Wonder how much that price hike brought in?
$1bn, by any chance?
Samsung has hiked the price of processors used in Apple's iDevices by 20 per cent and the fruity firm has had to suck it up, Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo said. A source told the paper that Samsung said it wanted more moolah for its application processors and Apple has had to accept this because no one else can fulfil the …
Short term gain - long term loss. How many other manufacturers will be ramping up production now - Samsung better make hay while the sun shines as they say. Losing the Apple contract for everything else must have stung regardless and now they have guaranteed they will lose the CPU deal - sooner if not later.
TSMC, Global Foundries and IBM could all do it. Apple will probably have TSMC making them next year. TSMC and GF work on half nodes, so Apple will be able to get a 28nm process from them they can't from Samsung.
Intel could make them also, far better than anyone else, though they are only just now dipping their toes into foundry services and probably don't want to take on a customer as large as Apple just yet, if ever.
"TSMC, Global Foundries and IBM could all do it. Apple will probably have TSMC making them next year. TSMC and GF work on half nodes, so Apple will be able to get a 28nm process from them they can't from Samsung."
Maybe, but perhaps there's a more fundamental reason why they can't. It's well known that Apple's first CPUs where essentially Samsung designs. Xray pictures of their first one and a standard Samsung ARM were remarkably similar. So perhaps the A6 still has a lot of Samsung IP in it that Apple can't take away to TSMC or GF or IBM. The patent dispute between them has been going on for plenty long enough for Apple to have sealed a deal with another fab but so far they haven't...
Even if Apple go elsewhere Samsung would probably be able to use the spare capacity themselves for their own Android phones. And I'm sure the likes of Qualcomm wouldn't mind another fab for their highly popular range of chips.
The 3gs is the last that used a Samsung SoC. For the A4 and A5 Apple designed their own SoC, using a standard ARM core just like Samsung does. It is quite possible or even likely there was some Samsung IP in those, especially since they were designed to be fabbed on Samsung's process and thus would have had tweaking from Samsung's fab guys as is done by all foundries.
However, the A6 uses a fully custom Apple-designed core, not a standard ARM designed core like all of Samsung's SoCs use. It would not have been designed specifically for Samsung's process since it would have been started after the Apple/Samsung legal battle heated up. If there are some other components in the SoC such as memory controllers that are Samsung IP, it's not that difficult to replace them with licensed bits from others (much like Apple licenses the Imagination GPU in the A4/5/6) or design their own.
There were rumors a few months ago about Apple doing some test runs with TSMC, so they are probably already working with them on the next generation A7 - though they may be hedging their bets by working with someone else like Global Foundries as well. I'd be willing to bet big money that Apple will not be using Samsung to fab their SoC on the next generation of any of their products. Samsung's 20% cost increase might even make it cost effective for Apple to spend the money on the engineering effort required to ditch Samsung even on the older products where Apple would typically not want to change anything.
It probably would not matter who GREEDY APPLE deal with because they have a tendancy to bite the hand that feed's it. I hope any company that deal's with CRAFTY APPLE thing's long and hard what they are getting themself's into because that GREEDY APPLE can't be trusted.
If I were in Apple's position, and had a choice of vendor for ooooh say the memory, screens and processors I needed to make my products - I might have selected alternates before I sued..
Bluntly, if the two companies just severed all-ties, Samsung takes a hit on the balance sheet, Apple loses the ability to ship product.
Quick back-of-the-envelope stuff:
Apple quarterly sales 17 million iPad + 26 million iPhone* = approx 172mil iDevice / year
Wholesale processor cost - $13**
20% increase per processor = $2.60
by 172 million devices = $447.2 million, or approx $1/2 billion.
Considering that due to supply contracts, existing designs, no alternative supplier etc that Apple is probably stuck with Samsung-built processors for at least a couple of years, the $1bn total is pretty spot on!!
*source - engadget.com
**source - isuppli.com
"Apple has been the one losing out in the UK, forced to post a statement in newspapers and on its website stating that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not copy its iPad."
1. Apple's 'loss' applies to the whole of the EU, not just the UK.
2. The iPad had nothing to do with the Court case as the Judges were at pains to point out.
....that worried given that they will almost certainly be expecting a particular section of their enthusiastic fan-base to cover the costs - after all that particular section of their customer base have been cheering the Cupertino Posse "onwards and upwards" throughout all of this have they not? It would only be just if they had to pay Sammy's legal costs through the price of their next shiney.
