Future iPhones Could Use Samsung's Industry-First LPDDR5 DRAM

[Falhófnir]

I must have missed the part where Samsung open sourced this technology to the tech industry for free. You're not entirely wrong but find a better example.

It doesn't have to be 'free' or open source, they're fully entitled to make a profit from their efforts - the point is they have put the money into developing lpddr5 memory so a company like Apple doesn't have to do so and can buy their chips. The issue that I see is Apple does nothing for the industry in return, they hoard their earnings in offshore bank accounts to do absolutely nothing for anyone, even their shareholders.

 

[44267547]

I don’t see what the issue is for some if future iPhones uses Samsung LPDDR5 memory, even though both tech Giants are competitors, Apple _still_ uses OLED displays for the 5.8 iPhone from Samsung as well. Its quality components and it doesn’t take away from the iPhone experience for anyone, nor does the average consumer care.

 

[Baymowe335]

How true. For example, the memory business had a bad quarter and only turned a 14.8 trillion Won profit. That's $13.2 billion.



Which could very well be a Samsung panel.

You mean the entire industry, right?

Apple had $26.2B in operating income for their Q12018 quarter, just as a little scale.

 

[Falhófnir]

When it comes to component R&D/design/manufacture Samsung are a beast. Samsung mobile and Samsung electronics however are two entirely different entities and only the former compete, or are comparable with Apple. I don’t think Apple want to run their own heavy manufacturing plant. They source that stuff elsewhere (like Samsung, for example)

Apple have separate technologies divisions too, they develop for e.g. the custom silicon, the Face and Touch ID units, battery designs like the terraced MacBook one and also the chemistry therein. I just think the fact Apple then go out of their way to block anyone else from using these developments or building upon them retards technological progress as a whole. Imagine if Apple licensed the battery tech they develop to a third company to build upon - they'd get money back for their efforts and they would have contributed to the advancement of technology as a whole.

 

[Feenician]

Apple have separate technologies divisions too, they develop for e.g. the custom silicon, the Face and Touch ID units, battery designs like the terraced MacBook one and also the chemistry therein. I just think the fact Apple then go out of their way to block anyone else from using these developments or building upon them retards technological progress as a whole. Imagine if Apple licensed the battery tech they develop to a third company to build upon - they'd get money back for their efforts and they would have contributed to the advancement of technology as a whole.

So would you judge, say, Tesla by the same standard? They buy tires from Pirelli, having Pirelli doing their R&D for them as you frame Apple and Samsung in this context. At the same time they research and develop their own technologies, but don't share or even sell to them others. Do you view Tesla as retarding progress?

(btw car analogies are always terrible but it's the first company I came up with)

 

[ravenstar]

It doesn't have to be 'free' or open source, they're fully entitled to make a profit from their efforts - the point is they have put the money into developing lpddr5 memory so a company like Apple doesn't have to do so and can buy their chips. The issue that I see is Apple does nothing for the industry in return, they hoard their earnings in offshore bank accounts to do absolutely nothing for anyone, even their shareholders.

Your point makes absolutely no sense. So Apple makes a product that's aimed at a different audience than Samsung. That doesn't make Samsung's product more or less valuable than Apple. Millions of people use Apple products and thousands of business are built around those products. Saying that Apple does "nothing for the industry" is absurd.

 

[KPandian1]

- the point is they have put the money into developing lpddr5 memory so a company like Apple doesn't have to do so and can buy their chips. The issue that I see is Apple does nothing for the industry in return, ...

You did nothing to develop any component, yet "unfairly" gave up just $800-1000 to buy one! Seems unfair, right.

Apple has done enough, its innovation sparked so much interest and competition that the whole cellphone and computer industry has mimicked it, challenged it, etc., to benefit us all. Or, did we?

Yes, it stinks that they manage to make a profit from all this, much more than the competition. Their bloody customers contribute so much to this unfair balance.

 

[Falhófnir]

So would you judge, say, Tesla by the same standard? They buy tires from Pirelli, having Pirelli doing their R&D for them as you frame Apple and Samsung in this context. At the same time At the same time they research and develop their own technologies, but don't share or even sell to them others. Do you view Tesla as retarding progress?

I don't know enough about whether Tesla are sitting on technologies that could allow electric car development to advance if they licensed them - ultimately I find when you get a company that's just interested about 'me me me' they might do well profit wise, but the consumer loses out as other companies have to pick round them to achieve the same result. Yes, that retards progress.

