Samsung Supposedly Wins Orders to Produce Apple Watch Components

[lincolntran]

Copy what? The S1 is just a small computer board.



They're all just little computers on small circuit boards.

View attachment 523994

View attachment 523990

The main difference is that the "S1" is potted in resin, which is used to improve moisture and vibration resistance.

Oh yeah... plus Apple PR gave their resin encased board a name to make it sound cool

Wow!

The chromecast board looks like it was made in the 80s. If you say they're similar then there's no point to discuss anymore!

 

[samcraig]

Wow!

The chromecast board looks like it was made in the 80s. If you say they're similar then there's no point to discuss anymore!

Absurd comment. Why does the chromecast board look like it was made in the 80s?

Let me refresh your memory of 1980s circuit boards Mr. Hyperbole

https://www.google.com/search?q=198...a=X&ei=jk-xVPmVH4bIsQSf0YDgDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

 

[mrex]

so they can copy

and what exactly would they copy?

 

[occollegeboi420]

You miss the point completely.

In its heyday, the blackberry too was seen as the gold standard of smartphones, and people simply couldn't imagine a better way of making a smartphone. Apple completely upsetted the status quo with a smartphone that was easy to use and which appealed to consumers, which is the most crucial factor here. It opened up a new market by selling to people who normally were intimidated by the concept of owning and using a smartphone.

For all its features, I don't see Android wear devices appealing to your average consumer, simply because it's considered too "geeky", and companies don't seem to be making any effort promoting it beyond its typical tech-savvy user base.

At the end of the way, we are talking about 2 different markets here. The people who would be interested in an Apple Watch won't be the people contemplating about Android Wear devices, and vice versa.

That's because only fan boys will buy the apple watch.

 

[kdarling]

Absurd comment. Why does the chromecast board look like it was made in the 80s?

Agreed, his comment makes no sense. Here's another difference:

CPU/Video boards like the ones mentioned in the thread for Chromecast or Android TV keys, use only one or two highly integrated chips.

The Apple watch board looks like it uses over a dozen discrete chips. It's not very advanced in that respect, and probably accounts for some of the extra cost, and part of the need to pot it in resin for mechanical stability.

Trust Apple to think of taking a common potted board like that, and giving it a name as if it were an actual system on a single chip. But then, Apple is run by their marketing department. Next year they'll be able to say, "Look we now have the S2... you'll want to upgrade!!" Brilliant, really.

 

[lincolntran]

Absurd comment. Why does the chromecast board look like it was made in the 80s?

Let me refresh your memory of 1980s circuit boards Mr. Hyperbole

https://www.google.com/search?q=198...a=X&ei=jk-xVPmVH4bIsQSf0YDgDA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

You missed my entire point.

 

[samcraig]

You missed my entire point.

I'm afraid you did. Or you had none

 

[Soccertess]

But where your argument fails is Apple doesn't copy from Samsung, nor do they troll Samsung in ads. Both of which Samsung does directly to Apple.

what.. Apple doesn't copy? They all do, and when companies need to, they license (legal copying).

 

[Tech198]

This may be good for Samsung, but if there is anything about all smart watches, is they all lock u in to their own devices..


What about a few that are compatible with most smart phone ? or the most common.?

When u switch, u will not have to buy a new smart-watch... or when u upgrade.

 

[HenryDJP]

what.. Apple doesn't copy? They all do, and when companies need to, they license (legal copying).

Reading properly is your friend sir. Or did you just reply to my post with a "convenient" rebuttal in a failed attempt to win your argument? I said, "APPLE DOESN'T COPY FROM SAMSUNG". Please don't try to stretch the argument by adding in other companies outside of the topic of this article.

 

[samcraig]

Reading properly is your friend sir. Or did you just reply to my post with a "convenient" rebuttal in a failed attempt to win your argument? I said, "APPLE DOESN'T COPY FROM SAMSUNG". Please don't try to stretch the argument by adding in other companies outside of the topic of this article.

So who cares. The whole "copy" argument is completely irrelevant to this thread and it's topic.

 

[kdarling]

In its heyday, the blackberry too was seen as the gold standard of smartphones, and people simply couldn't imagine a better way of making a smartphone.

I hate this myth. On the contrary, alternative methods were constantly being explored.

The Blackberry was seen as a business standard, but it was just one style type. Touchscreen phones were also popular and getting more sophisticated.

Heck, the very FIRST smartphone back in 1994 was all-touch and could run third party apps. Later all-touch smartphones included swipe gestures and orientation sensors:



By 2006, it was widely predicted that capacitive all-touch smartphones would soon become popular.