So, indirectly, Apple will be paying part of Samsung's legal fees in their ongoing court cases? But when Apple passes on the processors' extra costs to Apple customers, then ...iPhone buyers, at least indirectly, will be funding Samsung to make Galaxy phones even better. Thank you. Pleasant twinge of schadenfreude I'm feeling.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at Apple...
[after the trial]
Guy 1 : WOO, we won $1 billion, let's all go and get laid, whose turn is it to pay?
Guy 2: yours!
Guy 1 : Umm, Samsung have just upped their prices 20%
Guy 2: Shoot, how much extra is that going to cost us?
Guy 1: bout.... $1 billion a year....
Guy 2: Crap, lets find another supplier.... QUICK!!
Guy 1 : There isn't another supplier who can meet our demands!
Guy 2 : Oh, bugger.
Instead of Guy 1 saying " there isn't another supplier who could meet our demand's" it should have been there isn't another supplier who want's to deal with us because of our previoues track record of being crafty, gready and biting the habnd that feed's us, so therfore no right minded comapny will deal with lowlife scum like us. Your post was very amusing, hahaha.
I seem to recall the recent claims that Samsung were going to stop selling screens to Apple turned out to be false (although I can't seem to find any links to it anywhere). I wonder if this will also turn out to be false?
Given how widely the screen thing was reported I wonder if this could be some deliberate attempt to kick Apple square in the share price?
I have no evidence that Samsung threatened Apple with a lack of LCDs. What I saw were rumours that Apple were planning to reduce orders of Samsung LCDs:
At this rate, the only people who will trade with Apple are the ones who are really desperate.
What did happen is that MBP with retina screen started shipping with both Samsung & LG screens, and the LG screens had ghosting issues - so no reduction in Samsung screens if the replacements were rubbish.
Another barrel over which Samsung have Apple
Who didn't see this coming.
What I wonder though is the affect of the numerous apple patents which have been declared invalid, with adition to the rulings outside the US (basically every other country) that says either samsung didn't infringe.
I actually don't expect the second to have any baring at all, I mean god forbid the USA falls in line with the rest of the world, but how many of the recently invalidated patents were used in the original sammy / apple $1bn court case?
It's on Groklaw:
Basically, "this sanction is the highest there is in the "loser pays" category, that Apple will have to pay for everything the lawyers cost Samsung, not just fees but parking, phone calls, and from day one" (according to an unspecified source describing the sanction imposed)
"As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order. "
It's classic game theory.
When Apple were Samsung's biggest customer Samsung had to keep prices ultra-competitive to maintain that.
As soon as Apple (very sensibly) decided that relying on their biggest rival to make phone parts was a scary situation to be in it became only a matter of time until all of the business shifted elsewhere.
Now that Apple will clearly move away when they can regardless of cost considerations the 20% hike is Samsung milking as much profit as possible out of a now temporary relationship without pushing prices so high that their reputation suffers. Pushing up the cost of their key rival is a fringe benefit.
Actually, 50% margin on source manufacturers isn't all that uncommon*. First the base cost if usually fairly low and you'll need to make enough to pay your workers plus have enough left for the shareholders. And, you need a price from which you can discount purchases to people making bulk purchases.
Where Apple make out is they are also last man in the chain, so the get to keep it all.
*My first real job was working at just such an OEM supplier. We made parts for a company name that appears frequently on these pages, but for a non-computer division of the company. Our initial markup was a literal 50%. Then they marked it up another 40% so they could discount it the same 40% to super large orders. For merely large orders you got a 20% discount. If you purchased through our direct channel you paid the full markup, but it still might be cheaper than it would have been if you bought it from the branded company. The only exception to that was if someone brought a specific design to us and asked us to make it for them. That would be done for actual parts plus labor.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: "Ah, Kirk, my old friend. Do you know of the old Klingon proverb that revenge is a dish best served cold? It is very cold in space.
(copied from google,which copied it from wikipedia, which copied it from.... Well, you get it, right? :-))
Let's say the A6 is costing Apple $20 each, and the A6X $30. Not unreasonable for a slightly larger than usual SoC on a 32nm process.