 

[adamski23]

So who’s more reliant upon the other?

Grabs popcorn gif.

 

[ignatius345]

Sounds like the game is broken to me, if Samsung gets so little reward for all they do, while Apple reaps so much for doing so little.

What game? This is econ 101 stuff: Samsung is absolutely free to set its own prices to cover its R&D and manufacturing costs plus whatever profit it cares to build in.

 

[Feenician]

I don't know enough about whether Tesla are sitting on technologies that could allow electric car development to advance if they licensed them - ultimately I find when you get a company that's just interested about 'me me me' they might do well profit wise, but the consumer loses out as other companies have to pick round them to achieve the same result. Yes, that retards progress.

How far would you take it? You seem to be saying (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if I’m wrong. I acknowledge I may have misinterpreted you) that, for example, Apple should be forced to license their Ax architecture and/or sell their chips to others. Should Tesla be forced to share the code, or at least sell/license the IP for their self driving technologies then? Should Audi, Mercedes and all the rest? Seems to me that pattern ultimately results in a monoculture, if everyone has to share and everyone has to give back. In sounds a lot like the Socialist ideal, verging on Communism (mods, I promise I will not take this any more in a PRSI direction. If that’s already too much, I understand.)

So who’s more reliant upon the other?

Grabs popcorn gif.

Who can say? They’re obviously very tightly tied together now, even as Apple try to minimize their ongoing reliance on them. Ultimately Apple will likely succeed in that, though they may have to get very spendy helping other suppliers to raise their game. Apple can replace Samsung, eventually, but I’m not so clear that Samsung could ever replace the revenue hole left by Apple with another single customer. I doubt it will do substantial damage to either party.

 

[ignatius345]

It doesn't have to be 'free' or open source, they're fully entitled to make a profit from their efforts - the point is they have put the money into developing lpddr5 memory so a company like Apple doesn't have to do so and can buy their chips. The issue that I see is Apple does nothing for the industry in return, they hoard their earnings in offshore bank accounts to do absolutely nothing for anyone, even their shareholders.

News flash: these companies only exist to make money. All this talk about "doing things for people" aside, Apple and Samsung are responsible only to their shareholders, to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate, and to anyone they enter into legal contracts with. That's it. There's no "greater good" here. Apple hoards their cash overseas because it is financially beneficial for them to do so.

I happen to (mostly) like Apple products and services, but I'm not under any illusions here: they serve me well because they make a lot of money by doing so. That same logic drives all of the decisions a company like this makes, up and down the scale.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Yet again Samsung pushes the industry forward whilst any meaningful development Apple does is patented and locked down not to be shared with anyone...

Yet again avid Apple haters show they are absolutely clueless as to what they're talking about...

 

[PJivan]

Yet again Samsung pushes the industry forward whilst any meaningful development Apple does is patented and locked down not to be shared with anyone...

I understand it's hard to get it for kids but it's all about money and business strategy, Apple choose not to produce for third party and to be a very focus company while Samsung do a bit of everything.

Nothing prevented Samsung to copy the 2007 iPhone and looks like they made a nice business out of that, so why does it bother you if Apple pay Samsung for some R&D they choose to sell? What is the purpose of this comment are you saying Samsung is doing this for the humanity? for us to benefit all? Everyone is trying to make money, some are more successful some less but they all have the same motivation with different strategies.

 

[seatton]

This is a relationship reminds me of when you really hate your ex, but you keep going back to him/her because the sex is too good to pass up the opportunity.

 

[maflynn]

Yet again Samsung pushes the industry forward whilst any meaningful development Apple does is patented and locked down not to be shared with anyone...

Are you saying that Samsung did not patent the technology they developed?

 

[PJivan]

How true. For example, the memory business had a bad quarter and only turned a 14.8 trillion Won profit. That's $13.2 billion.

And yet Samsung Electronic earned less than Apple so are you saying you are in the position to teach Apple on how to make money? Are you saying you could do better than them? I'm not entirely sure what are you trying to suggest, have you applied to any CEO position recently? seems like you know better than all of them!!

