What am I using? Steve Jobs own words, and the fact Apple used Samsung as a Google proxy.
Fair enough. Apple is the Buick, Ford, Toyota of CE. You pick. But I think we both agree they are def. not the Ferarri of CE.
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.
Samsung to Cease Providing LCD Panels to Apple in 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What am I using? Steve Jobs own words, and the fact Apple used Samsung as a Google proxy.
Fair enough. Apple is the Buick, Ford, Toyota of CE. You pick. But I think we both agree they are def. not the Ferarri of CE.
My point in bringing it up was that it was clearly wrong. And while you may have read the update, I thought it was worth bringing up to bring attention to the update. Because I'm not clairvoyant enough to know who has read the latest update. Clearly.
I still cannot believe some actually bought an article that said Samsung is ditching Apple because of pricing and they are moving to other clients who will pay more...like Amazon??!? Are you serious? Kindles will let Samsung recover the profit lost from iPad displays? No one else buys high margin displays in quantities like Apple. It was obviously a Samsung executive trying to throwing a feeler out there to save face.
Of course, I already see some here who really want to believe the article and cling to the notion that it's Samsung ditched Apple (I'm sure there are other tablet makers who are lined up with orders for displays like Apple).
Of course, I already see some here who really want to believe the article and cling to the notion that it's Samsung ditched Apple (I'm sure there are other tablet makers who are lined up with orders for displays like Apple).
I still cannot believe some actually bought an article that said Samsung is ditching Apple because of pricing and they are moving to other clients who will pay more...like Amazon??!? Are you serious? Kindles will let Samsung recover the profit lost from iPad displays? No one else buys high margin displays in quantities like Apple. It was obviously a Samsung executive trying to throwing a feeler out there to save face.
Of course, I already see some here who really want to believe the article and cling to the notion that it's Samsung ditched Apple (I'm sure there are other tablet makers who are lined up with orders for displays like Apple).
Well that's where you show your bias. I would say there was an equal amount of people that were saying that Apple cut Samsung loose. And that's not true either, now is it?
I still cannot believe some actually bought an article that said Samsung is ditching Apple because of pricing and they are moving to other clients who will pay more...like Amazon??!? Are you serious? Kindles will let Samsung recover the profit lost from iPad displays? No one else buys high margin displays in quantities like Apple. It was obviously a Samsung executive trying to throwing a feeler out there to save face.
Of course, I already see some here who really want to believe the article and cling to the notion that it's Samsung ditched Apple (I'm sure there are other tablet makers who are lined up with orders for displays like Apple).
I liked how some people assumed that it would be easy for Samsung to replace Apple's orders. It is hard to understand the scale that Apple is operating at.
----------
We don't know if that's true or not. According to the Gizmodo article.
I liked how some people assumed that it would be easy for Samsung to replace Apple's orders. It is hard to understand the scale that Apple is operating at.
So you don't think Samsung can replace Apple's order? Maybe not with one customer - but overall?
Regardless of whether this story is true or false doesn't negate much of what was discussed in terms of business or fulfillment.
Nonsense. Japan Display Inc ONLY does small/medium sized displays. Why would such a company get setup if there is no money to be made?
Sony didn't abandon small displays BTW, it was folded into JDI mentioned above. Sony owns 10% of JDI.
Actually Apple really has been cutting down on orders of Samsung panels in iPad and LG has been supplying more of them. Which explains perfectly why a Samsung executive might throw a "feeler" out there.
Also again, the article makes no sense. It claims Samsung is cutting Apple because of low pricing, and the answer to that? Why, Amazon Kindle of course. Does that make sense? Absolutely not.
You don't have to be Apple biased to see that. Amazon simply doesn't order as many panels as Apple and the majority of their orders will be from the low end 7" displays, which is far more common and can be bought from a number of suppliers unlike the Retina panel. There simply is no other maker, even combined, who'll buy as many tablet displays and the laptop Retina displays like Apple.
On top of all this, the problem is that Korea Times isn't a particularly reliable or reputable source but because it's published in English and the name sounds good, often times tech blogs pick it up and run with stories. But Korea Times isn't one of the major papers.
I liked how some people assumed that it would be easy for Samsung to replace Apple's orders. It is hard to understand the scale that Apple is operating at.