In that case, an extra 20% would bring in $4 per iPhone class device, and $6 per iPad class device. I can see this bringing in an extra $billion before Apple can move away to TSMC, etc.
Of course there is the chance that it is actually a cost issue for Samsung (due to yields, etc), and the overall additional profit from each sale isn't overly increased...
"1st rule of burning bridges is make sure you don't need to get something from the other side before you set fire to it......"
Perhaps you can explain that to Mr. Elop as well. It seems American "businessmen" all over the world have the same habit of prematurely "burning" their "bridges". No wonder their economy is in shambles (and ours too because European Bank-managers took lessons from their American colleagues)
I respect and appreciate the enthusiasm of America's however their self centred attitude when it comes to interacting with the rest of the world and their "shoot, aim, ready" attitude to global business remains one of the most frustrating aspects of working with and for American owned/based companies.
TI are getting out of the arm for phones chip business, apple already bought a chip designers (pa semi \ intrinsity?). Apple have a huge pile of cash. Perhaps apple may be looking to buy TI's OMAP chip business? There are other FABs they can use (tsmc) or they can build their own if TI isn't diversting any fab capacity. TI already supply chips for a few popular ereaderesque tablets, Apple wouldn't mind making amazon's life a little more difficult right? Just thinking :-)
In the next few years...
In that time, other markets will probably be more relevant than Apple - remember, they've shrunk to less than 20% of the smartphone market, it probably won't be too long until they're in the same place on tablets. In the meantime, Samsung are raking in the wonga, both for the chips, and the most popular smartphones (outselling Apple 2:1 this last quarter).
I think Samsung's timing could be exquisite.
And, yes, schadenfreude. I do love schadenfreude.
Chinese companies will pick this up in the next few years
1) Fabs are getting more and more expensive to build and they were never cheap in the first place. The next generation of equipment is already being cofinanced by the exising fabs.
2) In a few years the Chinese will be going "who's Apple?"
The last couple of 5 year plans have been about developing technologies for the domestic the market and using the economies of scale to subsequently dominate the market worldwide. Admittedly, this didn't work too well with the homegrown version of UMTS but hardware is something they are more suited to.
Unless we get 3d printing really under control the whole idea of getting stuff built cheaply in China and sold in the US or Europe at a huge profit is going to become untenable.
Unfortunately real quality was never build in china. But in Europe/US. It all went downhill when greedy shareholders decided to move abroad. This QC-problem is not only in electronics but also in clothing, food, automotive manufacturing etc...
We used to make fun of "Russian"-quality (e.g. Armageddon movie) but in a few years time we'll crave for past technologies, because at least they were durable. I already am getting more interested in doing things on a bloody Raspberry Pi under the ancient RISC OS then going for Widows 8.
In fact at the day of Windows 8' release there was also the first stable release of RISC OS for RPI. I couldn't go to both events and had to choose. The big Microsoft event with free foods and drinks and all the 'managers' with their suits or the less elaborate meeting with the RISC OS.BE users group whom were showing the RPI with RISC OS. I went to the latter.
Samsung do have everything to lose. Plenty of competitors for the components and no loyalty for their devices - AT THE MOMENT they probably make some of the better Android stuff but I would not trust Google not to give the nod to help Motorola and who is to say Asus or HTC will not make the next 'best' Android phone or tablet.
Samsung must know this - surely. A 20% hike is desperate and will just force Apple away quicker - for all we know the reason for the price increase is Apple could be sourcing some of the chips elsewhere already so is buying a lower volume so they upped the price.
Elsewhere, it is reported that Samsung would be pleased to regain for themselves some of the production capacity currently used for Apple. Whether that is a rumour or not remains to be seen, but it does make sense given the volume of sales Sammy is experiencing with their own products.
And no, there are not plenty of competitors for fab production.
I dunno, clearly already been shown they use enough CPU's to make the money back very quickly. Based upon the rise price alone they would recoup in couple of years. Then that is based upon retail costs for the chips in that they would have more savings. Then there is the bringing jobs home gains along with TAX breaks, it is not entirely unrealistic for Apple to build there own fab, or purchase one of somebody else or even both and start cutting into Samsungs chip production market out of spite if nothing else.
Thing is, all this fighting in court only means we the consumer pay more, so any direction other than court would be good from my viewpoint. Also makes sence given there scale of consumption and that they have a design of there own and the ability to use it.
