backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by superstition.. on Nov 7 at 3:52 PM


  (Source: cultofmac.com)
Samsung Display officially severs contract with Apple for LCDs

Just like any bad relationship, Apple and Samsung have moved from a great partnership over the years to nothing but arguments and stabs in the back -- but Samsung is finally saying goodbye. 
 
Samsung Display, which has provided Apple with liquid crystal display (LCD) panels for its iPhones and iPads over the years, officially severed its contract with the iDevice maker today. Samsung cited cost as the main issue, since Apple has started using Samsung competitors with better prices for displays recently. Hence, Apple was expecting bigger discounts from Samsung.
 
"We are unable to supply our flat-screens to Apple with huge price discounts," said an anonymous source at Samsung. "Samsung has already cut our portion of shipments to Apple and next year we will stop shipping displays." 
 
While Samsung was the top supplier to Apple after the first 6 months of this year with 15 million LCDs shipped, this number dropped dramatically to less than 3 million LCDs shipped in the third quarter. In Q4 2012, this number is expected to drop even further to 1.5 million. 
 
Samsung did not ship any LCDs to Apple for its new iPad Mini, which is expected to be announced tomorrow. 
 
While the break-up marks the end of Samsung and Apple's turbulent relationship, it looks like Samsung has already moved on -- to Amazon. 
 
"Although we are losing Apple business, Samsung looks safe as we found the right alternatives -- Amazon and Samsung Electronics' handset division," said the Samsung source.

Amazon just recently announced its new Kindle Fire HD line-up for the holiday season, including a refreshed 7-inch Fire for $199, an 8.9-inch model for $299 and a 4G LTE version for $499. It's also offering a generous data package for only $50 per year.  
 
Apple and Samsung's break-up has been a long time coming. In addition to cost issues, as mentioned above, Samsung and Apple's relationship has been tense ever since the string of patent infringement lawsuits were launched against one another. Apple flung the first suit back in April 2011, calling Samsung an iPad/iPhone copycat. From there, the two launched several patent lawsuits around the world, and even successfully banned a few products (i.e., the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1). 
 
Apple had a major victory this year when a U.S. jury decided that Samsung indeed was infringing on Apple's mobile patents. Samsung was ordered to pay $1.05 billion in damages (which Apple tried to hike up to $3 billion) and in December, it will be decided whether certain Samsung devices will be banned. 

Source: The Korea Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Amazon vs Apple
By name99 on 10/22/2012 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
"Although we are losing Apple business, Samsung looks safe as we found the right alternatives -- Amazon and Samsung Electronics' handset division," said the Samsung source.


Let's not pretend that Amazon is in any way a replacement for Apple here. This is going to hurt Samsung's bottom line.

- iOS device sales are what --- something insane like 10 million a month.

- Kindle Fire sales --- well, who knows because Amazon refuses to release the numbers. Guesses are something like 5 million over their lifetime, maybe 10 million if you include all the oldest and newest models, across the entire life the product has existed, and all the pre-orders and going-to-be orders for 2012.

That's not really much of a comparison...

There is also the "technology transfer" issue. The point is not that Apple tells Samsung how to make devices; it is that Apple has continually pushed Samsung to do a lot more than just cruise, accepting where things were going naturally; and Samsung could then use those better devices across its product line.

Samsung will obviously try to make the best of this situation, to claim that this was all its idea, and that it will find replacement customers that are even better. That's only human nature. But it is also the job of journalists to look into PR and evaluate it for factual content, not to simply report it as the undisguised truth.




RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 3:16:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The point is not that Apple tells Samsung how to make devices; it is that Apple has continually pushed Samsung to do a lot more than just cruise, accepting where things were going naturally; and Samsung could then use those better devices across its product line.


You're directly giving Apple all the credit for the advancement of these phone/tablet technologies in the past few years. That's really stretching it. There are other competitors pushing screen resolutions and other technologies independently of Apple's demands. Or are all these guys being told by Apple to get off their lazy butts too? It's just simple competition. You're taking away the credit from the guys who really deserve it for all this amazing tech -- thousands of engineers across the industry.

Apple almost never develops anything new. One prime example that everyone think's Apple is responsible for: Capacitive touchscreens. Apple didn't create the touch screen, multi-touch, or gestures. (Go ask the guys at Synaptics and others -- they demoed dozens of functionalities long before Apple would later patent them.) Apple utilized the tech when it was mature. They recognized the potential, used it, and popularized it so the rest of the market followed. They did not develop it. Same with CD-Rom back in the days, same with micro hard drives for iPod, etc, etc. They always follow the same pattern.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 3:19:41 PM , Rating: 4
And you can't give Apple the credit for the development of high resolution displays either. They were being developed for LCD viewfinders in digital cameras long before the "Retina Display" race. Again, Apple recognized how to use an existing technology and drove its adoption.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/22/2012 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 3
Apple pretty much invents nothing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 3:55:26 PM , Rating: 4
Interesting watch. I guess I didn't make my point very well though. Most everyone knows they didn't invent these technologies, but they are being given a lot of credit for directly advancing them by the demands they place on manufacturers, which IMO is bunk.

Did Apple's demands cause the development of faster CPUs? GPUs? Smaller/denser memory chips? Faster data transfer technologies? Even in the recent years of smartphones and tablets, I can't think of anything that has dramatically improved because of a mandate from Apple. Indirectly by sales volume leading to more competition, yes. By mandate, no.

Because of their vast sales, more money goes into R&D industry-wide on these technologies which then leads to advancement. They do deserve some credit for that.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By name99 on 10/22/2012 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
" I can't think of anything that has dramatically improved because of a mandate from Apple."

This is an extraordinarily ignorant statement.
Start at the very beginning. It was Apple that pushed the mouse...
And then the laser printer...

Then in the mid-80s, Apple pushed multimedia technology (24-bit screens, multiple screen resolutions, larger screens, CD-ROMs, eventually video camera input into computers) much more aggressively than any PC vendor. I think the same is true for MIDI but I have much less knowledge of that. Apple was involved in the first mass-market digital camera.
USB only really took off after Apple pushed it. Touchpads were pushed by Apple. Apple was seminal in getting WiFi off the ground. Apple provided a market for Toshiba's 1.8" hard drive in the iPod. Apple provided a market for Gorilla Glass. Intel has admitted that they made a dramatic change in priorities in their chip design, from performance to power, which we have seen in the progress through Nehalem to Sandy Bridge to Haswell, as a result of Apple requests/suggestions.
etc etc etc


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 4:57:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is an extraordinarily ignorant statement....
It was Apple that pushed the mouse...And then the laser printer... multimedia technology


Reading comprehension fail. You just made my point. Thanks! :)

Apple does not mandate these technologies into existance NOR do they directly advance them by mandate, demand on manufacturers, etc., as you stated they did with Samsung. They adopt existing technologies and popularize them by marketing them. In every single example you give, you make my point. Apple PROVIDED A MARKET FOR. Meaning, they took an existing product and SOLD IT. They did not advance the technology by making demands on the manufacturer. Advances were made because the public bought it and other companies jumped on the bandwagon and the WHOLE INDUSTRY advanced it in competition with one another.

When you decide call someone ignorant, make sure you know what you're arguing.

quote:
Intel has admitted that they made a dramatic change in priorities in their chip design, from performance to power, which we have seen in the progress through Nehalem to Sandy Bridge to Haswell, as a result of Apple requests/suggestions.


Now you're going to tell me the shift in focus from performance to efficiency that AMD and Intel have been doing now for years is Apple's doing? Wow... The server market has been huge on power/performance ratios for a long long time now. And the mobile chip market did not start with Apple.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 5:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now you're going to tell me the shift in focus from performance to efficiency that AMD and Intel have been doing now for years is Apple's doing?


The focus on IGP performance is mainly because of Apple. They skipped out on putting the first gen i7/i5 CPUs into the Macbook Air because its IGP was much slower than the NVIDIA IGP that they were allowed to pair with a Core 2 Duo. One of the top selling notebooks right now is the Macbook Air, and Apple's focus is on continuing to push performance on this front. Of course Intel wants to continue being in these products. Apple and Intel have had a close relationship for years, Intel even going so far as produce custom CPU packages for Apple products. Of course Apple's demands for improved IGPs have pushed for what we're seeing now in Ivy Bridge and the upcoming Haswell.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The focus on IGP performance is mainly because of Apple.


