Lessprovided $ to fund Samsung development of competing products. It would be interesting to see potentially how much revenue loss this amounts to for Samsung.
Don't feel sorry for Samsung as they could care less about fair trade with the U.S.
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 Shifting A5 Production From Samsung to TSMC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't feel sorry for Samsung as they could care less about fair trade with the U.S.
In this case the servant steals from the masters and try's to drive the master out on the industry.
Apple has a stated goal of a 30%+ margin. Many other companies work on -10 to +10% margins. The benefit for that margin is a multiple on their stock price. Since Apple does not pay dividends, they are making their investors happy the other way, through vastly outsized capital gains. Remember, Apple is a publicly traded company beholdent to stockholders.
I would rather buy an iPad for $500 rather than $600, but the holistic system Apple operates factors that in plus many other factors such as product ramp rates and capital utilization. Apple needs high margins to address the massive uptake they experience as well as pre-funding suppliers to assure supply for record device sales.
Overall, the benefits to paying $100 more are pretty large in terms of availability, faster innovation, assured supplies for everyone and investors not constantly whining about Apple like they do so many other companies.
In simple terms, for only $100 more retail, there are more than twice as many units available, and they each do 3x the stuff for the money. Price alone is not everything. Check the competition for evidence.
Rocketman
I think this has more to do with diversification of suppliers and technology and not about competition. I don't detect significant bad blood between Apple and Samsung. If something happened to Samsung's manufacturing line, Apple would have a second supplier to use. If they are expanding their chips to more products they may need more production too. I think it is inevitable that these chips will make it to the Airport base stations for example. From a competitive standpoint, if they switch vendors they may increase competition because Samsung would have more manufacturing capability. From a technology perspective, TSMC may be on a different fab upgrade cycle. It can help Apple stay on the cutting edge of battery life and keep costs down. For example, TSMC may come out with 40 nm first and then Samsung might jump down to 30 nm before TSMC. With that strategy, plug in products can use the 40 nm process while battery operated products can use the 30 nm process. With more Android devices on the market, it is more important for Apple to have relationships with companies that may be able to produce a superior component at the particular time of that products release. Samsung is also run like a collection of almost independent companies. That is typical of the consumer electronics giants. It is pretty common for these companies not to practice anti-competitive behaviors for the benefit of another department of the same company. That is good, because the anti-competitive approach can backfire. If Samsung gave special favors to their Android group and it got to the point where their semiconductor group relied on their Android group then if the Android group did poorly it would hurt both groups. I'm sure Samsung has learned from Sony's mistakes in this area. Sony's failure in this area is pretty much what allowed Samsung to essentially take their place in the market. Samsung has a good reputation in the States and I think people like to see their components in Apple products. I doubt the relationship is really going sour.
Last edited:
If Apple hadn't outsourced as broadly as they had, then Samsung would be eating their lunch right now instead of complaining that they can't compete with Apple on the tablet market.
Apple may be USA based but they have to compete in a world market. If it were competitive to use more USA manufacturers, then they would.
That Microsoft is over-burdened with coders, and Apple is running lean and mean is not Apple's fault. I doubt Microsoft is keeping all those people on the payrole as a public service gesture. More likely just poor utilization of human resources.
You seem to think that USA manufacturers have a responsibility to use local sources. Think about this: Each time an American soldier enters a building he or she must remove their beret. Printed inside, on a tag is written, "Made in China."
TSMC is not better than Samsung.
Just take a look at the nVidia fiasco with shoddy quality from TSMC for the defective chips in the Geforce line.
Why are you trying to squash this little bit of sour news?
What Apple is doing is moving away from a quality supplier to a questionable quality supplier in the ultimate name of saving money and thus improving margins.
Your talking about South Korea not Samsung. Try and be specific. You certainly wont last as an accountant.
You make some very definite statements there; can you back them up? Do you know exactly how many people Apple employs in the US? Microsoft? Personally, I think you drastically underestimate Apple. Yes, maybe their manufacturing itself has gone overseas, but that's simply due to the fact that American labor right now is far more expensive than foreign--even with the import taxes.
