Print 14 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Aug 30 at 10:56 AM

Apple and Qualcomm placed separate bids valued at over $1 billion each as an investment with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

In an attempt to boost their positions in today's smartphone race, both Apple and Qualcomm tried to invest in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for their very own factories -- but both failed.
Apple and Qualcomm placed separate bids valued at over $1 billion each as an investment with TSMC in hopes of acquiring VIP access to the smartphone chip maker's supply. However, it looks like TSMC isn't taking the bait. 
For Apple, the aim is to have an alternative to Samsung as its chip supplier. This will boost production of iPhones and iPads, and it also wouldn't hurt to have another supplier that isn't its direct competition when it comes to smartphone hardware. Apple also recently burned Samsung in court after a U.S. jury decided that Samsung stole iPhone/iPad patents for the use of its own products, resulting in a $1.05 billion fine and upcoming Samsung product bans. So maybe finding alternatives to Samsung for iDevice chip-making wouldn't be a bad idea.
For Qualcomm, it's simply looking to boost supply since there have been recent shortages that are affecting its financial reports. 
Clearly, either could benefit from having exclusive access to TSMC, where the chip maker would dedicate a facility for the production of chips for only Apple or Qualcomm. Many chip makers today can't produce the large quantities needed to keep up with demand, hence the interest in TSMC. 
But TSMC doesn't need Apple or Qualcomm's large, cash investments; it's successful because it has multiple customers (meaning, it doesn't want to give its services to either Apple or Qualcomm alone). It would rather stay flexible instead of putting all of its eggs in one basket.
"You have to be careful," said Lora Ho," chief financial officer at TSMC. "Once that product migrates, what are you going to do with the dedicated fab [fabrication plant]? We would like to keep the flexibility."

Source: Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Ha-ha!
By Motoman on 8/29/2012 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 4
If that's all you got out of that article, you need to read it again.

The jury was awarding $2m in damages for a phone that they agreed didn't even infringe on any of Apple's "patents."

They admitted to not reading the judge's instructions before coming to conclusions.

They admitted to not worrying about prior art.

They...ultimately completely disregarded their duties as part of the judicial system, and will be lucky if they themselves don't wind up in jail for massive dereliction of duty.

RE: Ha-ha!
By rwpritchett on 8/29/2012 3:05:44 PM , Rating: 3
Also, there are some blatant inconsistencies. For example, I would like someone to explain how the Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi was found to be infringing, but the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE was not. AFAIK, they are identical except for the 4G radio in the non-infringing product.

RE: Ha-ha!
By momorere on 8/29/2012 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
I just posted that as one of my links to Tony although we know he won't read them as the truth about the jury is just starting to come out.

RE: Ha-ha!
By Tony Swash on 8/29/12, Rating: -1
"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki