Say what you will about Shamesung consumer products but Samsung parts are top notch, get over your fanboy-ism people.
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 Reportedly Relying More Heavily on Samsung for iPhone 6 and Apple Watch Components
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And that will continue to be the question until Apple changes direction and starts to develop their own components rather than buying in everything.
The only thing "Apple" about the Apple products we buy is the design and the software. Everything else is off the shelf or modified components.
In this case, more likely:
Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
Sun Tzu
So perhaps no one else can make such components? I don't know much in that arena but it certainly seems to me that other companies are out there will chomp at the bit to start making such to get in some of that Apple cash.
The U.S. is about 18% of world manufacturing output, declining, and China about 18%, climbing. The difference is participation of the labor force to achieve that with low labor rates in the U.S. indicating higher productivity, and high labor rates in China indicating lower productivity, i.e., many more people are employed in China but the work leans towards assembly.
If you assume that productivity will continue the trend in the U.S., and that China is also increasing productivity, then there is continuation of the imbalance in trade that will make the U.S., Japan, and Europe less able to compete in manufacturing, and more dependent on lower paid service jobs, i.e., their is decreasing income for the middle and lower classes.
If Samsung stopped supplying Apple, their largest component vendor, Samsung would go down too.
FWIW, I love my 2011 MBA that has samsung screen.
I can see the difference quite easily between it and the LG screen on my dad's 2010 MBA and demo units
I can see the difference quite easily between it and the LG screen on my dad's 2010 MBA and demo units
it's no secret that samsung is the king of producing high quality components.
on my rMBP, i was blessed with a samsung screen and was relieved to not have any of the issues that everyone else was having with LG.
Because things such as the CPU are designed by Apple, and it won't (or at least shouldn't) appear in Samsung's products.
I always wondered that myself, but the fact CPU Apple's designs themselves that's not really a good handle to say "buy Apple products", since most components are from Samsung.
I would actually would what to know why Apple's chip is better in what way ? It's just a processor, there is no magic to any CPU, so what makes Apple's chip any different ?
Its more of the software than anything...
I would actually would what to know why Apple's chip is better in what way ? It's just a processor, there is no magic to any CPU, so what makes Apple's chip any different ?
Its more of the software than anything...
Samsung make the best components so the more Samsung components inside my Apple devices the better they will be.
The chips are quite different though. Apple uses the same ARM micro-architecture called Cyclone (2) but Apple tweaks the chips quite a bit. That, together with the GPU alterations and the iOS software makes the chips blazing fast. Apple A8 chips are not made by Samsung anymore but by TSMC.
But it's really simple. Apple probably is done with the development of the A9. And they just let different manufacturers bid on them to see who can make them the most reliable, biggest quantities and for sure the cheapest. The A9 might be made by Samsung again and a lot of reports seem to indicate to that point.
Oh: and Samsung can't just put the Apple chips in their products as they are heavily patented. 'Stealing' a design of a phone is one thing. Stealing a chip architecture is a complete different story which will cost you dearly.
Man, you truly have no clue? Bizarre for someone with Tech it their name...
- First the SOC is not just the processor, basically APPLE has integrated a ton of different system functions on it (1/2 the die is neither CPU nor GPU). The Apple SOC is basically a motherboard that tightly couples all functionalities. From a power, speed, costs and reliability perspective there are huge advantage to doing this.
- Secondly, the CPU part of the A8 (and A7) is so far away from the ARM reference design (which Apple is licensed to modify, unlike most others) that 64 bit chip that closely derive from the reference design from the like of Qualcom are just coming out 2 years after Apple heavily modified it. And, those chip are still not beating the A7 from last year.
- Thirdly, by putting the GPU and CPU on the same die, they can more tightly integrate them together (think APU). That's again what NOBODY is doing right now.
Basically, Apple has a big hardware advantage on all others, even Samsung. Samsung is the fab, they design the process that translate the design to silicon. They're good at that, but they are losing ground on actually designing their own chip.
The fact that Apple can customize their hardware so much and adapt their software to it makes it very hard for others to compete with it.
The reason they must use Samsung is simple. VOLUME. Apple needs so many components these days that there are very few manufacturers that can produce them in the quantity they want at the quality level they need.
----------
AMOLED still age quite a bit with time (color shift and other issues). That still a big obstacle to adoption of OLED in TV's (that and pricing). In phones its less of an issue since most people don't keep their phones beyond 2-3 years. But, the best AMOLED phone screens probably only really beat the best Apple LCD screen by a hair for the first year (looking at reviews); after that LCD durability wins.
Most of the issue you talk about of have little effect on the best modern LCD phones screens. Were not 2007 after all ;-).
Incredibly ironic, considering that the "40%" also is rumor, not based on any publicly announced Samsung prediction. Nevertheless you believed it so much you started a thread about it.
It's a good thing that Samsung isn't run by a vengeful CEO like Jobs was. Apple would be hurting if Samsung refused to sell to them.
Does anyone think that Apple would sell parts to Samsung, if the situation was reversed?
Apple also avoids all sorts of regulations and taxes by not being a manufacturer. And royalties based on price, as well.
For example, they reportedly set things up so that Qualcomm only gets radio IP royalties based on the ~$240 that Foxconn charges Apple for each iPhone.
If Apple instead paid on the actual retail price like other makers do, their royalty costs would almost triple.
Samsung is profitable on selling components to Apple to subsidize their own competing mobile divisions inability to be profitable?
Samsung is still quite profitable, just not as much as last year due to slowing sales.
Heck, Apple's iPad sales dropped over 50% in less than a year, but they're still profitable, and I doubt any of us think they need subsidization to survive.
They must've hired an older engineer
Sealing electronics in resin was really big back in the 1960s.
The WSJ statement was that Samsung had increased S5 production 20% over the S4, and that sales were ultimately 25% lower overall than the S4. That's probably where the 40% came from, and there was a statement that sales were down 50% in China from competition.
What is likely true as well is that Samsung sales and marketing could not repeat the massive advertising push that they had for the S4, or even the S3.
Samsung is in a "death spiral" of decreasing ASP for their mobile devices, and Samsung is also hamstrung by Android OS which gives little room to differentiate from the other OEM's. They still make a nice profit, but nowhere near the historic peak.
To paraphrase a comment on another forum, "there's plenty of room to bury the surplus in that landfill outside of Alamogordo".
No, no no. That's not what would happen at all. The phone might have to go up a small amount but the right way to deal with it would be for the obnoxious shareholders to take a little less profit in return for living wages and good jobs for the people. That's how it used to be in the USA, way back when. Instead of Apple making eleventy trillion billion they'll have to settle for eleventy million billion or thereabouts. Not a big deal.
Customers and employees came FIRST....then the shareholders got their dongers stroked. Now, it's full blown shareholder knob licking and everyone else is a distant second place. Those are the facts.
Several years ago, Apple paid about $300-$400 million for a company that does nothing but chip design. There's no magic to any CPU, but there are better designs and less good designs, and Apple paid a lot of money for a company that does nothing but designing better CPUs.