It's frustrating to see some here who claim others' bias when they are clearly biased against Apple and even use misinformation. Just in this thread, another poster claimed Samsung Display is formerly the Sony-Samsung LCD joint venture, which isn't true. And I've lost the count of times where I have to tell people that Samsung isn't an iPhone display supplier and hasn't been one in years that I can remember.
No way to argue the validity or not of your supposition. I'll just add that you can't assume that Samsung's displays would go unsold or unused based on today's scenario because right now - no one has access to those panels because Apple has them "locked down" so to speak. When the dust settles - we'll see what happens. As I stated a few times in this thread - I think ultimately both companies will be just fine regardless.
Hypothetically, I don't think they could do it without reducing their pricing. The rest of the mobile device industry is operating at negative margins. And Apple's investment in other display manufacturers is going to increase overall manufacturing capacity for displays.
Do you know what Apple is paying? And what the competition is paying Is it at all possible that Apple's rate is that which is below what others are paying for theirs. If so - isn't it possible that by selling to others they can break even or even squeeze a little more profit? I ask sincerely.
And Apple's investments in other companies will only benefit Apple in terms of displays. Whatever Apple is able to get out of another manufacturer, they will lock up. That manufacturer won't be having any surplus which would drive the market further down.
But Apple's patents ascerted against Samsung are for things in either TouchWiz or the physical designs of their phones, so that can't be right.
And Steve's own words ? The same words of the man who thought he had a patent on the whole of multi-touch ?
So basically : You're throwing out baseless accusations.
If they do, why does Apple have them "locked down"? Because they were willing to order so many of them. If Samsung could find other sources of orders as you've said, why did Samsung do that in the first place? If Apple doesn't want to pay the price for those panels, others - who already struggle with tablet pricing - will pay more for it?
Plus I don't know if anyone actually read the article but it specifically mentions two - Samsung handset division and Amazon as "sufficient substitute for possible losses from cutting the relationship with the iPad maker." Kindles have sold much less than iPad and so far all of them have been cheap 7" tablets. That's not a "supposition" but a fact.(I must add that 8.9" HD is now available but I think we can agree that 7" will remain the main seller for Amazon) Again, bias goes both ways and do you seriously believe the article's claim that Amazon and Samsung themselves can fill out the revenue like Apple?
Except that no one else wants to invest in a high margin displays like Apple does right now. LG Display has been losing money for so long because of the pricing pressure on their television LCD panels but with Retina display orders they finally turned a profit last quarter. Samsung Display can be more choosy because most of their profit is from selling AMOLED to Samsung electronics, but their LCD is facing tough time just like LG for the same reason.
Thos trials are against Motorola and were filed prior to the Google acquisition. As far as I know, Motorola filed a lawsuit after the acquisition, but is still acting independantly from Google.
Apple has yet to file a lawsuit directly against Google.
It was set up in order to stop money bleeding by the original stake holders. They decided that there was no money to make in this business and left it.
Sure, but Samsung isn't selling the entire tablet, just the display. You're making the assumption that because the iPad uses a higher end panel that Samsung's margin is bigger on it.
Quite the contrary, it could be more profitable to sell less, cheaper panels to Amazon than to sell more volume of expensive retina panels to Apple. Volume discounts, customer discounts based on other products, etc.. etc..
Since we do not have access to the financials, you can only theorize, you can't state facts.
I still cannot believe some actually bought an article that said Samsung is ditching Apple because of pricing and they are moving to other clients who will pay more...like Amazon??!? Are you serious? Kindles will let Samsung recover the profit lost from iPad displays? No one else buys high margin displays in quantities like Apple. It was obviously a Samsung executive trying to throwing a feeler out there to save face.
Of course, I already see some here who really want to believe the article and cling to the notion that it's Samsung ditched Apple (I'm sure there are other tablet makers who are lined up with orders for displays like Apple).
From what we hear so far, it looks like Kindle Fire HD will have better display than iPad Mini. iPad 2's display is nothing to brag about either.
It seems you're trying to debate the present situation with the past. If Apple had displays locked down for the past few years (because at the time, it was a good move for Samsung) and there's a demand now from other devices, then your first point is moot, no? Samsung made the deal originally because there was no other way to sell that many devices. That may or may not hold true now. And since you don't know the terms of the agreement nor do you know what others pay for their screens - how do you know it's more, less or the same?
What?! Japan Display Inc is operating just fine, thank you. They, Sharp and LG are producing iPhone 5 screens as we speak.
And the original stakeholders could just kill their respective division if it was costing them money, but instead they invest in JDI - all original holders have a 10% stake in JDI.
