Print 63 comment(s) - last by TakinYourPoint.. on Jul 8 at 3:45 AM

Samsung will now fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products

If Apple and Samsung's turbulent relationship was made into a soap opera, this episode would feature continued separation between the two and Apple's "other lover."

Apple recently signed a new supply deal with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for iPhone and iPad chips. These orders from Apple will reportedly account for 8 percent of TSMC's 2014 total revenue if Apple buys 30 percent of its chips there, according to Credit Suisse analysts.

If Apple bumps this up to 60 percent in 2015, it will make up 15 percent of TSMC's revenue for that year. 

Apple has been distancing itself from Samsung due to competition between Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Android-powered smartphones (such as the Galaxy line). The two have also had an ugly patent war that has soured relations over the years.

Apple's new deal with TSMC isn't great news for Samsung, but it will likely fill the void by making chips for the likes of Qualcomm and even for its own products. 

[Image Source: Nerd Array]

At the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) back in January, Samsung's President of LSI business Stephen Woo said that it's crucial for the South Korean electronics maker to focus on alternatives to Apple when it comes to the chip sector. In fact, Samsung has been supplying Exynos quad-core chips to Chinese smartphone company Meizu and also to Lenovo's K860 LePhone.

According to Goldman Sachs, Apple will purchase about $8.8 billion USD worth of chips from Samsung this year, which is about 80 percent of Apple's allowance for processors, memory chips and screens. But Apple is expected to move 30 percent of its business away from Samsung next year and about 80 percent by 2017.

It's unlikely that Apple will give all of its chips business to TSMC, since it doesn't want to put all of its eggs in one basket. TSMC will begin supplying the processors in early 2014. 

Chips aren't the only hardware Apple and Samsung are phasing out in their relationship. 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 last fall. Samsung cited cost as the main issue, since Apple has started using Samsung competitors with better prices for displays. Hence, Apple was expecting bigger discounts from Samsung. 

Sources: The Wall Street Journal, Market Watch

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Samsung displays
By TakinYourPoints on 7/7/2013 10:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
As if none of us have researched this? He says burn-in isn't an issue anymore, yet every website out there admits that while plasma's are "better", the problem isn't completely solved in all sets. Image retention is a real issue, no matter what he claims.

Image retention <> burn-in. Even LCDs have IR, not to mention worse IR than I've seen on my plasma.

Also why do I get the impression he's comparing the best plasma's to the worst LCD's?

Not only am I comparing the best plasmas against the best LCDs, I'm comparing plasmas against more expensive LCDs.

Better image quality isn't going to be on the more expensive LCD, there are inherent issues to LCD that CRT, plasma, and OLED do not have.

I guess next he'll claim that Plasma's last longer than LCD's and use less power too.

Plasmas are rated to last 2-3 as long as LCDs, 100k hours as opposed to 30k-60k you get with a CCFL and LED backlit LCD.

Any of these are plenty of lifespan for anyone, but plasma definitely is better in this respect. Not relevent since its so much time, but you're the one who brought it up.

I'd never say that plasmas are brighter than LCD. If brightness is more important to you than picture quality, go for it. You'd need an incredibly bright room with no curtains and sun going right on the monitor for this to be that important through. I have sun in my living room most of the day and a plasma is fine.

Oh another great "feature" of Plasma's is the audible high-pitch whine the sets make when they draw more power to display bright scenes. Oh and speaking of power, my god lol, a large plasma uses 500 to 600 watts!!!

What decade are you living in, whine hasn't been a problem for years. As for power, right now a beautiful 60" Panasonic plasma will average about 150w.

600 watts, where are you getting these numbers from?

You have to love his logic as to why plasma's are dirt cheap and on their way out of the market basically. Gee you would think for such a superior premium item, someone would find a way to profit more from it.

Samsung and Panasonic will market their cheaper to produce and ship LCDs over their own plasmas despite plasma's superior image quality. This is well known and it isn't rocket science. This is why people who want the best image quality will get a plasma, and why people who either don't know any better or who value brightness will get an LCD instead.

I'm surprised how angry you are about the simple stating of objective advantages of a technology, especially one that costs as much as or is cheaper than the "high end" version of something else. You should chill.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

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