Please provide a source for this statement. You seem to be ignoring the larger market as a whole. Collective PC laptop sales worldwide completely bury Apple laptop sales. Hundreds of manufacturers use on-board video and have since the Pentium 4 and Intel's GMA900. Intel has very good reason to advance their IGP, which you in fact mentioned -- competition from AMD and NVidia. Would the industry have just forgotten about faster IGP's if it weren't for the MacBook Air?


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 6:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
A third of US laptop sales this year have been Apple, and 90% of OEM computers in the US sold for over $1000 are Apple. It is a "niche" segment but it is clearly an important market for Intel since it carries higher profit margins. Apple ignoring Intel's first gen i-series mobile CPUs because they didn't match IGP performance from other companies like NVIDIA, even though it meant staying with the ancient Core 2, was a hard lesson. It clearly lit a fire under them.

It is important to note that at the time, Apple was one of the only companies sacrificing a dedicated mobile GPU for size. People on tech forums laughed at the MBA because of that, but Apple stuck with that because the design goal of the MBA was to be very thin.

There were certainly things like netbooks that also used IGPs, but those devices cut corners in every way possible. Those alone wouldn't have pushed video performance, that was never the point nor was it ever expected from machines that are ostensibly disposable.

Now we're seeing Haswell with insane IGP performance and dedicated mobile GPUs becoming marginalized year over year. IGP performance certainly could have happened over time, but Apple put demands like no other company to improve it. Dell and HP certainly didn't put those demands on Intel, why would they when they can just put a dedicated GPU in and be done with it?

An important thing to note is that the OS X desktop is highly dependent on GPU performance in pretty much every way. The move from a Core 2/NVIDIA setup to a first-gen i7 or i5 would have been a significant downgrade in practical desktop performance. That isn't as much a problem in Windows since its desktop doesn't lean on the GPU as hard for rendering and computation. Of course Apple is going to push suppliers for better components, and they can do it because they sell very well in the high end.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 2:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A third of US laptop sales this year have been Apple, and 90% of OEM computers in the US sold for over $1000 are Apple.


Not sure where you are getting your statistics, but that 90% > $1000 sounds HIGHLY suspect. Anyway, here's some statistics with references:

http://statisticbrain.com/computer-sales-statistic...
Global PC Market 2011

Number of computers sold globally: 355.2 Million
Worldwide computer sales revenue: $329 Billion
Percent of laptop computers sold: 16.4%
Share by Units Sold: Apple 10.7%

Calculations based on above statistics:
Number of computers sold by Apple globally: 38.0064 Million (10.7% of 355.2 Million)
ESTIMATED Number of laptops sold by Apple globally: 6.233 Million (16.4% of 38.0064 Million)
Number of laptops sold worldwide: 58.2528 Million

Out of 58.25 million laptops sold worldwide, an estimated 6.233 million are Apple laptops. For every 1 Apple laptop sold, there are 9.33 non-Apple laptops sold. As I said before, collective PC laptop sales worldwide completely bury Apple laptop sales, therefore Intel does have very good incentive indeed to advance their technology even if it weren't for Apple's 10% of the pie.

quote:
It is a "niche" segment but it is clearly an important market for Intel since it carries higher profit margins.


I fail to see how Apple's profit margins are of any consequence to Intel. Apple won't be sharing their profits and have a history of demanding lower and lower prices from their vendors. The only benefit to Intel would be in securing contract considering that Apple does have a high volume for a single vendor, though certainly not the highest.

quote:
It is important to note that at the time, Apple was one of the only companies sacrificing a dedicated mobile GPU for size.


Almost every laptop for the last decade+ have used some sort of integrated graphics solution. Dedicated graphics was always an expensive option only available on $1200+ laptops for the longest time. Sony has had lines of very thin laptops quite a number of years before the Air, though not quite as thin. Those didn't use any dedicated GPU either. If your point is that Apple specifically sacrificed the mobile GPU to make the laptop thinner and that nobody else left them out for that same reason, then maybe, but that doesn't seem to be very relevant.

quote:
Now we're seeing Haswell with insane IGP performance and dedicated mobile GPUs becoming marginalized year over year. IGP performance certainly could have happened over time, but Apple put demands like no other company to improve it. Dell and HP certainly didn't put those demands on Intel, why would they when they can just put a dedicated GPU in and be done with it?


IGP performance has steadily increased year by year on desktops and laptops steadily since its inception. This is a given. Intel HAS to keep up with the rest of the market. You seem to be forgetting the desktop part of the whole equation. Cheap desktops have been selling with integrated graphics since the days of E-Machines and further. There has always been a very large need for a basic 3D chip for the low end desktop market where every dollar spent is vital. If anything, the cheapskate market has driven this development more than anything over the years. And Intel has been threatening to bring higher performing 3D to the market for as long as I can remember, but even so, their implementations are still far behind discreet solutions. Competition with Nvidia and AMD has driven this far more than Apple's need for a chip for Macbook Air.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Insurgence on 10/25/2012 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Intel may have made some decisions on what to implement and not to implement based off of Apples suggestions, but Intel made the change in priorities after the Prescott processor temperature debacle and the failure of BTX. Which they then just released the Core 2 line of processors, as a way of changing priorities for better tdp/performance ratios. It was also a way for them to unite their diverging mobile and desktop processors architectures.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 4:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did Apple's demands cause the development of faster CPUs? GPUs? Smaller/denser memory chips? Faster data transfer technologies? Even in the recent years of smartphones and tablets, I can't think of anything that has dramatically improved because of a mandate from Apple. Indirectly by sales volume leading to more competition, yes. By mandate, no.


Actually, yes. Pushing SoC performance has been a huge demand from them, so much so that the A6 is an internal design that nothing else can touch. Before that you had things like Intel making them a custom Core 2 package specifically for the first gen Macbook Air. The improvements in Intel's IGPs is heavily pushed by Apple, the same company that stayed with the Core 2 Duo in the MBA for an additional year because NVIDIA's IGP was far faster than what was in Intel's first gen i7/i5 CPUs.

Thunderbolt was another collaboration brought about by Apple's desire for a single high speed connection that could handle data and video. Display technology is another one, they pushed high DPI, and thus faster GPUs, in mobile devices. They put such an emphasis on DPI that they designed a massive SoC (almost the size of a normal laptop CPU) and doubled the size of the iPad battery in order to support the GPU needed.

They push technologies and suppliers hard to fit their particular design goals (portability, speed, ergonomics).

Every other tech out there tends to race to the bottom with component quality and performance. Without Apple to push the high end, those other companies would be cutting even more corners.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 5:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, yes. Pushing SoC performance has been a huge demand from them, so much so that the A6 is an internal design that nothing else can touch.


Making their own SoC design is quite a bit different than saying they're advancing technology by mandate. This is direct development, not them making demands on a manufacturer (which is what I said). This is all happening in an environement of intense competition among chip makers -- the race has been on for years.

And to say nothing else can touch the A6 is a vast overstatement. A6 runs faster per clock than any other ARM-based design out there at the moment, but is beaten in quite a number of benchmarks by Atom. The single most superior component of the A6 is the PowerVR SGX543, which is not an Apple design nor was it designed exclusively for Apple (it's used in Sony's PS Vita for example).

quote:
Thunderbolt was another collaboration brought about by Apple's desire for a single high speed connection that could handle data and video.


Thunderbolt was designed by Intel and is based on PCI Express and DisplayPort. I can find no clear explanations of what part Apple played in the development of Thunderbolt, but what is clear is that the concept for the technology existed at Intel before any mandate from Apple.

http://www.2ality.com/2011/02/thunderbolt-code-nam...
"History. Quoting Apple and settling an old debate on who invented Thunderbolt:
Thunderbolt began at Intel Labs with a simple concept: create an incredibly fast input/output technology that just about anything can plug into. After close technical collaboration between Intel and Apple, Thunderbolt emerged from the lab to make its first appearance in MacBook Pro."

quote:
Display technology is another one, they pushed high DPI, and thus faster GPUs, in mobile devices.


They did "push" DPI in the sense that they lead the industry in higher res phone displays, but you also are giving credit to Apple where it's not due. They didn't "push" DPI as in driving the development of the higher res technology. They're driving the adoption of it and thereby indirectly driving further development. Like I said before, extremely high DPI screens have been in development for digital camera viewfinders for years.

As for driving faster GPUs because of emphasis on DPI, this is another stretch. The CPU and GPU race are a natural result of competition and were taking place before Apple ever thought up the term "Retina Display". This is the same competition that has been going on for the last 20 years in the PC market. Can't figure out any other way to make it better? Make it faster! This is definitely not because of some Apple mandate.

quote:
Every other tech out there tends to race to the bottom with component quality and performance.


Then explain to me why every single year for the past 30+ years components have been getting faster. Surely Apple wasn't responsible for that too... Saying anyone is racing to the bottom on performance is ludicrous.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 6:33:38 PM , Rating: 4
You put a lot of emphasis on "invention". Execution and shipping, thus driving adoption of a new technology, is just as important.

Gorilla Glass for instance, that was a technology that was mothballed by Corning decades ago. Apple wanted scratchproof glass for the iPhone and they contacted glass manufacturers to see if they had any solutions. Corning happened to have something that they abandoned decades ago, now Gorilla Glass and similar types of scratchproof glass is in everything.

The same sort of thing applies to high DPI. Yes it wouldn't have been used if it didn't exist, but who else aside from Apple would have produced devices using those displays in such high volume, thus popularizing it and pushing everyone else to do the same?

"Pushing everyone else" is especially important given that most OEMs have given to cutting corners and reducing cost over the last several years, not pushing things forward even if it increases cost.

You assume that a technology gets used simply because it exists. It doesn't get used unless a company implements that technology. Apple is will use technology if it fits their design goals, that's the important thing.

As for Thunderbolt, it was developed by Intel with technical collaboration from Apple. It is the same as the examples above, it was tech that Apple felt they needed since their roadmap clearly calls for smaller and faster laptops. A high speed connection that carries digital video and does high speed data transfer makes perfect sense for something like that when it is docked.

Going back to when it was first being shown, the first Light Peak demonstration was on a Mac Pro using a USB connector. That connector was later changed to Apple's mini-DisplayPort connector since the USB consortium wouldn't allow for Thunderbolt's functionality using their plug. Now that is the standard connector.

Intel and Apple have collaborated on several other things with CPUs and chipsets, why is it surprising that they did the same with Thunderbolt?


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 12:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You put a lot of emphasis on "invention". Execution and shipping, thus driving adoption of a new technology, is just as important.


I'm not putting any emphasis on invention. Re-read the post you just replied to. Only even mention invention in my first post here, then I clarified it because that wasn't the original intent of my post. I must not know how to write because everyone seems to be missing my point. This is my point:

Apple does not drive technological advancement through its demands on manufacturers . That's it.

Nowhere did I ever say Apple didn't contribute to pushing the industry forward with what technologies it adopts. I said many times in my posts that they are driving advancement through, adoption, marketing, and sales, thereby triggering competition in the market. Can you see the distinction?

Scenario A: Apple demands to Company X that they want a screen that is higher pixel density, brighter, better color reproduction, faster refresh rate, wider viewing angles, and cheaper to boot than anything on the market or anything CompanyX currently offers. Company X says okay, retools their entire production line, and magically achieves the engineering in short order to make possible because Apple told them to and promised lots of sales.

Scenario B: Apple sees potential in a screen technology developed by CompanyX. CompanyX already has the technology, knowhow, and production capacity to make the screens Apple wants, but they aren't being produced for the mass market or are too expensive at present. Apple contracts for a large run of said screen. Apple's sales are huge, CompanyX makes money, Apple makes money. Other device manufacturers start wanting screens with the same specs as Apple's so other manufacturers also start offering said screens to companies.

Which scenario sounds more realistic?

You're arguing all these points to me about how Apple pushes the industry forward through their adoption and proliferation, and that's not at all counter to what I'm saying, so don't think you're telling me anything I don't know already.

quote:
The same sort of thing applies to high DPI. Yes it wouldn't have been used if it didn't exist, but who else aside from Apple would have produced devices using those displays in such high volume, thus popularizing it and pushing everyone else to do the same?


Apple sped up the adoption, but look at Cell phones from 2000, then 2005, then 2007, then now. There is a clear increase in resolution, colors, and processing power throughout that entire time, even when Apple wasn't leading the charge. You argue that without Apple nobody pushes hard to advance anything and history tells us that simply is not the case.

quote:
You assume that a technology gets used simply because it exists.


I do nothing of the kind. I'm saying high DPI screens existed already AND were in use before Retina Display. Apple recognized an advantage in using high DPI screens and kicked off the current DPI race. They had a hand in the advancement of the technology, but not because they simply demanded a supplier to do something that wasn't already in the works. They may have sped up adoption in the market because of their tremendous success, but the trends were clearly there already for ever increasing resolution displays. Apple's not doing any of this in a vacuum and for them to get all the credit is just unjust.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 7:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They may have sped up adoption in the market because of their tremendous success, but the trends were clearly there already for ever increasing resolution displays. Apple's not doing any of this in a vacuum and for them to get all the credit is just unjust.


I'm not claiming that. I think we're in agreement, we just put different levels of importance on getting these technologies out to market. I think it is absolutely important that Apple is pushing the adoption of existing technologies, namely because very few others do.

IMHO, tech doesn't mean much if nobody is going to ship it. It is the reason I used Gorilla Glass as an example earlier. Nobody used it for decades. Apple put it in the iPhone and singlehandedly made scratchproof surfaces on smartphones and tablets a necessity. Now it is everywhere.

The same applies for many other things. Just because a piece of technology exists doesn't mean that others are going to jump right on top of it, especially given how much other OEMs cut corners these days.

I do disagree about demands on manufacturers. Apple pushed for Corning to make Gorilla Glass on a scale that they weren't prepared for. They barely made it. Apple skipped out on a whole year of Intel CPUs because their IGP hadn't progressed at all. Intel invested heavily in improving it and it paid off two years later. Apple invested millions in CNC machining equipment for their contractors when nobody had it themselves. The list goes on.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 12:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for Thunderbolt, it was developed by Intel with technical collaboration from Apple...Intel and Apple have collaborated on several other things with CPUs and chipsets, why is it surprising that they did the same with Thunderbolt?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interfac...
"Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and brought to market with technical collaboration from Apple."

Even this sentence makes it sound very much like Intel did all the engineering. Even this quote from Apple.com says that even the concept came from Intel:

quote:
Thunderbolt began at Intel Labs with a simple concept: create an incredibly fast input/output technology that just about anything can plug into. After close technical collaboration between Intel and Apple, Thunderbolt emerged from the lab to make its appearance in Mac computers.


They say there was a "technical collaboration", but they actually don't make any claims of having developed it. I haven't found any resources that show to what role Apple played in the engineering and I've already shown you that the idea was not from Apple. From Wikipedia, it sounds to me like Apple provided the platform, the marketing, and the mini MDP connector (which was exactly the same spec as the Display Port connector, only smaller, which means they didn't create the spec either.) Apple's own website doesn't even claim they created it, so why should they get the credit for it? Was Intel planning just to sit on the idea for decades? Surely Intel would benefit from contracting to Apple, but that in no way means they wouldn't have developed it or brought it out without Apple's input anyway.

History is too full of examples of Apple getting credit for technologies they did not engineer such as Firewire. To this day you'll find no shortage of people who think Firewire is an Apple technology when in fact it was developed by a slew of companies.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 1:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
Apple created the mini-DP connector and then released it royalty free.

Obviously Apple didn't develop core technologies on their own, but they certainly pushed component suppliers in directions that fit the design goals of their products. To deny this is ludicrous. Would Thunderbolt even be a thing without Apple? It is having a hard enough time gaining traction with them in the picture.

Do you think that IGP performance would be such a big deal with Intel if we had to lean on Dell or HP? No, they would continue to pair dedicated GPUs into their laptops because those are the available components and there is no internal push to make extremely thin laptops. Apple was so against the IGP in first gen i7/i5 CPUs that they used old Core 2 Duos until Intel's IGP caught up with NVIDIA's.

Apple is one of Intel's main customers, of course they cannot ignore that.