The market for small to medium displays are just fine, thanks to smartphone and tablet sales. It's the large displays that are suffering due to the collapse of the TV market in Japan and low sales elsewhere - everyone has already bought a HDTV and won't be buy another one for years to come.
Sure anything is possible but I doubt it given that there are many different 7" display makers unlike the Retina panel. Somehow it's not very likely that selling a less quantity of cheaper displays that are much more commoditized will somehow net you more profit. Also LG Display has enjoyed the profit surge since Retina orders have increased. Unless Samsung is worse at making Retina displays for cheap than LG, I don't think they'll be making less.
It's not about who's better. It's about who'll order those high end panels at crazy quantity like Apple.
Because I haven't seen any evidence to think otherwise presented you or anyone else in this thread, other than this Korea Times article which was rejected by Samsung. On the other hand we have the concrete fact and trend on iPad sales.
Somehow LG Display hasn't complained about the Apple panel orders but after Samsung's order been cut, we hear through a anonymous source that Samsung is going to "cease providing LCD" to Apple because of Amazon?
I just can't believe how many are buying this story.
Of course it's possible. You asked for my opinion. I don't think it's likely.
It's the manufacturing capacity that was previously tied up by Apple that will be contributing to the surplus if you want to look at it that way. It's pretty straightforward. Apple's investment in other display manufacturers will increase overall display manufacturing capacity. Increasing supply generally lowers pricing.
I'll add that LG Display has been doing better recently. The reason mentioned? increased Apple orders in iPhone and iPad panels. So somehow LG has had no problem making money with doing big business with Apple but Samsung..wait, we don't even have any evidence Samsung is losing money off Apple other than the shady newspaper story!
You know, I can't see how this is good for Samsung display division in anyway.
They just loss a major customer. A major customer that will soon be patronising their competitors, giving them the income that was once going to Samsung. These competitors will then reinvest this income into R&D and improvement of production capability making them stronger rivals against Samsung.
Can Samsung "replace" Apple's orders? Well, they have to do so by stealing customers from their competitors. Which means offering a lower price than said competitor who is now supplying for Apple as well. Those competitors will no doubt do the math and decide how to maximise the use of their manufacturing capacity. If it's more profitable to give the capacity to Apple they will do so, if it's more profitable to lower their prices to match Samsung (keeping their existing customers) they will do that, either way they increase in profitability and will therefore have more money to reinvest.
I really don't see how Samsung is gaining anything here from the departure of Apple.
They just loss a major customer. A major customer that will soon be patronising their competitors, giving them the income that was once going to Samsung. These competitors will then reinvest this income into R&D and improvement of production capability making them stronger rivals against Samsung.
Can Samsung "replace" Apple's orders? Well, they have to do so by stealing customers from their competitors. Which means offering a lower price than said competitor who is now supplying for Apple as well. Those competitors will no doubt do the math and decide how to maximise the use of their manufacturing capacity. If it's more profitable to give the capacity to Apple they will do so, if it's more profitable to lower their prices to match Samsung (keeping their existing customers) they will do that, either way they increase in profitability and will therefore have more money to reinvest.
I really don't see how Samsung is gaining anything here from the departure of Apple.
And you just ignore the part that I highlited for you in which Apple is going to add Android 4.1 into Samsung lawsuit post trial ??? They name JB specifically. If you follow the patent scene at all, Google, Apple, and Microsoft is heading into a collision course in world wide patent litigation. Most Android maker already entered into agreement with Microsoft into licensing deal that pay 5-15 for each Android device they produce. And Apple already has a cross licensing agreement with Microsoft. Google/Motorola has not done so yet and there is a bunch of litigation already underway between msft/Motorola, Apple/Motorola. Apple and Google court date is just getting started.
Google started building Android from public domain software and along the way pick up a lot of ideas from everyone else. The question is whether those ideas they pick up is protected under patent and that is what all the litigation are about. It is a story where the companies involved are trying to divide the profit from new mobile world, nothing more and nothing less.
Samsung is a major competitor to Apple in mobile space and there is no reason for Apple to subsidy their effort to eliminate Apple as a competitor. Make no mistake, every order that Apple place with Samsung will give Samsung profit that they can reinvest into something that can hurt Apple product sales. And every components that Apple order from Samsung will help Samsung lower their own cost for the same component because manufacturing cost is inversely proportion to number of units.