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 Tony Swash on 8/29/2012 3:01:23 PM , Rating: -1
Apple is doomed!!!

Meanwhile in the real world Velvin Hogan, the foreman in the Apple-Samsung patent trial, was interviewed by Bloomberg.

A few choice quotes:

He said two pieces of evidence were crucial in persuading the jury that Samsung had intentionally copied elements of Apple's iPhone functionality: minutes of a meeting in South Korea with Google, which had warned senior Samsung executives to "pull back" from their tablet designs because they were too close to Apple's; and internal emails from Samsung executives which said that the difference between the iPhone and Samsung's smartphones was "heaven and earth", and that the two needed to be moved closer.

He also denied there had been any "home court" advantage for Apple, despite the case being heard just 10 miles from its Cupertino headquarters. "I use no Apple equipment – I'm a PC person," Hogan said. "My wife has a Samsung phone, but it's not a smartphone." None of the jurors owned an iPhone, he said.

The jury included people who had worked at Intel and AT&T, and had engineering, legal and financial experience.

A key piece of evidence that persuaded jurors that Samsung had copied Apple designs and function was the minutes of a meeting between Google and Samsung in Korea.

"Google demanded that they were too close to Apple, and needed to pull back, because they [Google] were worried about their tablet and their operating system, and that they should make their tablet less like Apple's. They [Samsung] chose not to pass that information down to the engineers about that product, so they [the engineers] went on not knowing.

"Three of us had been through the process in our careers of dealing with financial documents. I understood the profit and loss statements as well as the other two. We looked against the matrix of information [provided by Samsung about sales of phones and revenues]. We decided the [gross margin of profitability] percentage wasn't 12% [as Samsung had claimed] or 35% [as Apple had claimed], but should be between 13% and 15% – so 14% became the magic number. We then did our own calculations for each of the [infringing devices], along with reasonable royalties for each of the numbers."

Asked if such a complex case was really best heard by a jury, Hogan was certain. "Yes," he said. "While it was complicated, but any jury of our peers could have reached this decision. If we had been asking questions of the judge it would have taken longer, but at all times we were confident that we were moving in the right direction."

RE: Ha-ha!
By momorere on 8/29/2012 3:16:19 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile in the not so glorious Apple utopia that you iSheep are so quickly to defend and run back and hide in

RE: Ha-ha!
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 3
What's shameful is that the jury didn't understand there was obvious prior art for the patent claims Apple presented and that those patents are ridiculous from the outset. Samsung's attorneys or plain jury stupidity are to blame for that.

Just think if IBM/Control Data/etc. had able to patent software menus, icons; or maybe the display of data in rows and columns on a computer screen (never mind paper ledgers have been doing this for years).

Ridiculous patents are ridiculous any way you shape them.

RE: Ha-ha!
By ritualm on 8/29/2012 9:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother.

In the world of Tony Swash, Apple can impose 1984 over the world and still be seen as a creator and innovator, yet everyone else is seen as a thief no matter what they do.

Right now he says TSMC is foolish to not take on Apple's all-cash offer to build chip fabs dedicated to everything iCrap.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

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