Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
TSMC would gladly sell their production capacity to Samsung for the same price, I'm sure.
Not likely that TSMC would purposely, let alone "gladly," give up its biggest most stable customer for a different customer that has a long history sourcing production capacity elsewhere.
 
Apple says no problem we will just increase the cost of our phones
Except that anyone who actually thinks realizes that "just increase the cost of our phones" is not as simple as folks who do not think may believe. Because just increase the cost of our phones has impacts all the way back the supply chain, duh. Higher phone prices usu mean lesser unit sales which means less component sales all the way back the supply chain, duh. Less component sales means less economies of scale all the way back the supply chain, duh. Less economies of scale all the way back the supply chain means everyone makes less profit, duh.

So yes, it is a problem for all.
 
How do you figure that? The price a firm charges for goods and services has zero to do with how much they pay for materials and labor. So long as cost does not exceed revenue they will set the price to maximize profit, period. If they could charge more they would be doing it right now. If their cost goes up and consumers aren't willing to pay more then they'll have to dip into their ample profit margin or throw in the towell.

Apple adds a fixed percentage on top of COGS (cost of goods sold) to hit their expected GPM (gross profit margin). For Apple it's currently around 40%.

It's the way corporations, large and small, work.
 
TSMC asked for merely 3% raises while the inflation rate is over 8%, what a bargain for Apple
 
Apple adds a fixed percentage on top of COGS (cost of goods sold) to hit their expected GPM (gross profit margin). For Apple it's currently around 40%.

It's the way corporations, large and small, work.

Right, but it's the "currently at" portion that needs evaluated. It's at that point because that's where Apple has determined profit is maximized. Let me ask you this, would you pay $3,000 for an iPhone? Maybe but how many people would be willing to pay that much? My point is that people have a limit and how many sales they loose for each price increase directly affects profit. Charging more may not be the point where that happens.
 
Right, but it's the "currently at" portion that needs evaluated. It's at that point because that's where Apple has determined profit is maximized. Let me ask you this, would you pay $3,000 for an iPhone? Maybe but how many people would be willing to pay that much? My point is that people have a limit and how many sales they loose for each price increase directly affects profit. Charging more may not be the point where that happens.

For Apple to all of a sudden charge $3,000 for an iPhone tomorrow, Apple's iPhone COGS (materials, labor, freight, etc) would have to instantaneously more than double.

That's not likely. And because Apple materials purchasing and manufacturing managers are shrewd, Apple competitors who buy similar materials and manufacturing services to manufacture their phones, will be subject to the same increases on COGS. Apple phone competitors will thus need to meet their wall street-expected GPM and will need to increase their prices to around $3,000 for an equivalent phone. Would there be pushback from customers? Sure. But that would be the same with Apple phone competitors.

Not a likely scenario, but that's what would need to happen.


"Maybe but how many people would be willing to pay that much?"

Likely far less than now. Apple would need to reevaluate the viability of that market, and come up with other solutions (better technology, more efficient manufacturing, etc) to drive down COGS. As would Apple competitors.
 
Apple will just pass on the cost to Apple fans.
Like you? I assume you're an Apple fan since you frequent this website designed for Apple fans.

You're correct that Apple customers will have this cost passed onto them, just like any business would.
 
TSMC is a single source. As far as Apple is concerned, they are a monopoly with pricing power. If Apple wants pricing power back they will have to develop a new source capable of achieving the semiconductor manufacturing process capabilities that, right now, only TSMC can achieve.
 
If they switch to 3mn they will get a larger yield of chips per wafer. It's possible it will still be cheaper for apple to make chips with a 3nm process even if TSMC charges 3-5% more per 12" wafer. It just won't be as steep of a discount that Apple was hoping to get due to the larger yield. Smoke and mirrors!
 
  • Like
Reactions: haddy
As if Apple had a choice.

"No, we [Apple] will not pay you those high prices. We will take our business elsewhere." 🤣
Samsung supposedly has made great strides with 3nm and Intel has aggressive plans for their fab business. My guess is Apple is keeping their options open.
 
We are going to see the model branding "ultra" a lot more often in the future from Apple, that's my bet.. 😱
Hopefully not "ultra plus"...lol.
 
Suppliers are going to have a field day with "The Blevinator" off collecting race cars, playing golf and fondling large breasted women... his dental plan is gone though. 🤭
 
And with contingencies, for example: a certain minimum baseline quantity prix fixe, more units ? get a discount on those, less? more $ per unit, failure of supplier to fulfill base contract for quantity/quality? huge penalties or breach of contract lawsuit
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.