Comment by ihsw
13 years ago
Samsung and Apple are both massive companies with an immense amount of overlap, so one of them boycotting the other would be like the US boycotting China. It just doesn't make sense.
Although it's only prudent that they still keep each-other at arms length, and scrutinize every business decision with the other.
True to some extent. Fundamentally Samsung is a Diversified company but Apple is very Focussed. Samsung electronics itself is so massive that one branch of it(LSI), depends on Apple for its volume which can keep its Fab busy for years. But, its other branch(Mobile) competes with Apple phones though. Similarly Apple depends on sammy only for its proven Fab and competitive Prices. Guess TSMC is no where near Sammys Fab technology and lost Apples deal.
Btw, Samsung is so massive and diversified that it is into areas like Construction, Ship Building, Finance, Automobile, Retail. Its a very different company. It adapts to any domain, very fast. Few years back it became Top player in consumer electronics,last year it surpassed Apple in smart phones sales, had been a top player in Memory and tomorrow if space travel is the money spinner, it will be there.
You know Burj Khalifa, Taipei 101, Petronas are all built by Samsung ofcourse Samsung Engineering & Construction. So we need to mind which part of samsung we are talking about.
I had heard about conglomerates of course. But my first visit to South Korea, the totality of it blew my mind -- the cyberpunk future of company-nations coming out of Asia was real.
I remember that between getting off of the plane and going to bed, I had ridden in at least 2 Samsung built vehicles (a bus and a taxi -- dunno about the subway), shopped in a Samsung owned store, made some phone calls on a Samsung phone, got into a Samsung built apartment building and taken a Samsung elevator up to an apartment filled with Samsung appliances where I went to sleep watching news on a Samsung TV.
Later, on the same trip I experienced a very similar conglomerate built world in the form of LG and Daewoo, even getting a trip to a massive Daewoo ship building facility that cranked out - to spec - everything from oil tankers to submarines.
Back in the early 90's I bought a $30 VCR from some no-name foreign brand no one had ever heard of here in the US. 1/3 the price of the name brand stuff.
Then I went to Seoul and saw that same company brand on top of the largest skyscraper in the city - Daewoo.
Absolutely mind blowing.
1 reply →
Btw, Samsung is so massive and diversified that it is into areas like Construction, Ship Building, Finance, Automobile, Retail
And the only one of them that's making big money right now is mobile. That's where most of Samsung's (and I mean the big diversified company, including building boats and selling insurance) income has been coming from the last 2 years.
Samsung is very focussed on mobile right now.
The irony is that most of Sony's income is generated through their insurance business.
Yeah, and Amazon's profit margins are notoriously and historically razor thin -- interestingly it's a matter of policy. Redirecting profits to other departments for maximizing revenue generation, which results in completely opaque expenditure/profit reports.
Mobile handsets may be the largest slice of the pie, but that's only because it's so easy to pad the margins.
Furthermore there is value to participating in other industries, even if only to break even. The expertise and business relationships are certainly contributing to Samsung's bottom line in ways other than revenue.
In terms of income ratio of Samsung, it is so focused on mobile business. Samsung mobile business income may beat rest of all samsung conglomerate incomes. Apple has been the biggest customer for Samsung FAB. As Apple were pulling out, it became like factory without running. Not sure why Apple chose both TSMC and Samsung fabs, may be gaining some bargain power, TSMC is one of the best. Qualcomm takes on the most advanced process with TSMC. AP is designed by apple and they can always choose which fabrication facility to produce. Samsung FAB and mobile business are not in the same boat
Huh? Is Apple running a fab in their backyard? What exactly do they own in terms of technology that others rely on?
The suggestion was that the relationship is mutually beneficial, not that it was bi-directional in terms of components traded.
Apple is like the USA to Samsung's China in this specific relationship in that the product (components in this case) pretty much goes one way, but both still rely on the relationship.
Samsung makes some of the components Apple needs, Apple buys those components. Apple needs Samsung for inexpensive chip fab, Samsung needs Apple for the revenue provided in return.
Samsung does not need Apple. Apple probably doesn't need Samsung either, but they've chosen to need them for this processor.
2 replies →
I think you are overestimating how much Samsung needs Apple as a customer. Gigantic companies as Samsung are simultaneously active in any number of large markets. They do not need single customers, they do not even need whole markets. They are essentially investment holdings that will move out and into markets as they mature or are commoditized.
9 replies →
They own a customer base willing to pay them billions of dollars per quarter.
They benefit from Apple's Billions in up front purchasing.
They buy lots of chips and components from a company that's invested a lot of money to supply that demand. If Apple abruptly stopped or was forced to stop buying flash from Samsung, for example, Samsung would take a bath on their fab investments. Apple is easily their single biggest customer for flash and SOC fab production.
No, but there is evidence suggesting that they are about to partner with GlobalFoundaries, who is building another new fab in NY, supposedly for Apple demand.
Apple does own fabs. They bought PA Semi a few years ago. I think they also picked up a NAND place somewhere overseas more recently as well.
PA Semi was a fabless company.
Invent it?