People automatically forget that the refusal to put dedicated GPUs made the MBA a laughing stock, but now ultrabooks are suddenly ok because Intel randomly did a quick about face on the power of their IGP that was pushed by Apple? That didn't just randomly happen in time for Apple to start using them. You don't have to like the company or the products but you have to recognize that Apple is notoriously demanding when it comes to component specs if it is needed for a product. In Apple's case, it comes down to fast and efficient designs in very small chassis. Super simple concept here.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 2:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple created the mini-DP connector and then released it royalty free.


Mini DP is pin compatible with Display Port. Meaning, Apple shrunk someone else's port unmodified. That's not exactly developing.

quote:
Would Thunderbolt even be a thing without Apple?


Yes, I very much think it would. Intel conceived it, Intel developed it. Apple is not the only company in the world who wants fewer cables to deal with. Intel is not a company that just sits on their hands. They had a good opportunity to work with Apple and get the benefit of their sales, but they were not vital.

quote:
Do you think that IGP performance would be such a big deal with Intel if we had to lean on Dell or HP?


You seem to have the believe that Intel won't do anything without pushing from someone on the outside. That's a little naieve. Intel is a company out for profit and in competition with the likes of nVidia and AMD, and now all the ARM manufacturers. They MUST make smaller, faster, more efficient chips. They've been doing it for 30+ years with or without Apple. This comes at a time when the mobile industry is EXPLODING amid tons of competition. Apple simply is not the pivotal driving force behind all these technologies.

quote:
but now ultrabooks are suddenly ok because Intel randomly did a quick about face on the power of their IGP that was pushed by Apple? That didn't just randomly happen in time for Apple to start using them.


Intel has been promising better integrated graphics forever and everyone was disappointed with their early attempts, not just Apple. No, it was certainly NOT random. Intel has been working on it for a long time. Again, Intel is not just a company that sits around waiting for people to tell them what they need to do. Predicitions about the rise of the mobile market have been going on for years and years. The guys running these companies know that.

quote:
You don't have to like the company or the products but you have to recognize that Apple is notoriously demanding when it comes to component specs if it is needed for a product.


I made no statements liking or disliking Apple or Apple's products. What I have a problem with is them getting credit for things they do not deserve, which lately has become the rule rather than the exception.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 7:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I very much think it would. Intel conceived it, Intel developed it. Apple is not the only company in the world who wants fewer cables to deal with. Intel is not a company that just sits on their hands. They had a good opportunity to work with Apple and get the benefit of their sales, but they were not vital.


I don't even know if it'll happen with Apple's backing, to be honest. The PC world seems happy with USB 3.0, even if it offers less functionality and much lower bandwidth.

quote:
Intel has been promising better integrated graphics forever and everyone was disappointed with their early attempts, not just Apple. No, it was certainly NOT random. Intel has been working on it for a long time. Again, Intel is not just a company that sits around waiting for people to tell them what they need to do. Predicitions about the rise of the mobile market have been going on for years and years. The guys running these companies know that.


Certainly, but there was little motivation either. The main places IGP was happening were machines where dedicated GPUs, even very low end ones, would fit. Then there were netbooks or low end $600 laptops which did use the IGP, but performance wasn't expected so people just accepted it.

With the MBA there were two limitations that the rest of the tech world laughed at, one of which was no dedicated graphics, with an OS that leaned heavily on GPU performance to drive the desktop. If Intel wasn't going to make it happen for Apple then AMD certainly would have (and did, actually, their IGP is quite good).

Obviously IGP performance was going to get there, but when a single major client who deals in that sort of volume wants a better IGP, even at the expense of buying old hardware, it means something.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Penti on 10/23/2012 8:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
DP is royalty free, Thunderbolt is royalty free, USB is royalty free. IEEE 1394 partly created by Apple isn't royalty free. MiniDP is analog to MicroDVI, MiniDVI or MiniVGA. It's hard to turn something royalty free into a licensed item, other companies would of course have turned away and made a shrink of their own when they felt they needed it. HDMI has several "mini" variants, despite being licensed. Like (Type D) Micro HDMI, MHL (MicroUSB), Type C Mini HDMI and so on. PDMI for displayport is another portable variant.

That Intel choose it to run Thunderbolt over DP has nothing about what they did back in 2008. mDP doesn't handle the kind of power that Thunderbolt does with it's custom cable, chips and everything. It (DisplayPort) only handles 1.5W. USB can be made to handle even more power for that matter. It's convenient to carry both video and PCIe though. Which you still can over USB for that matter. USB Power Delivery spec can handle up to 100W already. Over a standard USB type A/B connector. That is, a USB PD outlet when found could drive and charge a whole notebook and still talk USB. Ordinary cables only handle 7.5W. That doesn't really matter here when it comes to Thunderbolt and USB PD.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By web2dot0 on 10/22/2012 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
So what's your point?!?!?!?!

If Apple is just a crap company, why do people buy it? Is it because all these people are stupid and they have nothing to offer?

We've been to the moon since the 1960's. If so SpaceX can get us to the outerspace, that's not innovation? According to your insane logic, they have gone where people have been before, so they've invented nothing ....

Ok buddy. Keep thinking that non-sense up.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/22/2012 3:59:47 PM , Rating: 1
Innovate doesn't = invent

And I am not your "buddy"...


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By name99 on 10/22/2012 4:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
The whole POINT of this thread (read the damn first post) was not that Apple was an inventor, it was that Apple has pushed inventions into the mainstream (including pushing manufacturers to do a better job).

You don't get to win on a thread that STARTS OFF by saying essentially Apple is not an inventor but an innovator, by restating the point made in the very first comment and pretending the thread has been about something different all along.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/22/2012 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 1
I am trying to win? Unlike you AppleTools, I am not trying to "win" anything...


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 3:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
Inventing means little if nobody popularizes it. What other major company would have pushed these technologies if Apple hadn't made them mainstream? Every other tech is more concerned with racing to the bottom and making the cheapest, most conservative device possible. Once they see what Apple does in the high end and proves it in the marketplace (full capacitive multitouch, high-DPI, etc), then they jump in.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 6:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What other major company would have pushed these technologies if Apple hadn't made them mainstream? Every other tech is more concerned with racing to the bottom and making the cheapest, most conservative device possible. Once they see what Apple does in the high end and proves it in the marketplace (full capacitive multitouch, high-DPI, etc), then they jump in.


For the past 5 years, Apple has driven the high end through sales. But we've had 30+ years of PC advancement with only a handful out of thousands of technologies championed by Apple first. The way you talk, if it weren't for Apple we'd all be using TRS-80's. It's just not the case. Companies do compete on price, but technology also advances along with it.

Two examples: CPUs and GPUs. Before Apple ever moved to x86, Intel pushed CPUs and 3DFX/Nvidia/Ati pushed GPUs year after year. The industry fought it out in both low and high end markets without a bit of guidance from Apple. Dell, Quantex, Gateway all made $800 and $5000 machines. We've always had representation in both the low and high end markets. Your characterization that without Apple everyone just degenrates into dumpster diving and selling junk parts for dirt cheap is completely inaccurate.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 6:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
When did I ever say what you are claiming? The time period you bring up is when Apple was mainly in the limited market of professional workstations, not consumer computers and devices.

My issue is that denying what Apple has done to push the high end and mobile over the last couple years is wrong. What is also wrong is that those same PC companies have continued to push the high end. They've gone in the opposite direction, racing to the bottom and chasing the bargain basement econoboxes for offices. Same with laptops, displays and build quality (with the exception of Lenovo) have gone down overall even with Apple in the picture. How bad would it be if they weren't there for competition?

OEMs cutting corners is a huge reason why I continue to assemble all my own PC.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Jereb on 10/23/2012 1:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
The timeframe is irrelevant, just because Apple is now a major player in smartphones and still a speck of dust in the pc and computer market in general doesn't mean that all of the systems that pushed all the other companies to continue to create faster, better devices aren't still ticking over. In fact, if apple dissapeared you would still find a faster mobile CPU next year, a better display, better GPU's, better interfaces etc.

But saying that apple drove these to market is ridiculous.

Even the thunderbolt connector would have been pushed to the motherboard and device maker OEM's. Do you think that they would knock back being the first to implement something that is feasibly twice as fast as USB 3.0?

Actually while were at it why don't we make a list of items that Apple uses that the PC market pushed to develop?

P.S. what the hell is with Apple using AMD's mobile GPU's on a desktop?


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 12:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly, but the fact of the matter is that they're the ones pushing. Deal.