In fact, months before the iPhone was shown off, a free Linux group had announced plans to build a developer's smartphone with multi-touch and pinch zoom. Some people even think Apple stole their idea (I don't):



It was all leading up to a similar slab style, and a switchover to more touch friendly UIs:



Apple's primary advantage was that... unlike major manufacturers of the time... they did not have years' worth of legacy smartphones to support. (Of course, later on, they did, and that's why it took a while to see larger iPhones.) So they were able to burst on the scene with a fresh start.

(Of course, Apple couldn't have done that without the billions of dollars and years of R&D and infrastructure building that all the other manufacturers had committed long before.)

 

[powers74]

It will never happen - it will never pass antitrust muster

Yes, that's the reason they'll never merge… … … or did I miss the sarcasm?

 

[samcraig]

I hate this myth. On the contrary, alternative methods were constantly being explored.


(Of course, Apple couldn't have done that without the billions of dollars and years of R&D and infrastructure building that all the other manufacturers had committed long before.)

Exactly - but some people continue to have their head in the sand - or some think that smart phones didn't exist before 2007.

Having worked for a major OEM, I can (and have stated) that as early as 2002 there were already phones similar to the iPhone (and competitors) on the roadmap with the technologies being explored heavily.

 

[69650]

Do you have any idea how much that would cost vs just buying the components they need?

No idea but I wouldn't think they'd have a problem raising the money. Once they've cherry picked the parts they need then sell off the remaining parts of the company with a non-compete agreement to claw back much of the cost.

Constantly relying on critical third-party components for your products is a very dangerous path to follow long-term.

----------

APPLE DOESN'T COPY FROM SAMSUNG.

This argument always makes me laugh. Of course they do. Everybody copies something from their competitors in the tech world. You would think that Apple invented the concept of the AppStore but they didn't. I was downloading apps onto my Palm Pilot and my HP iPaq PDA long before the iPhone came along. Hell they even stole the name and modified it slightly to iPod instead of iPaq.

 

[iionas]

Steve would be spinning in his grave

 

[maflynn]

Steve would be spinning in his grave

Apple's been using Samsung components for years, including when Steve was active at apple.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Ah, Samsung is going to make Apple components for their "Not called iWatch" watch, eh?

Well, let's recap history. Apple introduces iPhone made of Samsung components. Samsung copies iPhone and sells it with Android. Apple introduces iPad with Samsung components. Samsung introduces the Galaxy pad that looks suspiciously similar to the iPad. Fast forward to 2015. Apple introduces the "Apple Watch" (not iWatch) made with Samsung components. Later this year or early next year Samsung introduces the Galaxy Watch which will look suspiciously similar to the Apple Watch..... You go Apple! Keep making those same dumb decisions that leads to helping Samsung steal your market share!

 

[newdeal]

This is why I'll keep up with the Apple Watch for now and the actually buy one in its 4th generation. That way Apple has more time to figure out what they are trying to do. I imagine it'll become much more thinner and functional in 4 years. It took Apple years to finally get the iPad right with the iPad Air 2.

nah, the iPad 2 was amazing, the iPad 3 took a step backwards as it felt much thicker and heavier and took forever to charge. If the leap from apple watch to apple watch 2 is like the leap from iPad to iPad 2 they will be in great shape

----------

I think the bezel surface area is about the same as the screen surface area. They need to fix that before even shipping the first generation the thing looks ancient and its not even out yet.

 

[typeadam]

I suppose in a way you want a company that can deliver making the guts of your products. However, I guarantee a lot of us are oblivious as to what's actually running our gadgets...
And lol at Samsung demise w/out Apple. Samsung Electronics is just 1 part of Samsung. And until Apple starts competing w/ Samsung by making trains, MRI machines, heavy industry, and whatever else Samsung makes, Samsung is in no danger.

 

[tdale]

I know, I read it too. But I guess SJ even realized that it would make no sense to do that as it would create a far too complex organization to manage, and in addition one can still control all aspects even when part is outsourced. Actually it makes controlling easier, because external contracts are easier to maintain than internal contracts (personal and department objectives).

I'm absolutely convinced that part of the reason why Apple is so successful is their focus on core competencies:
-design
-retail management
-supply chain management
-software & hardware integration

I probably left a few out, but you get the point.

Yes.If its a contract, its $x per piece. If they run factories, the costs of running the factories roll over daily, on and on.

----------

Ah, Samsung is going to make Apple components for their "Not called iWatch" watch, eh?