"it is not entirely unrealistic for Apple to build there own fab"
Yes it is. 110% completely unrealistic. Since when have Apple manufactured /anything/, never mind semiconductors? The other major semi manufacturers are so far ahead, Apple would have to headhunt the talent AND invest serious dollars in a plant before they were even in a position to think about catching up. They need chips NOW.
Beer is nice, but I wouldn't go making tech business forecasts after 10 pints.
Last time I looked it up apple had around $100 billion in cash reserves. The real issue is if they think it is worth it and whether they think they can do it. Probably not in both cases, unless they can find something else to do with a FAB other than churn out their processors and attract and keep the engineers to keep it up and running.
Apple have already shown (with displays iirc) they will invest in production lines \ development etc and work with manufacturers to get a cheaper per unit price. Fab's are not cheap to you or me, someone mentioned 1bn, it would probably be closer to 4bn, but remember Apple hs something like 100bn in its warchest, made 8bn profit last quarter and sold 27 million iphones and 14 million ipads in that quarter.
Manufacturing their own cpu's would be a leap for them, but if rumours about them switching away from x86. are true they could move the lot inhouse, vertical integration no? They have the money to do a lot, they could buy tsmc and amd if they wanted to, but that would probably not make as much sense as just fabbing their own phone chips.
That $1B was the retooling that has to be done every year or two. Upkeep. Startup for a single location is over $4B, yes.
Again, Apple doesn't know anything about engineering. Their business model is akin to taking legos and plugging them together. They can make some shiney castles and crap, but they have no idea how to make new bricks.
Intel view ARM as THE Enemy. So much so they have designed x86 Atom chips to try and compete with ARM designs.
Intel go as far as offering full reference designs for anybody who wishes to use their chips in apple competing products. Intel are married to the x86 platform till they both die.... If its not x86 Intel want to kill it with fire..
Apple would be better off talking to AMD/Global Foundries, as they need the business (better deal for Apple) & have experience in ARM chip fabrication whilst not completing with Apple in any way.
..and recent rumours have Apple saying that they want to move MacOSX off the x86 line (possibly onto a new ARM design with higher horsepower and FPU capability) - THAT is another reason why Intel might not be keen on Apple. (Apple have already shifted their processor a couple of times...and the Rosetta technology could do x86->ARM translation ). if Apple used x86 in their mobile platform then it would have been an immediate marriage but no....
"..and recent rumours have Apple saying that they want to move MacOSX off the x86 line (possibly onto a new ARM design with higher horsepower and FPU capability)"
This old chestnut. The trouble is, with people being more and more fond of cross-platform binary "blob" drivers with interface wrappers, the really good development effort for high performance mainstream parts will go to the x86 drivers, as that's where the volume is. Apple's volume on desktops/laptops is tiny compared to their stature on more mobile devices. Anyone using a non-x86 desktop processor who wants to have mainstream GPU performance or painless mainstream support for most peripherals will find the manufacturers that bit harder to convince than if they were on x86. Apple have already been through this in the PPC era.
Of course, there is no legislating for hubris, craziness and evil secret plans, but it's fairly unlikely, anyway.
I swear I saw an article at one point where one of the Intel execs said, more or less, [if someone handed us a blank check we would consider fabbing non-x86 chips]. I could be wrong, and I'll be damned if I can find it now under the swarm of hyperventilating articles about Apple allegedly ditching x86 for ARM... but anyway, the point is: you can get a gold plated Rolls Royce as long as you pay for it.
You could expect Intel to make Samsung's prices look like an HP Touchpad fire sale though. Intel's fabs are bleeding edge and core to their business... they would not share that advantage without appropriate/significant compensation.
1) Intel used to have its own ARM business (XScale trademark, sold to Marvel back in 2006)
2) Fabs are EXPENSIVE, to pay for them you need to run them near full capacity. If they have a good customer (Apple buy a lot of x86 chips) who wants huge volumes of custom parts then its unlikely they will say no.
Intel has already been there and got the t-shirt. They inherited StrongARM from DEC, then went on to develop their XScale implementation of the ARMv5 architecture before flogging it to Marvell so that they could focus fully on x86. Can't see them doing a u-turn any time soon (even though they still hold some sort of ARM license apparently).