Also, "a speck of dust in the computer market" doesn't make sense given that they've shipped 1/3 of laptops in the US this year and and sell about 90% of computers over $1000 among OEMs. Obviously component manufacturers and other companies pay attention to that sort of thing.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Jereb on 10/23/2012 2:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
No, not quite deal. Are you trying to argue that the other companies out there are not pushing for better products???
I would say that gamers, multimedia developers and drafters and the companies which develop the software for them drive the market for better displays, faster CPU's and GPU's more than 1 company would. These wheels have been in motion for 3 decades, now that apple is suddenly in the game your saying that they are driving the wheel?? Be reasonable.

Also, what's apples laptop sales world wide compared to the total laptops sold worldwide??
And what are the total sales of apple computers to all computers sold worldwide??
There is no point in saying apple drives all these things if it turns out they are 5% of a worldwide market now is there?


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Jereb on 10/23/2012 2:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
Here's one from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operat...
"In August 2011, Gartner estimated Apple's PC market share in US as 10.7% for Q2 2011. Apple's worldwide market share is not listed, because it is not in the list of top 5 computer manufacturers, and is inferred to be 5% or lower."

Though it does mention that Apple went on to break the 5% mark later that year.

Maybe a speck of dust was to harsh, may a pond next to a lake is more accurate.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 2:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Jereb on 10/23/2012 5:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Soooo what we are seeing is Apple are somewhere between less than 5% and around 11% based on two different sources.

Still doesn't look like they "drive" the industry there aye haha.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 6:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that Apple sold about 33% of laptops and 90% of OEM hardware priced over $1000 in the US this year. This is where their influence to push things forward comes from. Intel sure as hell knows the value of that relationship. The bulk of Windows PC sales are in the low cost econobox market; making enough cheap hardware to supply thousands of stations running Office. That isn't driving OEMs to push for better parts in their integrated systems like laptops.

I build my own PCs, I'm currently running a GTX 680. I don't kid myself as to how many people have this sort of hardware, tens of thousands versus the millions of ultraslims that Apple sells.

The biggest advances in CPUs since 2010 haven't been in standard CPU performance, it has been the IGP. Apple's refusal to put a dedicated GPU in the MBA, even at the expense of keeping a Core 2 Duo/NVIDIA IGP even when newer Intel parts existed, was a big motivator for Intel to improve the graphics side. Ivy Bridge and the upcoming Haswell are the results of that.

It is clear that they drive the industry forward in the specific places that they focus on, particularly laptops. They're one of the single biggest purchasers of flash memory, batteries, and high-margin mobile CPUs out there, so why wouldn't suppliers try and make them happy? Had it not been for their insistance on selling an ultraslim with good GPU performance (because OS X needs it) then we'd continue having PC laptops that lean completely on dedicated graphics hardware, rather than an Intel IGP worth nothing except for in netbooks.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/23/2012 2:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
All of them are 1000 and up...no big surprise there... /s


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/23/2012 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I build my own PCs, I'm currently running a GTX 680. I don't kid myself as to how many people have this sort of hardware, tens of thousands versus the millions of ultraslims that Apple sells.
You build your own PC, are you special or something? Millions of people build their own. I have been for 15 years, what exactly is your point? Oh right, that you somehow have more technical knowledge than others because you build your own. LOL

As for the ridiculous comment about 10's of thousands of GTX680s sold versus millions of NOTEBOOKS, 1. You are comparing a GPU to a notebook? First fail. Second fail, 10's of thousands? LOL


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 3:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, the point is that I don't kid myself about the volume of what sells what and in what specific areas Apple pushes tech, even though I'm a PC guy.

My lord you're stupid.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Jereb on 10/23/2012 5:56:20 PM , Rating: 1
How is 5-10% relevant to the 90%??? Do you think Sales in the US are somehow mroe important than the rest of the world?
The only reason MAC sells more units over $1000 is that even there most basic models cost more than that!
You build your own pc's so tell me, do you think what you pay Apple for the hardware is in there computers is worth what they ask? I've built faster computers for a 1/3 of the price they ask!!

Again how can you say that 1 company who provides a computer and OS drives the need for faster products? A company that debatebly makes up 1/10th of the global market and quite probably less? Do you think that the people at Apple are going "Gee, our OS is running on 100 fps but I think we better try and get those rascals at Intel to make us something that will run at 200fps so everyone can see how smooth it is"!! BULLSHIT!!!! Every single hardware development via CPU, GPU, RAM, Hardrive etc size or otherwise has not been driven by Apple or Mircosoft for that matter. They aredriven by the people who develop software that actually require more RAM, a faster CPU and a better GPU. IGP's would have been developed for the same reason and to keep it affordable for people who don't want to buy a dedicated solution.
It's pretty clear to me that the only thing they drive forward is the cost on their own software.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Insurgence on 10/25/2012 5:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
<q>Keep in mind that Apple sold about 33% of laptops and 90% of OEM hardware priced over $1000 in the US this year</q>

You keep stating this like repeating it makes it fact. This statement is so far from true. Hell, in May alone HP Recovered the PC Crown from Apple, which means if they were the only two companies on the market that at most Apple would have had 49.99999...%. That month alone would probably prevent them from being at 90% for this year. Also the 33% for mobile is not for laptops, it is for phones and I believe tablets.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/23/2012 3:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did I ever say what you are claiming?


"Every other tech is more concerned with racing to the bottom and making the cheapest, most conservative device possible."

"Every other tech out there tends to race to the bottom with component quality and performance. Without Apple to push the high end, those other companies would be cutting even more corners."

Racing to the bottom of quality and performace is pretty clear. Nobody else cares about performance, therefore our computers would be very slow without Apple's pushing.

quote:
The time period you bring up is when Apple was mainly in the limited market of professional workstations, not consumer computers and devices.


My example was meant to show that for a 25+ year period, the PC industry advanced at break-neck speed WITHOUT Apple at the steering wheel. We had extremely high end computers and extremely low end computers. Computing power doubled each year, drives got bigger, new technologies came out every year. If your statements were true, either A) That 25 years of development shouldn't have happened because Apple wasn't in the forefront pushing the industry or B) Something drastically changed since then and now companies no longer are able or are unwilling to push technology or develop for the high end themselves and Apple had to come in and get in the drivers seat to keep the industry on course.

quote:
My issue is that denying what Apple has done to push the high end and mobile over the last couple years is wrong.


Nobody is denying they've pushed the high end. But back to my original point, it was done by sales driving competition, NOT by mandate.

quote:
What is also wrong is that those same PC companies have continued to push the high end. They've gone in the opposite direction, racing to the bottom and chasing the bargain basement econoboxes for offices.


You're ignoring the fact that many PC makers have some kind of premium subsidiary. Alienware, Boxx, Sony, and all the customs like Cyberpower, Origin, Falcon Northwest, Velocity Micro, etc. None of them are as successful as Apple, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

quote:
Same with laptops, displays and build quality (with the exception of Lenovo) have gone down overall even with Apple in the picture. How bad would it be if they weren't there for competition?


Ultimately its the consumer who decides and shapes the market, not companies. Cheap will always win over premium in the end. I like to call it the Wal-Mart Theory. But that doesn't matter. Just because the MAJORITY of the market wants it cheap and crappy, that doesn't mean there won't always be a segment of the market who want quality. This has always been the case and will continue to be into the future.

I have always been willing to spend more on my hardware because I spend nearly every waking hour of my life using it. I bought an $800 (used) screen years ago, and will do so again when I need to replace it because I know quality matters when I'm starting at the darn thing 16 hours a day. But the general public does not, and that's fine. That doesn't mean companies will stop making components for the professional market.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 7:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My example was meant to show that for a 25+ year period, the PC industry advanced at break-neck speed WITHOUT Apple at the steering wheel. We had extremely high end computers and extremely low end computers. Computing power doubled each year, drives got bigger, new technologies came out every year. If your statements were true, either A) That 25 years of development shouldn't have happened because Apple wasn't in the forefront pushing the industry or B) Something drastically changed since then and now companies no longer are able or are unwilling to push technology or develop for the high end themselves and Apple had to come in and get in the drivers seat to keep the industry on course.


I'm mainly focusing on the laptop market, it is something I should have made more clear than just presenting laptop-only examples. What Apple is doing there is significant.

