Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Mobile Devices & Gadgets

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-12-2012, 09:51 PM   #51
preslove
Lifer
 
preslove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,786
Default

TSMC is worth 16.7% of Apple, by market cap. That would have to get lower, and non-PC volumes would have to increase a lot for a take over to make sense.

Bad take overs are just the things that could start Apple's decline.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by: binister
i find preslove guilty of being awesome
What is jesus's middle name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ns1 View Post
...I was in it for the mutton kebabs but found myself eating penis. It happens.
preslove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:17 PM   #52
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopetar View Post
It really depends. If their volume gets to a certain point, eventually building their own fab becomes more cost effective than using someone else's. All of the other fabs obviously make enough money to continue the upgrade cycle, so it's not as though they're only making pennies from Apple and everyone else using the fab.

However, they're way better off dropping several billion up front to pay for a company like TSMC to expand their capacity. They've done it before with screen manufacturers, so I don't see why they couldn't do it in this case either. If they really wanted to switch to some other fab, they could easily front the cash necessary to make that happen.
The problem with that is both Apple and Qualcomm have offered TSMC with $1 billion in cash each for "preferred" access.
TSMC refused both their offers and said they're not interested in giving anyone preferred access.
lothar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:22 PM   #53
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lothar View Post
The problem with that is both Apple and Qualcomm have offered TSMC with $1 billion in cash each for "preferred" access.
TSMC refused both their offers and said they're not interested in giving anyone preferred access.
So either they don't want the money (silly) or can't guarantee supply (more likely). Plus, they also don't want to piss off their other clients as well.
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:32 PM   #54
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
So either they don't want the money (silly) or can't guarantee supply (more likely). Plus, they also don't want to piss off their other clients as well.
The last two options are more likely than the first.

Especially the middle one if you consider the fact that Qualcomm signed a contract with Samsung due to TSMC not making enough chips.
http://www.dailytech.com/Qualcomm+Pa...ticle25103.htm

Even if it's not the last two options, TSMC not wanting to take the money is not silly like you claim. Obviously, that money is going to come with strings attached.

Last edited by lothar; 11-12-2012 at 11:34 PM.
lothar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:15 AM   #55
Mopetar
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
Though TSMC has no interest in VIP access. Both Qualcomm and Apple have asked but got shot down.
They don't even need VIP access. It's just a matter of determining what they need and what can be supplied. If TSMC can't supply it, Apple could offer to front the amount of the agreement so TSMC could increase their production so that existing production and customers are unaffected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by preslove View Post
TSMC is worth 16.7% of Apple, by market cap. That would have to get lower, and non-PC volumes would have to increase a lot for a take over to make sense.

Bad take overs are just the things that could start Apple's decline.
Who said anything about a take over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
So either they don't want the money (silly) or can't guarantee supply (more likely). Plus, they also don't want to piss off their other clients as well.
Sounds about right to me.
Mopetar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 12:50 AM   #56
zoiks
Lifer
 
zoiks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palo Alto,CA
Posts: 11,689
Default

Seems reasonable. They should be able to charge whatever they want.
__________________
Palestinians have a right to defend the atrocities waged against them.
USS Liberty. Never forget.
zoiks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:41 AM   #57
WelshBloke
Lifer
 
WelshBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 15,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopetar View Post
They don't even need VIP access. It's just a matter of determining what they need and what can be supplied. If TSMC can't supply it, Apple could offer to front the amount of the agreement so TSMC could increase their production so that existing production and customers are unaffected...
I don't think that it's as easy as Apple helping out on production costs to increase supply. If TSMC has no more fab space the only way round it is to build more fabs which takes lots of money and lots of time.

They could offer other customers compensation to allow them to 'jump the queue' though.
__________________
...and the more we drink, the more we sing Calon Lan.
WelshBloke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:17 PM   #58
iGas
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,048
Default

It turn out that Apple didn't have a fixed price contract with Samsung. Therefore Samsung have the upper hand on this fiasco, and put a squeeze on Apple proverbial anatomy for and additional 20% on the existing contract.
iGas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:59 AM   #59
Oyeve
Lifer
 
Oyeve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGas View Post
It turn out that Apple didn't have a fixed price contract with Samsung. Therefore Samsung have the upper hand on this fiasco, and put a squeeze on Apple proverbial anatomy for and additional 20% on the existing contract.
Nice!
__________________
My Heat
Oyeve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 12:57 PM   #60
KeithP
Diamond Member
 
KeithP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,097
Default

According to a Samsung official, the price increase didn't happen.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766...ittle-bit.html

-KeithP
__________________
Heat 64-0-0
KeithP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 01:14 PM   #61
Oyeve
Lifer
 
Oyeve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithP View Post
According to a Samsung official, the price increase didn't happen.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766...ittle-bit.html

-KeithP
Hmm, that article made it sound like apple needs samsung more than samsung needs apple. That may actually be the case but each company profits so bleh.
__________________
My Heat
Oyeve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 01:19 PM   #62
TuxDave
Lifer
 
TuxDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithP View Post
According to a Samsung official, the price increase didn't happen.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766...ittle-bit.html

-KeithP
Did you have to ruin all the hype and speculation going on in this thread? I was getting a good laugh out of them.
__________________
post count = post count + 0.999.....
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
TuxDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 04:44 PM   #63
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
 
Cookie Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 4,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oyeve View Post
Good. Samsung doesnt need apple as much as it used to. Let apple create their own fab and charge their user base even more.