Even so, Apple employs more than 40,000 people in the US alone, and not all of them are sales reps in their brick and mortar stores which give jobs in nearly every part of the country. They also employ some of the best technical minds in the business to design their products and operate their ever-expanding data centers. In fact, I'm willing to wager that taking all the foreign labor into account, Apple specifically employs more Americans than Chinese, Taiwanese and other Asian countries combined. Remember, assembly of components is only a tiny part of Apple's business.
You don't know that Samsung will use nVidia Tegra 2 in the Galaxy S II? Just google Samsung Tegra.
Not true. None of TSMC's other customers for that process had issues. Why? Because it was a packaging issue. Nvidia elected to use a metal for its solder bumps that was not sufficient for their parts' thermal dissipation and it bit them in the ass.
Apple had 35,000 full time employees, Microsoft close to 50,000, in the USA. Apple likes to contract.
No one should feel sorry for Samsung. They are the biggest conglomerate in the world and control South Korea from grocery to government. I'm sure Apple are as innocent as every other foreigner is, thinking Samsung are just some cute electronics manufacturer.
Getting away from them is getting away from the world's largest copy machine, and also helps to promote people's freedom in South Korea.
If TSMC have better yields and this rumour ends up to be true, it is a big sighing thank God from a lot of people who've watched Samsung very quickly turn South Korea (and covertly, a lot of the world) into their capital playground.
Some sources say that Tegra will be used only in non-US models. In US models they are going to use their own processor. The reported issue is supply constraints although I do not know what that means.
Pretty much one and the same. Samsung and Hyundai own everything here including a lot of the government cabinet. What they want in South Korea, goes. Former Hyundai pres sits on the throne here, now. Between those two companies, most of Korea's foreign and national policy is decided.
Getting away from them is getting away from the world's largest copy machine, and also helps to promote people's freedom in South Korea.
While I was in South Korea in 1984, I did not get the impression that people were not free. We all have to work and there are plenty of industrious people I worked with.
If I remember correctly they did have some student protests then, but overall
everything is based on money. Nothing different from other parts of the world.
Its not about competition
And then there is the issue about volume; it looks like Apple will need two (or more) suppliers for every single part; including the CPU. What does not seem smart is the choice of TSMC; which is making ARM for all others as well.
And the "buy local" remember: Intel CPU's cost like $100 a piece - not like $10.75 (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100627_763714.htm).
And then there is the issue about volume; it looks like Apple will need two (or more) suppliers for every single part; including the CPU. What does not seem smart is the choice of TSMC; which is making ARM for all others as well.
And the "buy local" remember: Intel CPU's cost like $100 a piece - not like $10.75 (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100627_763714.htm).
Last edited:
And which was corrected the next day, although it of course didn't make as big a splash.
It was even corrected in this forum the next day.
Either Jobs deliberately used an old quote, or his and his staff's ability to keep up with current events is not very good.
If the quote was important enough to make a slide about, then it was important enough to check on its validity.
Neither Samsung nor Apple reports end user sales.
Samsung at least reported their sales to retailers, which is what their income is about. Apple reports any device leaving the factory, even if only going to an Apple warehouse, as a sale.
And then after the ipad 2 media event the Samsung CEO did mention that the samsung galaxy parts were inadequate and the company would have to improve their tablet.
Apple iPad 2 Prompts Samsung to Rethink Galaxy Tab 10.1 Choices
And then of course is the ridiculous assertion that Job's had the correct quote. If that is the quote he had and decided to include it in a presentation then so be it. I would.
As a matter of fact, this should make my point clear on this:
In other words Samsung provided a transcript and then corrected it. Samsung made the mistake and Jobs used the quote they provided.
Now as you say the correction got little publicity. The reason being that it comes across as Samsung trying to cover its losses. How do we know the sales of the tablet? Perhaps that thing is selling poorly and the company decided the CEO made a mistake in telling it. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Really? When did steve start buying up all of the apartment buildings, manufacturing air conditioning units and cargo ships, etc.?
Give him time, he's just getting started. He actually envies Samsung because that is what he wants to do.