What you're saying about the desktop market is something I completely agree with.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Insurgence on 10/25/2012 6:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
No offense but outside of the MacBook Air which, I admit, pushed a drive for lower power laptops. This was namely done in the guise of Ultrabooks and Netbooks. But other than that, Apple has not had sh$* to do with the laptop market. Intel does its own innovation. If Intel wants to come up with a true All-in-one SoC solution, they are going to have to come up with IGP's that perform comparible to Descrete solutions.

Apple's decision to go with a Core 2 instead of a Nehalem processor in a Macbook Air also had something to do with the fact that Apple fails at upgrading its PC lines. It has been demonstrated for a long time. They have a bad habit of only doing minor upgrades until absolutely necessary. But it could also have something to do with the fact that the Arrandale processor was the first one that had a true mobile setup. The original Nehalem did not. It was primarily a desktop configuration. So even though there were laptops that had the Original Core i7 processors, they were just desktop CPU's in a laptop shell. Which meant that it did not have the power saving features that Apple would have wanted in a Macbook Air.

I'd also like to point out that NVidia has not pushed a IGP, outside of Tegra which is not a desktop/laptop solution, for a while now.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By name99 on 10/22/2012 3:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
I specifically SAID "The point is not that Apple tells Samsung how to make devices; it is that Apple has continually pushed Samsung to do a lot more than just cruise"

Which part of "not that Apple tells Samsung how to make devices" do you not understand?

And we have a commenter, Shadowself, higher up who said pretty much the same thing I said. You're happy with the exact same point when it comes in anti-Apple wrapping, but you dislike it when it comes in a neutral wrapping?

Believe what you want to believe, but this is not a win for Samsung.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 5:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I specifically SAID "The point is not that Apple tells Samsung how to make devices; it is that Apple has continually pushed Samsung to do a lot more than just cruise"


This:
"is that Apple has continually pushed Samsung to do a lot more than just cruise" implies that without Apple's direct pushing, Samsung would be sitting idle making stagnant products. Therefore, you have to deduce that all of Samsung's techonological advancements are a direct result of Apple's pushing. That's what I have a problem with because it's just not true. The market as a whole has a whole lot more pushing power than Apple. If Samsung sits on its butt and stagnates, they go out of business.

quote:
And we have a commenter, Shadowself, higher up who said pretty much the same thing I said. You're happy with the exact same point when it comes in anti-Apple wrapping, but you dislike it when it comes in a neutral wrapping?


Don't try to put words in my mouth or imply some kind of motives, okay? How about this simple explanation: I didn't read Shadowself's post. I don't read ALL the comments on the board.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
At this point Samsung is mainly a foundry for them. Even Apple's SoCs are completely custom at this point. Everyone, Anand included, thought that they somehow managed to produce A15 cores in volume, when in fact Apple had an ARM development license and just went ahead and designed their own SoC that was faster and more efficient than anything else out there.

Apple has spent billion on semi-conductor companies over the last several years. To think that they lean on Samsung for anything other than component manufacturing, something that other companies also do, is ignorance.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By augiem on 10/22/2012 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure of your point here.

#1) You're talking SoC's only. This doesn't include other products Samsung makes for Apple like screens, SSDs, etc.

#2) In terms of SoC's, you made my point for me as well. If Samsung is just a foundry for Apple's chips, how could Samsung's technical advancements be due to Apple's demands? Apple isn't demanding anything of them but that they manufacture. The REAL driver of Samsung's advancements is COMPETITION from Apple and other companies.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By BifurcatedBoat on 10/22/2012 3:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
That has been the case, but the future will likely be different. There was a time not that long ago that iPads made up something like 90% of the tablet market. That number is now down to around 70%. Still dominant, to be sure, but there's a trend to be seen there.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By corduroygt on 10/22/2012 4:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
They still make up over 90% of web traffic, so all these other tablets must be gathering dust in the closet.


RE: Amazon vs Apple
By tayb on 10/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: Amazon vs Apple
By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2012 1:42:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is going to hurt Samsung's bottom line.


Hurt more than being sued for billions by a business partner over vague insignificant bullshit? Hardly.


GG Samsung
By bug77 on 10/22/2012 2:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
Now, stop selling them chipsets so we can see what the great company really makes.
As a sidenote, I find a bit hilarious that the tech company with the largest pile of cash is so adamant in pursuing hefty discounts.




RE: GG Samsung
By Granseth on 10/22/2012 2:18:03 PM , Rating: 5
how do you think they piled up all the cash?


RE: GG Samsung
By Rukkian on 10/22/2012 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 5
Wile I don't like apple, there is a reason a company would end up with a big pile of cash, and that is from being ruthless and getting the absolute best deal they can on everything.


RE: GG Samsung
By EnzoFX on 10/22/2012 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, hate one giant money-hungry company over another one. That makes sense. I find it silly, stupid really, when some list that as their number one reason they hate Apple. Every tech company wishes they could get away with what Apple does. They're not as big, but they would easily do the same.


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 10/22/2012 3:12:03 PM , Rating: 3
WalMart is worse and pretty much every city in America has at least one.

Few are practically forced to buy Apple products, but if a person don't want to shop online or expend a lot of time traveling (if they don't live in a large city with choices), then WalMart it must be.

What has WalMart innovated? Well, they've made some pretty creative anti-union propaganda videos that new employees have to watch and be tested on.


RE: GG Samsung
By Dr of crap on 10/22/2012 3:21:32 PM , Rating: 2
From a union supporter??


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 10/22/2012 3:31:33 PM , Rating: 3
Regular people have greater bargaining power if they bargain collectively. This is the same reason we have elections that involve regular people voting.

If we think people in power will automatically do the right thing by us then we should abolish elections and go to an appointment system.


RE: GG Samsung
By Digimonkey on 10/22/2012 4:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because corrupt politicians don't get into office with the current voting system. I don't trust Unions anymore than Corporations these days.


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 10/22/2012 10:26:47 PM , Rating: 3
Our current elections may be highly flawed mainly because of the influence of bribe money ("contributions"), but how is going to an appointment system going to help that or individual workers (particularly non-management) in a corporation?

It won't. It will make it even easier to be corrupt. Neo-feudalism is inferior to representative democracy in today's world. And, if you think ordinary workers should have very little bargaining power, I disagree. I don't prefer the sweatshop labor model.


RE: GG Samsung
By Samus on 10/23/2012 2:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between Apple and Samsung is Apple refuses to produce a product or have a segment of products at a loss.

Samsung, for example, has many divisions, some run at a loss, subsidized by those than run at a profit. Samsung hasn't made a profit on televisions for two years. However, Samsung has a design goal with all of their products, which is to be superior to the competition. Samsung makes very little crap. When Apple made hundreds of products, most, if not all of them, were crap, and they were going bankrupt. Steve Jobs came in and wiped their design portfolio clean, leaving 20 SKU's in production.

I know this might appear to be "smart business" on Apple's behalf, but this makes Apple boring. Imagine if Apple made audio products, televisions, printers, appliances, etc. They'd be diversified and fun. Instead, thanks to Steve Jobs, its a boring monolith of money that effectively makes a dozen products.


RE: GG Samsung
By KITH on 10/22/2012 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 4
Walmart worse?

At least Walmart passes the savings down to its customers. Apple does not.


RE: GG Samsung
By Pirks on 10/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: GG Samsung
By StevoLincolnite on 10/22/2012 9:56:20 PM , Rating: 3
It's called the early adopter Tax, Pirks.

They price it high on launch to test the waters, then they have wiggle room to competitively lower the price which is also something allot of media pick up on and create free advertising.

Almost every market does this, except of course Apple, which usually keeps everything priced high.


RE: GG Samsung
By zerocks on 10/23/2012 1:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
I would say that's an absolute fact, keeping prices high.
I mean it would be good if they priced things competitively to begin with but they only really have 3 competitively priced items, the iPod nano, shuffle and Apple TV, none of which are really bread winners either.. Not to say the market isn't there for these but it's more of a niche..


RE: GG Samsung
By Insurgence on 10/25/2012 6:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
It also needs to be pointed out that Microsoft is going to license out its OS, so if they want other device manufacturers to ship products with their OS on it, they have to at least be partially comparable in price. If they did not, then they would really alienate the manufacturers. One of the reasons Android is so popular among manufacturers is because it's Open Source, and another is that it is free.

Also, unlike Apple and Google, Microsofts digital store is small and unlikely to be a good source of cash until the OS catches on.