Or, apple could go back to IBM.
Apple hates IBM (well jobs did anyway) according to my memory.
__________________
Heatware
Cookie's Rig:
Intel i5 2500K@4.5GHz/1.36V//Corsair H80 || Asus P8Z68-V PRO || G.Skill RipJaws 4x4GB@DDR3-2133 || EVGA GTX780@1150/6500MHz || 2xSamsung 840 250GB || 2xWD Green 1TB || Seasonic X-560 || Asus Xonar Essence STX || Silverstone FT02 LE || 2xDell U2412M || Windows 7 Pro x64 || Logitech G700 || Sennheiser HD595 || Audioengine A2
Cookie Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:04 PM   #64
Mopetar
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshBloke View Post
I don't think that it's as easy as Apple helping out on production costs to increase supply. If TSMC has no more fab space the only way round it is to build more fabs which takes lots of money and lots of time.
For a new process, it's certainly not that easy, but once it has matured, new equipment can be purchased and added without too much of a fuss. The biggest roadblock there would be the ability for such necessary equipment to be produced, but with enough money, priority could probably be had there as well.

A new process isn't going to reach maturity much faster than it will. Throwing money at the problem won't get it solved proportionately faster. However, scaling up existing solutions is going to be a lot easier and will see a more proportional gain per dollar spent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithP View Post
According to a Samsung official, the price increase didn't happen.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766...ittle-bit.html
Just as much credibility as the original source, so I don't know if we can just dismiss this out of hand any more than we can accept it as true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookie Monster View Post
Apple hates IBM (well jobs did anyway) according to my memory.
Yeah, back in the late 70's and early 80's they probably did, but after that IBM was almost irrelevant to the PC industry as the landscape had changed so much. Apple found new rivals and eventually switched to using IBM CPUs in their computers. That's business for you.
Mopetar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 05:38 PM   #65
Aikouka
Lifer
 
Aikouka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 24,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lothar View Post
Intel? They doesn't manufacture for their competitors(that means no to ARM processors and non-X86 CPUs of any kind)
I wouldn't really call Apple a competitor to Intel in the mobile space. Intel needs to convince Android phone manufacturers and Microsoft to use their Atom processors. Apple's iPhone may compete with the aforementioned, but they don't compete directly with Intel.

However, you can't forget that Apple is one of Intel's customers in the consumer processor space. Maybe Apple could sweeten the deal by ensuring Intel exclusivity for some amount of time. Also consider that Intel recently announced that they are raising the amount of idled fab capacity, I assume that they wouldn't mind being able to change that. Although, I'm not sure how much capacity Apple would need given. That would probably be the inhibiting factor.
Aikouka is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 08:14 PM   #66
Rayb
Member
 
Rayb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
Default

I could almost picture AMD and Nvidia owning TSMC with a breach of contract after allowing Apple and Qualcom VIP access.
Rayb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 08:47 PM   #67
MagickMan
Diamond Member
 
MagickMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: behind you
Posts: 5,826
Default

Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
__________________
"There is no law beyond 'Do what thou wilt'.
Love is the law, love under will."
- A. Crowley

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - Henry VI, Pt. II: Act 4, Scn 2
MagickMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 09:05 PM   #68
Mopetar
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagickMan View Post
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
To what end?

Sure they'd pick up some nice assets that they'd be able to use, and they could probably sell off some of the parts that they don't need, but at the end of the day it doesn't get them anywhere near $120B in value. If Samsung were to stop selling phones tomorrow, Apple would only pick up a small percentage of their sales, whereas the rest of the industry would pick up the lion's share.
Mopetar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 09:28 PM   #69
acx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 363
Default

No one is buying Samsung unless Samsung wants them to. Samsung is entwined too deep into the South Korean economic and political system. It would be like a foreign company initiating a hostile takeover of Lockheed Martin. It's not going to get approved by the politicians.
__________________
Heatware 12-0-0
acx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 09:41 PM   #70
WelshBloke
Lifer
 
WelshBloke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 15,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagickMan View Post
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
I thought Samsung had something like $400 billion in assets?
__________________
...and the more we drink, the more we sing Calon Lan.
WelshBloke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 10:24 PM   #71
Aikouka
Lifer
 
Aikouka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 24,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acx View Post
It would be like a foreign company initiating a hostile takeover of Lockheed Martin. It's not going to get approved by the politicians.
This is a little off-topic, but I think your analogy would have some rather major issues with ITAR as well.
Aikouka is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 10:29 PM   #72
jpeyton
Moderator
SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagickMan View Post
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
And they would acquire a better smartphone portfolio in the process.

Or maybe they'll assimilate the Galaxy line into the Apple fold.

Introducing the new 4.3" Apple Galaxy Note III.

Last edited by jpeyton; 11-15-2012 at 12:24 AM.
jpeyton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:19 AM   #73
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagickMan View Post
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
What makes you think such a takeover would be approved by the regulators?
lothar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 08:36 AM   #74
tommo123
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,103
Default

or the korean government
tommo123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 09:24 AM   #75
MagickMan
Diamond Member
 
MagickMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: behind you
Posts: 5,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lothar View Post
What makes you think such a takeover would be approved by the regulators?
Why not? Given what the telcoms have gotten away with, anything is possible.
__________________
"There is no law beyond 'Do what thou wilt'.
Love is the law, love under will."
- A. Crowley

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - Henry VI, Pt. II: Act 4, Scn 2
MagickMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.