I didn't say they would start selling ARM... but if you have idle capacity and someone (Apple) comes knocking on the door with a blank check to fab a custom SOC for them... I'm just saying it's possible. Intel does have a Custom Foundry division after all...
This wasn't exactly what I was trying to find earlier but seems to get the point across, give or take:
"Are there opportunities out in time to take advantage of the lead that we're building in areas like foundry? Yes. You have seen some small announcements to that effect, where we have signed up some companies for some foundry activity over the next several years. I would look at those, and I would ask you to look at those as being learning experiences for us. [...] It is for profit [now]. In terms of where it goes long term, I will leave that point open," said the head of Intel.
If the design was 100% Apple then obviously TSMC would already be making some of them.
This already happens with tscreens where they seemingly downgraded specification to achieve it,
Apple therefore have not yet got the skill set up to the enough speed to take advantage of that now old ARM license approval.
It's not trivial to move from one process to another. It takes careful tuning to make a set of masks for a particular manufacturers process (I understand that the newer A5/A6 chips are built on 32nm HKMG, and TSMC skipped 32nm and went direct to 28nm so it's a half node step in addition to new masks)
It has seen the end of Steve Jobs, it will soon see the end of Apple (apologies to the writers of Star Wars)
I and others predicted this and its happened and left Apple up to their necks in it. I made another prediction back then, that you can't afford to treat your suppliers like crap when you're in a specialist field. Apple are, whether they like it or not one step away from losing Samsung as a supplier, and with timescales how they are and the prevalence of Samsung processors that could easily put them into a rather unpleasant RIM style tailspin.
Well done, Apple, you've all but signed your own death warrent. Oh and word to the wise, don't try to dictate terms to us until you've bought Whitehall; and even then we won't listen. You screw with the British courts at your peril!
Biggest load of tosh I've heard in ages. 'End of Apple'? Give me a break - I've been hearing that crap for the last 20 years. Remember how Microsoft would eventually do for Apple? And yet who's the biggest tech company in the work by market cap right now? That's right - Apple. They're worth more than Samsung, Microsoft, Google and any of the rest.
Apple know how to survive and prosper after any setback and they'll get over this one. They make such high margins on their kit they can easily cut into them a bit to absorb any price increase from Shamsung. Hell, even if they don't do that, then the 'fanbois' will still be more than happy to pay a few extra bucks to get their fix. And that's only up to the point when Apple do away with Sammy as a supplier completely. Do you really think Cook and Co haven't already played out this little scenario and come up with a long term strategy?
As for an 'unpleasant RIM style tailspin', RIM are a dead company walking because they took their eye of the ball and started turning out crap hardware and software that nobody wants and not because someone increased their chip costs by a few quid.
@Graphsboy - Apple survived because of Microsoft, and Microsoft giving them a bit of spare change that they had laying around, why? Because Microsoft *needs* a competitor, if Apple had died then Microsoft would have 99% market share and total domination which the regulators wouldn't like and so would have most likely forced Microsoft to split the company up to allow other competitors into the field.
The problem with Apple is that it's not really used to success, it's used to failing, now it has a whiff of being "top dog" and it's still trying to get away with the crap that regulators allowed it to do when it's competition was Microsoft, but being a big company they find that the regulators get pissy if they try to abuse their position, so it should stop acting like a company that is about to go under and start acting like a company which isn't going to get hammered by the powers that be.
@David Web - Utter nonsense. When MS and Apple settled Apple still had over $1 billion in the bank. Microsoft took a token $150 million share holding and promised to support Office on Mac OS. They also cross-licensed their patents.
Apple have been increasingly profitable for over 14 years now. They pretty much own the MP3 player market, and have done since 2004. They are the most profitable seller of mobile phones in the world, have reinvented the category of tablet PC and own something like 60% of that market by volume (and rather more by value). I'm pretty sure that qualifies as being used to success.
"They pretty much own the MP3 player market". There IS no standalone MP3 player market any more. Anyone who wants mobile music players already has one on their laptop, tablet or smartphone (and pretty much any feature phone, too). There is no reason to own a 'Personal Stereo', now. Don't bother coming back with 'sound quality' arguments. Mobile music players are used in noisy urban environments, totally unsuited to audiophile conditions. The new ergonomic Apple earbud thingies don't change a thing.