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 11/7/2012 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft's pricing of Office and Windows, inflated due to monopoly leverage, can hardly be referred to as an early adopter tax, though.


RE: GG Samsung
By JonnyDough on 10/22/2012 5:15:32 PM , Rating: 3
What kind of crazy world do you live in? Walmart passes savings on to customers? Give me a break. You really buy that marketing BS?

Walmart moves in, stomps out local business, and then makes a fortune by buying in bulk and reselling to us for more. They CONTROL markets.

i.e. Let's say you want to buy a bottle of ketchup. Walmart tells Heinz to sell them 3,000,000 this month, and then their GV brand to make 4,000,000. They buy the Heinz even cheaper, because if they don't - Walmart will refuse to give Heinz adequate shelf space. Yeah, I know it sounds shady, but it's how it works.


RE: GG Samsung
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 1:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
It goes beyond that. Walmart has companies sell products for so much less than they do to the competition that in some cases a company will cut corners on their product in order to meet Walmart's demands. The result is that you might be getting an inferior version of the same product at Walmart. Savings!


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 11/7/2012 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. This is the Walmart economic model that is popular with global plutocrats.

They outsource jobs, concentrate personal wealth while spreading capital, and convince the public that it's in their interest to support these policies because of "low low prices".

The idea is that, despite stagnant or falling wages, inferior "jobs" that replace better ones, currency devaluation, devaluation of real estate (regular people's primary form of investment), devaluation of higher education certificates, and increasing productivity — life is good because people can buy "cheap" products.

A product's price tag doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it can be quite deceptive. They certainly don't tell the environmental impact story. In addition to that, a narrative many people foolishly think they can ignore, they rarely tell the labor story or the standard of living story. That is all in addition to the fact that the quality of the product in itself may be hidden by the "low" price mark.


RE: GG Samsung
By bupkus on 10/22/2012 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
That is not the reason why I would pose my dislike of Apple and I believe others as well.

Although I look at the corporate entity with a healthy suspicion I find Apple to be rotten to its core.


RE: GG Samsung
By superstition on 10/22/2012 3:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although I look at the corporate entity with a healthy suspicion I find Apple to be rotten to its core.

Since you're making that distinction, it appears that your suspicion isn't healthy enough.

quote:
An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.


RE: GG Samsung
By Shadowself on 10/22/2012 2:24:18 PM , Rating: 4
Several other sources on the 'net claim Samsung is upset that Apple is pushing the "quality" envelope too far -- asking for flaw and failure rates that are not reasonable.

Also, Apple has, for several months been publicly saying they are going to move as much as they can from Samsung and move to other vendors. As the article says they've already moved the vast majority of their display sourcing away from Samsung. Plus, they've already worked a deal with TSMC for chips.

NOW Samsung is saying they are going to stop shipping displays to Apple sometime next year? The trend line seems to imply that if Samsung does nothing but stays the course that Apple won't be buying any displays from Samsung some time in the second calendar quarter of next year anyway. Sounds like the proverbial "sour grapes" response from Samsung (or the already jilted lover who later says to his/her friends, "I didn't really like her/him anyway, so I ended it.")


RE: GG Samsung
By KITH on 10/22/2012 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 4
Yes Samsung is commenting on a relationship that was ending anyway to give it a better light for their own company.


RE: GG Samsung
By messele on 10/22/2012 4:06:10 PM , Rating: 3
Yes I like the way the article biases the situation to make it look like Samsung made a decision here. Reality is Apple made all the decisions, worked quietly to find other partners in technology and Samsung could do nothing about.

Ain't clever supply contracts a bitch?


RE: GG Samsung
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/22/2012 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
Reality is, you have no clue what happened.


RE: GG Samsung
By Sazabi19 on 10/22/2012 4:10:41 PM , Rating: 1
I was fairly certain that TSMC said they didn't want to make any of the chips for them. They had enough business and didn't want to stress their lines and yields, they turned Apple down.


RE: GG Samsung
By ilt24 on 10/22/2012 5:38:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I was fairly certain that TSMC said they didn't want to make any of the chips for them.


What TSMC said was they were not interested in taking an investemnt from Apple (or Qualcomm) for dedicated production. It has been reported that TSMC will be Apples source for 20nm production starting late next year.

http://cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_41728...


RE: GG Samsung
By bupkus on 10/22/2012 4:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
I find your post to be entirely one-sided unsupported conjecture.

Just who are these "other sources" whom you claim suggest Samsung is trying to push crap on the consumer while Apple dutifully protects the virtues of high quality and fair treatment of the consumer? Of all the LCD monitors I have owned, installed for others or read reviews of Samsung ranks high among the deliverers of satisfied customers and respected reviews.

As per your next paragraph I am inclined to believe if any company decides to switch to another due to an arbitrary vendetta they limit their options and hence their bargaining power. This does little to provide Apple with leverage to press for both lower pricing AND higher quality. Another reason why I doubt your spin of events.

Lastly, your comparison of Samsung to a jilted lover is the most ridiculously silly thing I have heard. It has been posted that Samsung's business structure is one of autonomy amongst its divisions. IOW, "if 'handhelds' has a problem with Apple that shouldn't effect 'memory', 'displays' or 'chips'."

Your post has Apple Spin written all over it.


RE: GG Samsung
By Shadowself on 10/23/2012 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... whom you claim suggest Samsung is trying to push crap on the consumer while Apple dutifully protects the virtues of high quality and fair treatment of the consumer


I claimed no such thing. I said Samsung has been reported as saying Apple is being unreasonable in its quality demands. Typical display requirements allow for one or two dead or "stuck" pixels (some companies allow as many as a half dozen or more) and still be "good enough". Maybe Apple has changed the quality requirement to say they will accept displays with only zero dead or zero "stuck" pixels -- either it's perfect or it's rejected.

Most vendors would say that is unreasonable quality control. This *may* be what's happening here and what Samsung is reported to be complaining about.

quote:
switch to another due to an arbitrary vendetta they limit their options and hence their bargaining power
Your position is that it is an "arbitrary vendetta". Apple's position is that Samsung is using Apple's IP without proper compensation. The courts' opinions are a mixed bag so far. Apple has won some; Samsung has won some. The courts around the planet don't seem to think it's an "arbitrary vendetta".

Independent of that, it only makes good business sense to have as many sources of parts as possible. Single source failures are NEVER a good thing. If Samsung is not happy being just one of many display suppliers to Apple, then that is Samsung's problem, not Apple's.

quote:
Lastly, your comparison of Samsung to a jilted lover is the most ridiculously silly thing I have heard. It has been posted that Samsung's business structure is one of autonomy amongst its divisions. IOW, "if 'handhelds' has a problem with Apple that shouldn't effect 'memory', 'displays' or 'chips'."
Your statements are contrary to the reports from every other source (even reports in Korean sites and news outlets). I have not seen a single report that says otherwise. Every source is saying Samsung's response is either a) a face saving move or b) in partial retaliation to the lawsuits.

If you think I'm an Apple Spinner (Apple Fanboi, Apple Sheeple, or whatever you want to label people who drink absolutely nothing but Apple Kool-Aid) then you haven't read that many of my posts. I try to not be "political" in any of my posts and my biggest push is to get reality out there -- even if it means taking on the writers in this site (which I have done several times). I hate spin.

The reality is that Apple has been steadily decreasing the number of displays they've been buying from Samsung for quite some time. When the rate of purchase has gotten down fairly low, Samsung now says they are going to stop making displays for Apple sometime next year. How is that not Samsung trying to put a good face on a situation already forced upon them?

I might say that your response has Fandroid written all over it, but I'd rather believe you just are not aware of all the facts.


RE: GG Samsung
By augiem on 10/22/2012 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget SSD's. Mac books used (still use?) Samsung SSDs as well.


RE: GG Samsung
By AMDftw on 10/22/2012 2:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they can the supply off SSD's as well.


RE: GG Samsung
By bupkus on 10/22/2012 4:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Did you mean to type "cut" instead of "can"?

If so, I would hope the same.
Right now I only use Samsung SSDs and should they drop their prices again due to overstock I may pick up a couple more.