Well, let's recap history. Apple introduces iPhone made of Samsung components. Samsung copies iPhone and sells it with Android. Apple introduces iPad with Samsung components. Samsung introduces the Galaxy pad that looks suspiciously similar to the iPad. Fast forward to 2015. Apple introduces the "Apple Watch" (not iWatch) made with Samsung components. Later this year or early next year Samsung introduces the Galaxy Watch which will look suspiciously similar to the Apple Watch..... You go Apple! Keep making those same dumb decisions that leads to helping Samsung steal your market share!

Samsung watch??? Galaxy Gear, been out for ages, and nice piece of kit too

----------

Constantly relying on critical third-party components for your products is a very dangerous path to follow long-term.

----------

Apple doesnt manufacturer anything, so every part is third party. Its a sound model. $X per piece, thats easy to manage. And its known

----------

Apple's been using Samsung components for years, including when Steve was active at apple.

Yep, and it has worked out very well for both of them. It may be the enemy, but they make good components in volume, that has to come first, and it has done.

 

[Keirasplace]

This copying is becoming a bit of a grey area these day.... iOS / android seems to be borrowing features from each other.

Hardware wise, my note 4 and iPhone 6 plus are two different phones .

Right... Grey Area, copying the design of a chip. Are you for real?
This wouldn't be a grey area at all and they could massively hurt Samsung if that happened. That's why it WON'T happen. Too idiotic even for Samsung.

BTW, most of the things in IOS or Android were copied from functions that existed prior to smart phones btw or even phones in some case, so hey!

----------

Agreed, his comment makes no sense. Here's another difference:

CPU/Video boards like the ones mentioned in the thread for Chromecast or Android TV keys, use only one or two highly integrated chips.

The Apple watch board looks like it uses over a dozen discrete chips. It's not very advanced in that respect, and probably accounts for some of the extra cost, and part of the need to pot it in resin for mechanical stability.

Trust Apple to think of taking a common potted board like that, and giving it a name as if it were an actual system on a single chip. But then, Apple is run by their marketing department. Next year they'll be able to say, "Look we now have the S2... you'll want to upgrade!!" Brilliant, really.

Right... Unless there is an actual reason to put those chips in resin, like actual upgradability of the chip part? Funny how Apple so behind yet kicking everyone's ass at the same time. Must be some kind of weird advanced Zen discipline...

 

[kdarling]

Well, let's recap history. Apple introduces iPhone made of Samsung components. Samsung copies iPhone... snip...

Seems like you're talking about "copying" the look and feel of a product. But I think you're confusing assemblers like Foxconn who might have such info ahead of launch, with parts suppliers like Samsung who would not.

Supplying chips, or even a display, doesn't tell the parts supplier anything about the ornamental style of the actual product's case, or what the UI looks like. Heck, in most cases, the supplier wouldn't even know what product the chips were for, although they might be able to guess.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Seems like you're talking about "copying" the look and feel of a product. But I think you're confusing assemblers like Foxconn who might have such info ahead of launch, with parts suppliers like Samsung who would not.

Supplying chips, or even a display, doesn't tell the parts supplier anything about the ornamental style of the actual product's case, or what the UI looks like. Heck, in most cases, the supplier wouldn't even know what product the chips were for, although they might be able to guess.

No, they got that information after launch. But it sure is then convenient for them to have most of the same parts READY TO GO. Hey, never mind. Obviously, what I said didn't register.

 

[Soccertess]

Reading properly is your friend sir. Or did you just reply to my post with a "convenient" rebuttal in a failed attempt to win your argument? I said, "APPLE DOESN'T COPY FROM SAMSUNG". Please don't try to stretch the argument by adding in other companies outside of the topic of this article.

And facts should be your friend sir. To make a universal statement that apple doesn't not copy from samsung would imply that the minor amounts that apple was order to pay in 2014 for patent infringement did not happen.. Maybe those amounts were just a gratuitous payment?

While it pales in comparison what Samsung was ordered to pay, Apple was found guilty (around 200k i believe).

And larger screens is a perfect example of markets moving towards a different form factor. Is this copying? Apple wasn't first to market with a larger screen, and even defended smaller screen with the one hand argument.
I guess you will scream, "APPLE doesn't copy from samsung" again, but if you open your mind to the possibility that Apple may copy some features/form factors, the world won't collapse. In my humble opinion, if apple takes an idea from a competitor or the jail break community (these guys had some great ideas that just happen to show up in Ios 7), it's a good thing!

and getting back on topic, samsung producing Apple iwatch parts is low risk. Iwatch will be good because of integration, software, and good planning. Not because of a hardware..