron, with both suppliers planning steep price increases after the first batch. Samsung is expected to raise Galaxy S26 pricing partly in response, while attempting to offset costs by using its in-house Exynos 2600 chip in roughly 30% of units.

Despite the cost pressure, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo recently said Apple's current plan is to keep iPhone 18 Pro starting prices flat. On a recent earnings call, Apple CEO Tim Cook acknowledged that rising chip prices would have "a bit more of an impact" on gross margins, but the company still expects year-on-year revenue growth of 13% to 16% this quarter.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly Agrees to 100% Price Hike on Samsung Memory Chips
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/26/apple-agrees-100-price-hike-samsung-ram/
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Premium1, Z-4195, It’s always something and 1 other person
I suspect that one thing this tells us is that Samsung could have gone higher... but their people apparently didn't realize that. Prior to negotiations, Apple had obviously already done their own internal analysis of how much of a price increase they could sustain, and when Samsung came at them with a number lower than that threshold... it abruptly became a very short conversation.

This is of course still technically a "win" for Samsung... but perhaps not nearly as much of a win as they could have realized, if they had done a better job on their homework up front. And that makes it also a win for Apple.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: clg82, Yrmmont, TheBeverage and 11 others
As if Apple’s memory upgrades don’t cost enough already…

Jokes aside, I understand that memory is in a tight place right now. Apple probably could have negotiated a lower price, but with the scarcity of memory at the moment, I assume the time and risk wasn’t worth it. Will definitely be interesting to see how this impacts pricing on the Apple lineup overall.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: technole and Big_D
zarmanto said:
I suspect that one thing this tells us is that Samsung could have gone higher... but their people apparently didn't realize that. Prior to negotiations, Apple had obviously already done their own internal analysis of how much of a price increase they could sustain, and when Samsung came at them with a number lower than that threshold... it abruptly became a very short conversation.

This is of course still technically a "win" for Samsung... but perhaps not nearly as much of a win as they could have realized, if they had done a better job on their homework up front. And that makes it also a win for Apple.
Click to expand...
It's also about keeping long term customers and Apple is a large customer. Nvidia is their other large customer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocMultimedia and Silencio
tyranne201 said:
Tim Cook cares about company revenue

Steve Jobs cared about quality products
Click to expand...
Tim Cook and current Apple is also the product of Steve Jobs. He hand picked Tim Cook to hire, recruited him and he hand selected him as his replacement. If Steve Jobs was such a tremendous decision maker then you had to reconcile that with picking Tim Cook.

Steve also evolved his priorities over time. Pre NeXT Steve was different than post NeXT Steve. Stop idolizing one man. I disagree with Tim on a lot but it’s bc that individual decision was something i disagreed with not bc “Steve wouldn’t do that”.

How do I know what he would have done? If he’s so predictable then he’s not special anyone can be Steve if everyone knows what he would do in a given situation.

Frankly Procurement and Operations were Tim Cook’s thing and Steve likely would have gone along with this same decision from Tim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rettro, savantgk3, Seoras and 8 others
iBluetooth said:
It's also about keeping long term customers and Apple is a large customer. Nvidia is their other large customer.
Click to expand...
Ram prices go up and down. It’s high now by with Chinese manufacturers entering the fray and perhaps everyone buying up what they need ahead of time prices could again collapse in a year or two (which happened before in cycles). Having a high volume customer like Apple reliable and consistently use your product is more valuable than a big lump sum in the short term.

Remember they’re also using Samsung for displaces and storage and a bunch of other things if you screw them over in ram where Apple is stuck, Apple can dump you in Screens and go to LG etc. plus these ppl know each other and maybe like each other.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Art Mark, technole, Agit21 and 1 other person
Nyx1 said:
Apple should make own foundry fabs but cook does not have vision for Apple long term hope John Ternus solve this problem
Click to expand...
Why? What would apple do better? Even wafers are more expensive, and it is a huge investment where it wouldn't be clear what the benefit is until these extreme conditions.
And even these conditions, Apple doesn't really need to care.
 
There is a dramatic irony here in that we, the average consumer for whom all this investment is supposed to ultimately benefit, are going to pay increases in costs caused by the investment in a technology that will replace vast swaths of people and for which we are suppose to pay pretty high prices to use as part of our daily life. I am not sure I see a win here except for the people in the middle who are bleeding off vast amounts of money so they can do what with it? Oh buy those ever increasing price products. Sounds like an unstable positive feedback loop. Somethimg has to give.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artifex, AstonSmith, dynamojoe and 2 others
lets be honest Apple had to accept it, the ram companies are ripping up contracts and renegotiating with all consumers. even networking equipment etc. and RAM is already sold out for FY26 into 27. its insane. any company has to take it, Cisco, Apple, etc, etc,etc

AI is taking all the RAM and HDD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back