If you want background music on the go, use your phone and a pair of earbuds. If you want a glorious celebration of the music you love, fire up the hi-fi through speakers whilst chilling on the sofa of your own home.
"Biggest load of tosh I've heard in ages. 'End of Apple'? Give me a break - I've been hearing that crap for the last 20 years. Remember how Microsoft would eventually do for Apple? And yet who's the biggest tech company in the work by market cap right now? That's right - Apple. They're worth more than Samsung, Microsoft, Google and any of the rest."
Are you retarded?
You know that Apple only exists today because Bill Gates gave them billions in free money so that Microsoft wouldn't get 100% market share and get dismantled by the government, right?
Steve Webb's account is accurate. Microsoft didn't save Apple. They only invested a few million for a deal based on mutual benefits. The only retard here is yourself for plucking a figure of billions out of mid air and convincing yourself it's true.
And don't forget the "smoking gun" was a bug in the quicktime codec that had mysteriously been coded into the supposedly white room Microsoft implementation. Microsoft and Apple both benefited from the deal in the long run, expecially the long term support commitment for Office. The cash was trivial.
The positive with building your own stuff is that a vertically integrated supply chain reduces the risk of sudden price hikes or supply shortages. That's why Samsung do it.
The negative is that it ties you to a particular production strategy (as others have said, the upfront costs of technology mass-production facilities are phenomenal, so you can't change your mind halfway) and so if you get it wrong it weighs on the reliability and cost-efficiency of your end product. That's why Apple (and most producers of most electronics) don't.
The question of whether outsourcing your low-margin production and focussing on high margin design and distribution is a good strategy (because it supports a higher margin and more flexible business) or a bad one (because it makes your business more vulnerable to the long term plans of the people who make stuff for you) is in some ways a question about the entire western strategy of outsourcing low value jobs.
That will make Apple's long-term success or not against HTC (used to make mobile stuff for other people but now mostly a consumer brand) and Samsung (ditto but bigger) particularly interesting.
Apple has just managed to knock off HTC so it will now turn to the other two that are left : Samsung and Motorola. Lacking money and some good patents, HTC couldn't show anything more than a 6in knife to heavily armed Apple (and Microsoft), so right at the negotiation table they were swiftly promoted on the menu without any further formalities.
It's not just Apple who use Foxconn. Foxconn's major customers are:
So if Apple did buy Foxconn, they could make some of their own stuff, plus stuff for the above. Can't see them welcoming Samsung with open arms unless there is a serious ceasefire.
Foxconn isn't a manufacturer. They assemble things. How do people know this little about the world and business? Scary.
I'd keep quiet if I were you, after all you did claim that "Apple only exists today because Bill Gates gave them billions in free money so that Microsoft wouldn't get 100% market share and get dismantled by the government". What a joke. MS bought $150M of non-voting Apple stock to support continued development of MS Office on the Mac, which they sold back later for a massive profit. Get your facts straight before you point fingers at others!
Before you go around crying 'exploiting' had you considered these people travel a long way to apply for jobs there as they are better than the alternatives. Take these jobs away and are you improving their lives?
Sure it's difficult for us in the west to see $10-20 (or whatever) for a 10-12 hour working day as a decent wage as most would expect that per hour - or often considerably more. But you do have to ask yourself - are they being 'forced' to work in these factories - they may have to as they want to earn a better wage - but it's not gun to head / slavery.
People are too quick to condemn the companies - but take the companies away and the jobs are lost - lose the jobs and what do they have - most likely lower paid, near subsistence farming - oh and remember it's not just Apple that uses these factories.
don't you all think that a big company, Apple or anyone else, would have cast iron contracts that forbid price increases mid contract or at the very least an increase within a certain range. So we have to make an assumption here that ALL Apple's contracts with Sammy are ending all at the same time before adding up the extra costs.
Apple will surely be taking everything away from Samsung - so yes they may charge more for some of it's processors it's only a matter of time. Then wait until HTC or Asus or Motorola come out with the next best new shiny Android phone and people would stop Samsung like a pile of poo.
Could anyone genuinely say (without laughing) they would buy Samsung next time if someone else was making a better Android handset = no = no loyalty. Things can change very quickly in the Android marketplace and surely Samsung must feel the risk?
