backtop


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


  (Source: cultofmac.com)
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 Mint on 8/29/2012 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
The way that the jury foreman discounted prior art is insane:
quote:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.


I'm getting the feeling that Samsung purposely botched the evidence filing because they felt like they'd get a raw deal. How else do you explain them filing late in a trial with tens of billions at stake? Now they can use that "new"
evidence as grounds for an appeal in a different venue with a different judge and - most importantly - a different jury.

Clearly this jury was tainted by a whack foreman.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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