Comment by bdcravens
13 years ago
Interesting for those curious about the new processor. The fact that it's Samsung, a company supposedly at odds with Apple, isn't much of a story. It's not even news: (from July 1!)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732468220457851...
They've provided parts to Apple for years, and their bottom line and stock price have been rewarded. (represents about 15-20% of their components sales)
The mobile division and the components divisions in the company operate fairly separately. That's why the oft commented, "They should just stop shipping parts to Apple to punish them for the lawsuit!" is kinda ridiculous.
When it was RUMORED that Samsung lost a significant contract for Apple chips to a competitor, they lost $10B in market cap: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-samsung-chips-i...
What is interesting is that this reported $5B application processor contract with Samsung is likely drying up after the iPhone5S (plus next iPad rev?) as Apple transitions to TSMC. It therefore implies that all TSMC designs will likely be 64-bit, which will now likely change the planning for other pure-play foundries dreaming of that $5B order from Cupertino:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319218
What is Samsung's primary stock ticker symbol?
They trade in south korea so you wouldn't find their stock in US markets if you searched for it there..
It appears to be SSNLF, or 005930.KS? http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=005930.KS
Some more info: this is on the Korea Exchange[0], and it's Samsung Electronics only.
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Exchange
Just looking at that chart it seems like they aren't doing that great, how could that possibly be given they are doing so well in the mobile and laptop markets...
They trade in south korea so you wouldn't find it in the us markets.
>>That's why the oft commented, "They should just stop shipping parts to Apple to punish them for the lawsuit!" is kinda ridiculous.
They can't just stop or they'll face bankruptcy by paying Apple damages. No doubt Apple made them sign an ironclad contract...and most likely a few years notice is part of it. Apple isn't stupid.
Not to mention that Samsung isn't doing Apple any favors, they're making a fortune because of the Apple contract. If they decide not to renew it, that's their prerogative but I'm sure Apple has plan A and B ready. Someone else will gladly take their money
I always felt they could take what ever the damages award ended up to be, divide that by the volume of chips they send Apple, And then raise the price per chip that much.
Don't not ship, just make sure that the patent damages don't cause any hit to the bottom line.
I'm pretty sure that Apple would have negotiated prices into the chip contract. After all, this isn't the US signing a cost plus defense contract.
You're assuming the head of the chips department gives a fuck about what is happening to the mobile department. If the CEO where to step in and try to force the chips the people to screw with one of their best customer out of spite I'm pretty sure that wouldn't go down to well.
I always felt they could take what ever the damages award ended up to be
Like the other poster said, prices are almost certainly fixed--or else they'd face extortion as iPhone got more popular--but does anyone even dare calculate how much damages (including punitive) you have to pay Apple that's shipping some 100 million iPhones a year? Samsung and every corporation on earth would be bankrupt, not to mention that their stock would crash the minute word got out, almost certainly face DOJ, EU anti-trust and other issues etc etc.
Samsung singed the contract and they have to abide by it or else...
Not to start a war or anything, but Samsung decided to compete with their customer, not the other way around. Do we already need a reminder of pre-iPhone phones?
3 replies →
While you are right, if a supplier is actively working against a customer, it is going to create problems. There are always a million things outside of the contract that matter. If the customer exceeds capacity planning volume, that gets resolved outside of the contract. Most suppliers will bend over backwards to help the customer. Will Samsung? Maybe.
If I were Apple, I'd prefer a supplier that has a natural incentive to be a great supplier rather than one that only has a contractual obligation. In the long term, contracts are as hollow as wedding vows. The relationship between a customer and supplier must be mutually beneficial with aligned interests.
> _if a supplier is actively working against a customer_
Samsung was in the mobile phone business long before Apple. It shipped its first phones in 1998 and was the second-largest manufacturer by 2007.
So Apple already knew it was going to a phone manufacturer, and that it would be competing with one of its suppliers.
I'm sure they'd be exploring alternatives ... But it's just the scale at which Samsung supplies them the chips that it's not seemingly possible for many other suppliers in the world ...
1 reply →