 

[Falhófnir]

How far would you take it? You seem to be saying (and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if I’m wrong. I acknowledge I may have misinterpreted you) that, for example, Apple should be forced to license their Ax architecture and/or sell their chips to others. Should Tesla be forced to share the code, or at least sell/license the IP for their self driving technologies then? Should Audi, Mercedes and all the rest? Seems to me that pattern ultimately results in a monoculture, if everyone has to share and everyone has to give back. In sounds a lot like the Socialist ideal, verging on Communism (mods, I promise I will not take this any more in a PRSI direction. If that’s already too much, I understand.)

I don't think anyone should be forced to do it at all, I just think it says a lot about the company that chooses not to. I think it's more about patent trolling - as I said I think a company is fully entitled to make a profit from the work they do and the investments they make into a technology. It's just when they sit on it for their own use, and try to prevent anyone else from developing in the same direction with patents and lawsuits that I think it's wrong. Particularly when said company itself relies upon the technology developed by others so heavily. Look at the iPhone X, the oled panel pretty much only exists because Samsung got behind the technology and pushed it as hard as they could. They didn't seek to exclude others such as LG, they just wanted to develop this new technology for themselves and make an additional revenue stream by selling it.
[doublepost=1531845919][/doublepost]

Are you saying that Samsung did not patent the technology they developed?

Samsung didn't develop a technology for their own use, sit on it and try as hard as they could to prevent anyone else from using it or developing similar technology

 

[eggzachtly]

All this article asserts is that Samsung is making something new and jumps to the conclusion that Apple iPhones will possibly have the upgraded RAM. Ground-breaking stuff here

 

[7thson]

So would you judge, say, Tesla by the same standard? They buy tires from Pirelli, having Pirelli doing their R&D for them as you frame Apple and Samsung in this context. At the same time they research and develop their own technologies, but don't share or even sell to them others. Do you view Tesla as retarding progress?

(btw car analogies are always terrible but it's the first company I came up with)

Tesla isn't the best example as Musk did open source a bunch of ev patents a while back. He's keeping battery tech close however, but hard to argue he doesn't have an obligation to shareholders in doing so, let alone his own bottom line.

 

[djlythium]

Yet again Samsung pushes the industry forward whilst any meaningful development Apple does is patented and locked down not to be shared with anyone...

Psh. Swift.

 

[PJivan]

So who’s more reliant upon the other?

Grabs popcorn gif.

Generally in business your customer is everything, it's the core of your business, so who is the customer? Apple has the cash and the ability to do their own development just look a their SOC and GPU, but it is simply stupid for them to develop everything in house as it would be more expensive than put a bunch of third parties in competition to snatch the best price with zero risk of throwing money in R&D that can be spent in other areas that can be tied to their brand and give them something unique since they are not going to sell/license their technologies to third parties

 

[Falhófnir]

Yet again avid Apple haters show they are absolutely clueless as to what they're talking about...

Yet again someone needs to go back to debating class and learn that in the civilised world we 'go for the ball not the man' - unless you want to have a go at challenging the point I put forward you will receive no further interaction from me

 

[PJivan]

Samsung didn't develop a technology for their own use, sit on it and try as hard as they could to prevent anyone else from using it or developing similar technology

Because it's their business!!!!! Do you think they would have done it if it was only for their mobile phone LoL

 

[Feenician]

I don't think anyone should be forced to do it at all, I just think it says a lot about the company that chooses not to. I think it's more about patent trolling - as I said I think a company is fully entitled to make a profit from the work they do and the investments they make into a technology. It's just when they sit on it for their own use, and try to prevent anyone else from developing in the same direction with patents and lawsuits that I think it's wrong. Particularly when said company itself relies upon the technology developed by others so heavily. Look at the iPhone X, the oled panel pretty much only exists because Samsung got behind the technology and pushed it as hard as they could. They didn't seek to exclude others such as LG, they just wanted to develop this new technology for themselves and make an additional revenue stream by selling it.

But Samsung don't love you. They don't love anyone. Neither do Apple for that matter. They act in their own best interests and sometimes, many times, that coincides with your best interests.

The example of OLED you use, you seem to have misunderstood in my opinion. Samsung didn't invent OLED, so they can't prevent others using it. They absolutely do not share their proprietary SAMOLED technology (which they did indeed move the state of the art massively forward with. No disputing that) with LG or anyone else. LG did their own R&D. They will sell anyone with deep enough pockets panels, but they are not giving away the Crown Jewels for the good of the world, or the industry.