Maybe Apple should make some unholy alliance with Google / Motorola - I'm sure Google don't want to be locked out of all those millions of Apple tablets and search. Samsung could see themselves back as a maker or pretty average handsets very quickly - it's not as if they make the OS etc. Samsung are far more at risk from competition from HTC, Asus and other far eastern manufacturers as there is so little to differentiate and it's coming down to cost.
The average Joe Public does not really care if their Android handset say HTC or Samsung or Motorola.
The average Joe Public does not really care if their handset is Android or anything really, as long as it does what they what or think they want and costs what they think is the right price. My parents a couple of years ago bought iphones, they where in the shop looking for smart phones and faced with a load of phones all at more or less the same cost a month so went with apple as they'd heard of it.
An excellent choice - my 3GS is still going strong after 4+ years while a colleague is now on his 3rd Android - not really by choice but because he gets no support / updates after 12-18 months.
So if you are not someone who feels the need to change phones every 12-18 months there is a good chance an iPhone will cost you less.
> So if you are not someone who feels the need to change phones every
They aren't but now have android phones. Turned out they couldn't use their phones to do everything they wanted. If our entire family lived and breathed apple they could probably make do but they don't and even then they would still be doing just that, making do.
Samsung remember and eye for an eye and the world goes blind.
I suspect they hiked the price as Apple were actually ordering far fewer - probably buying the bulk from another vendor and topping up the balance they cannot make from Samsung. So yes they may pay 20% more for the component but only while the other ramp up and perhaps only on a small part of their total requirement.
It's not as if Samsung are the only people that can make these processors.
This is true KARMA, what goes around come's around, hahaha. Apple sued Samsung and only won because it was in the GREAT CRAP OF AMERICA where biased jury memmber's gave a pathetic verdict the reason why i say this is because as mentioned in the article GREEDY APPLE are losing in Euorope and else where so because GREEDY APPLE was an American company the patriotic biased scum jury returned a guilty verdict which i hope get's overturned. Also Samsung were in my opinion wrongly asked to pay around $1 billion to GREEDY APPLE that made GREEDY APPLE very happy but unfortunatly that's been short lived because now SAMSUNG have upped the price of the A6 processor and GREEDY APPLE have no option but to cough up so that mean's that SAMSUNG should probably make close to the $1 billion that they were asked to pay GREEDY APPLE, so that serve's GREEDY APPLE right hahaha i wonder how happy GREEDY APPLE is now, well some one should ask them hahaha. The mere thought of trying to say that a comapany such as GREEDY APPLE own the patent to a rectangle with rounded corner's is absured and like i said before if that case was not in America then GREEDY APPLE would not have had a chance of winning it would have been thrown out . I have absolutaly no sympathy for GREEDY APPLE because they are the one's who stareted all of this GREEDY litigation crap which just stifle's innovatiuon and in the long term will cost the customer more as is the case here but GREEDY APPLE do not care because they now that STUPID ISHEEP will pay a ransome for their OVERPRICED CRAP. I used to be an ISHEEP but luckily i woke up and smelt the coffe as they say and after the GREEDY APPLE and SAMSUNG fiasco i never buy APPLE CRAP again and now most of my freind's do not either because APPLE showed their true colour of being a GREEDY, SCUMY comapny who are shit scared of competition. I hope that SAMSUNG turn the heat up even more hahaha.
It just goes to show that GREEDY APPLE is a CRATY SNAKE it bit the hand that feed's it and now it need's to pay up, good. If some people had sense, moral's and ethic's they would not buy the overpriced crap that GREEDY APPLE make's but unfortunatly there are people who will be iSHEEP'S all of their sad live's i just hope they wake up and realise what a company they are dealing with and i for one am glad that SAMSUNG is turning the screw tight and i hope they torn it tighter. They are tasting their own vile medicine and i bet it don't taste nice, hahaha. COME ON iSHEEP WAKE UP.
"It just goes to show that GREEDY APPLE is a CRATY SNAKE it bit the hand that feed's it and now it need's to pay up, good. If some people had sense, moral's and ethic's they would not buy the overpriced crap that GREEDY APPLE make's but unfortunatly there are people who will be iSHEEP'S all of their sad live's"
Welcome to the fraternal brotherhood of ACs, "Obviously!". We needed a new jizzmopper, anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019