RE: GG Samsung
By KITH on 10/22/2012 4:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Toshiba also supplies their SSDs


RE: GG Samsung
By JonnyDough on 10/22/2012 5:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung also supplies Toshiba with LCD screens. :)


RE: GG Samsung
By Nortel on 10/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: GG Samsung
By BifurcatedBoat on 10/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: GG Samsung
By timothyd97402 on 10/22/2012 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wake up and smell the coffee! Business is about making profit and always has been. How much profit? As much as possible, insofar as you can get away with / sustain. Now some companies do go too far...

Samsung is _really_ corrupt. It is a cartel of companies owned and controlled by one extended Korean family. Read that back to me as "a corporate mob". They are. Do some research on the matter.

Samsung has, in fact, become the number one Android maker by intentionally copying Apple. Look at their products from several years ago. Then read the internal emails where they dissect what makes Apple products so good and then see how they implemented the same things shortly after. Hell, not long after The iPad 2 was released, Samsung had a near clone tablet with a knockoff smart cover for sale in their online store. When called on it, they claimed the smart cover copycat was actually made by a 3rd party. They did not mention that the 3rd party was a concern owned by a Samsung board member.

If there is any company rotten to the core in this world it is Samsung! On the other hand while I dislike Apple for moving all their production offshore while raking in an obscene level of profit, I don't know that they have had anyone killed lately...


RE: GG Samsung
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/22/2012 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand while I dislike Apple for moving all their production offshore while raking in an obscene level of profit, I don't know that they have had anyone killed lately...
No, they just kill themselves by jumping off buildings...


RE: GG Samsung
By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 4:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung was in court with RIMM over ripping off the Blackberry design long before the iPhone even existed. What they've been doing is standard.

It is smart business though. Copying Apple has made them far more successful than any of the other Android hardware manufacturers, even with their awful custom UIs.


RE: GG Samsung
By bupkus on 10/22/2012 4:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Come on people. You're either on the side of right vs. wrong or Corporate Darwinism. Lets not try to be on both.


RE: GG Samsung
By Nortel on 10/22/2012 4:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand while I dislike Apple for moving all their production offshore while raking in an obscene level of profit.


The Google Nexus Q for example is made in the USA _BUT_ #1 it isn't even available and #2 it will be 3x more expensive vs the Apple TV. If Apple were to move assembly offshore they would have to ship all these components into the USA while paying duty on them all. Next they would be providing very low quality manual labor jobs, not anything requiring education or a brain. Lastly, the workforce would be instantly unionized. Samsung and almost every other handset maker do ALL of their work (design, fabrication, assembly, head offices, etc...) outside the USA and yet Apple gets chastised by merely allowing assembly to be performed in China?


RE: GG Samsung
By Penti on 10/22/2012 9:45:30 PM , Rating: 3
Samsung still has a sizable handset assembly in Korea, more then to satisfy domestic demand.

All the TV-brands basically has final assembly plants in EU and Mexico to supply respective markets.

Fujitsu increased their assembly and manufacturing operations temporarily in Germany after the tsunami in Japan. They still have SMD-lines that manufactures and assembles some motherboards there. They assemble laptops and so on. Germany aren't known for their low wage blue collar workers.

Most will outsource, and most EMS firms has most of their production in a few countries. ODM-firms are very tied to manufacture around their headquarters, typically not further away then mainland China. There are only like 5 companies that produces notebooks. You can't exactly go to companies that don't know how to do it. Even if a lot of manufacturing capabilities are in higher-cost countries.

A real problem US has except for no Foxconn facilities is a over valued currency, which instantly makes it more affordable to invest in Canada. Which is why you see a lot of manufacturing, cars and so on for the North American market being made there. Despite being unionized it's more profitable.


RE: GG Samsung
By web2dot0 on 10/22/12, Rating: 0
Samsung makes it sound like it was their decision
By xype on 10/22/2012 3:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly Apple commited to investing in new LCD panel factories quite some time ago, no? And the names thrown around were Sharp and LG, not Samsung. I don't quite believe Samsung actually even had a choice here.




By TakinYourPoints on 10/22/2012 6:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the move away from them has been years in progress. The press release seems to be to save face.


By Insurgence on 10/25/2012 6:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, one of them was to go with LG's technology for integrating touch into the LCD itself to reduce the thickness of devices.


Summary
By Tony Swash on 10/22/2012 10:18:32 PM , Rating: 1
Samsung minus Apple. Loss of a very, very large customer.

Apple minus Samsung. Business as usual.




RE: Summary
By momorere on 10/23/2012 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Another failed attempt by you to try and prove something. Of course you don't realize that only 8% of Samsung's revenue comes from crApple. Yet, a majority of crApple's components come from Samsung. So who needs who again ?


RE: Summary
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/23/2012 2:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another failed attempt by you to try and prove something.
Does anyone expect any less anymore? I mean really, that's all he does here. It's pretty sad and pathetic.


Debunked
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 12:50:15 AM , Rating: 3
Well, looks like it wasn't true. Here's saving face on the false saving face: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57537773-37/sams...

People believed it because they wanted to believe it. Apple is the Devil, Samsung is an agent of pure light, and this was Samsung getting even.

Boring answer: Apple is Samsung's largest customer for LCDs, chips, and flash memory. Samsung keeps its component businesses separate from its whole-product business and takes on anyone who can pay on the scales that it needs. If Samsung was ever so foolish as to willingly cut off Apple, it would be intentionally sacrificing large amounts of revenue and profit.

Apple is already taking on more and more suppliers as it is. Diversification is smart for any sort of business, whether or not they are in court with them. Intentionally cutting off what remains of that revenue seems ludicrous.




RE: Debunked
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 12:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
On a side note, how weird is it that a false report gets so much discussion? Forget about DT's normally sensationalist and second-rate reporting and editorializing, this story actually got legs on more trusted sites. It feels as though this sort of thing is only increasing over time. Sites just worry about getting those initial page views and there are never any consequences for it.

What happened to leaning on named or reliable sources? Tech tabloids are all we're getting these days.


Solution: Sony
By corduroygt on 10/22/2012 4:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
They're pretty freaking desperate and their research is actually quite good. I'm sure they'll appreciate being an Apple supplier.




RE: Solution: Sony
By Penti on 10/23/2012 12:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
To bad Sony doesn't own a mobile LCD-plant anymore then.

Samsung will still supply Apple even if Samsung Display (mainly notebook displays over the years) doesn't. Samsung Display can still supply Sony Mobile, HTC, Motorola, Samsung, Huawei, Nokia and the rest. And every other PC-manufacturer of course. As well as tablets. TVs. So on. LG that produces the retina display. LG and Sharp who seems to producing displays for the phones and tablets now. Still Android competitors that supplies them. Still Korean and Japanese firms. Says nothing about what they will use on the next generation products coming in 2013 either.


meanwhile
By hexxthalion on 10/23/2012 9:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
in a world where they do reporting properly:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57537773-37/sams...




RE: meanwhile
By TakinYourPoints on 10/23/2012 3:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
That link has been getting around. Let's see if this correction gets into an update. It isn't sensationalist but it is the truth (boring).


"I'm not fired, I quit."
By tayb on 10/22/2012 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Apple essentially already moved on from Samsung. By the end of this year less than 5% of Apple products will ship with a Samsung display and Samsung is completely out on thew new iPad Mini. Samsung is trying to make it sound as if they made a decision to stop selling to Apple.

And why in the world would Samsung voluntarily stop selling displays to Apple? Apple is the largest single purchaser of mobile displays in the world. Failed attempt to save face. Let it be known, this is bad news for Samsung. They're losing hundreds of millions in potential revenue from this.




Please stop flaming
By dowen777 on 10/23/2012 8:48:43 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't it be nice if these posts did not include the useless and unending arguments of the Apple lovers/haters? Much more interesting would be insights into the changing nature of Apple's and Samsung's technologies and business plans and how these relate to leading edge technological developments and consumer trends. Please don't waste more time and space on these never ending shouting matches.




LOLZ !!!!!!
By momorere on 10/23/2012 1:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Arial?
By Flassari on 10/24/2012 7:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
For some reason, this post uses Arial font while all others use Verdana.




Interesting phrasing, but wrong
By Shadowself on 10/22/12, Rating: -1
By Shadowself on 10/22/2012 3:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, this must be a first... being rated down because I say Apple very likely won't get their way...

Or was it saying DailyTech's reporting is not quite accurate?

Either way, I'm a bit surprised.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki