Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

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
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2012, 06:56 AM   #51
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
..but one has to admit they do it damn well.


It's a pretty big ass machine that regulates and adapts itself to whatever the hell the situation is.
They are referred to as the borg, and not in a flattering way.

There is a reason they are responsible for 20% of S Korea's national GDP You don't get there by being Unicef
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:08 AM   #52
bononos
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
They are referred to as the borg, and not in a flattering way.

There is a reason they are responsible for 20% of S Korea's national GDP You don't get there by being Unicef
Maybe the large foreign ownership (1/2) of Samsung had something to do with it.
bononos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:17 AM   #53
Chiropteran
Diamond Member
 
Chiropteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Arlington VA
Posts: 7,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
.

The samsung foundry guys are not happy that they've basically had their future business turned against them because their mobile division (completely managed by an entirely separate team) convinced the legal team that there was more money to be made in just competing against Apple rather than making money being their foundry.

No fabless company wants to see themselves become the next victim of that sort of predatory "bait-and-clone" foundry business model.
Really? Are there articles on this out there, anything substantial? I just don't see why Samsung would need to copy or clone Apple phones when Motorola, HTC, LG etc all seemed to be able to figure out how to make similar phones without the benefit of being an Apple foundry.

I get that Apple might want to take it's business elsewhere once Samsung starts seriously competing with them in the phone business, but the idea that Samsung just flat out copies the designs which they saw as a benefit of being a foundry sounds a little too extreme to me.
__________________
http://writeangry.blogspot.com/
Chiropteran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 09:32 AM   #54
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiropteran View Post
Really? Are there articles on this out there, anything substantial? I just don't see why Samsung would need to copy or clone Apple phones when Motorola, HTC, LG etc all seemed to be able to figure out how to make similar phones without the benefit of being an Apple foundry.

I get that Apple might want to take it's business elsewhere once Samsung starts seriously competing with them in the phone business, but the idea that Samsung just flat out copies the designs which they saw as a benefit of being a foundry sounds a little too extreme to me.
Sounds extreme? Ah, ok. Samsung has never had issues with abdicating ethics in the name of profits.

CRT price fixing
Dram price fixing
LCD price fixing

As far as the comment "flat out copies designs", I did not say that is what they do. The "copy" is that they know in advance what the competition is intending to field in the market based on negotiations going on in the foundry. These are huge divisions and there are no secrets between them.

They copy business strategies, they copy market directions, etc.

That is why TSMC is a successful foundry unlike IBM or Samsung where the conflict of interest is not only a risk, with Samsung it is a clear and present danger for their fabless customers.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:15 AM   #55
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,076
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiropteran View Post
Really? Are there articles on this out there, anything substantial? I just don't see why Samsung would need to copy or clone Apple phones when Motorola, HTC, LG etc all seemed to be able to figure out how to make similar phones without the benefit of being an Apple foundry.
Apple phones are just the tip of the iceberg. Look at cars, ships, TVs, in every single case here they copied the entire product strategy of the market leaders while undercutting them on price but never something truly innovative, then after a while when the business gain scale they start to field something barely innovative but never a breakthrough. It was like that with Sony TVs and home theaters, Toyota cars, GE appliances, Mitsubishi ships, Lockheed Martin planes and whatever you look.

They don't excel for innovate, they excel in manufacturing. They have very efficient fabs in whatever product they make, plus a government that piratically tailors the school curriculum for them and ensures that their business will always have funding and provides a cheap currency to boost their exports.

I won't enter in a moral argument here because I don't think this is the right forum for that, but one has to be blind to not see Samsung cloning products in almost every market they are in.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:13 AM   #56
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
Apple phones are just the tip of the iceberg. Look at cars, ships, TVs, in every single case here they copied the entire product strategy of the market leaders while undercutting them on price but never something truly innovative, then after a while when the business gain scale they start to field something barely innovative but never a breakthrough. It was like that with Sony TVs and home theaters, Toyota cars, GE appliances, Mitsubishi ships, Lockheed Martin planes and whatever you look.

They don't excel for innovate, they excel in manufacturing. They have very efficient fabs in whatever product they make, plus a government that piratically tailors the school curriculum for them and ensures that their business will always have funding and provides a cheap currency to boost their exports.

I won't enter in a moral argument here because I don't think this is the right forum for that, but one has to be blind to not see Samsung cloning products in almost every market they are in.

One could wonder how this would work - if china ever got a Semi IC manufacturing powerhouse or other more deeply hardcore electronic business giants on the world scene.

I often see Samsung as a small scale version of what would happen - if China companies grew so large and had such presence in various key-business areas in the world of IT\Electronics\Technology.
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 08:21 AM   #57
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
One could wonder how this would work - if china ever got a Semi IC manufacturing powerhouse or other more deeply hardcore electronic business giants on the world scene.

I often see Samsung as a small scale version of what would happen - if China companies grew so large and had such presence in various key-business areas in the world of IT\Electronics\Technology.
Counterfeit ICs is a huge business and a huge issue. China is already a Semi-IC powerhouse, just not the kind that you'd recognize at first glance because you are expecting that powerhouse to be sporting its own brand-name instead of sporting counterfeit brand names on the silkscreen.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 08:56 AM   #58
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Counterfeit ICs is a huge business and a huge issue. China is already a Semi-IC powerhouse, just not the kind that you'd recognize at first glance because you are expecting that powerhouse to be sporting its own brand-name instead of sporting counterfeit brand names on the silkscreen.

Well, they still also do not supply premium performance IC products.
End user or not.

When i get product with the powerhouse perf\watt\price - we know from the western world, it'd be a problem.

In the fashion industry - china already manufacturers most of the worlds supply.

And the manufacturer obviously makes some copies for himself - even if the brand name is not the product.

From our "technical" perspective the product is 100% the same - that can't be said for electronics....yet.

...or can it?
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:03 AM   #59
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
From our "technical" perspective the product is 100% the same - that can't be said for electronics....yet.

...or can it?
Alot of chinese only products that are "western copy" are actually better than the western part.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:09 PM   #60
podspi
Golden Member
 
podspi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Alot of chinese only products that are "western copy" are actually better than the western part.
Such as? Because all of the Chinese knockoffs that you can buy off of eBay or Alibaba are definitely not better... And I find it hard to believe they would sell the junk but not the good stuff...
podspi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:23 PM   #61
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by podspi View Post
Such as? Because all of the Chinese knockoffs that you can buy off of eBay or Alibaba are definitely not better... And I find it hard to believe they would sell the junk but not the good stuff...
Its not really that hard to imagine. The BOM for most 600$ smartphones are less than 200$. Now copy the design and up some specs for a 225$ BOM where the other makers cheaped out. And bingo, you got something better you can sell for 300$.

If specially smartphone companies wasnt so extremely greedy (that most western consumers somehow accepts.). It wouldnt be so easy to beat them in their own game. And then you would see knockoffs being alot worse. But when the difference between BOM and retail price is so high, you often end up with the opposite effect.

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-06-2012 at 12:31 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:35 PM   #62
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Anybody who has dealt with Samsung.........but they sure build great product.

my South Korean contact once told me Samsung's internal security service was more plugged in than the government's...unfortunately that will remain a rumour as I haven't been able to verify this with my North Korean contact because....I don't have one.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:41 PM   #63
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Alot of chinese only products that are "western copy" are actually better than the western part.
They are the same - thus cannot be better.


The technical specifications are the same, only the logo is ripped of.
Hence they are neither worse, nor better - when talking Textile industry.

You won't see a samsung\apple\LG\sony copied phone - have the exact same internal specs and performance as the original with electronics...yet.


Once that day comes...
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 04:48 PM   #64
Blandge
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
You won't see a samsung\apple\LG\sony copied phone - have the exact same internal specs and performance as the original with electronics...yet.


Once that day comes...
Not true, this happened to Cisco.
Blandge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:02 PM   #65
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blandge View Post
Not true, this happened to Cisco.
Huawei?
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 08:05 PM   #66
Ajay
Golden Member
 
Ajay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMac View Post
Huawei?
Yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei#..._Controversies
__________________
Asus P6T V2 Deluxe Ci7 970 @ 4.2GHz w/HT, Corsair H100i, 2x240GB SanDisk Extreme RAID0, 2x WD VR 300GB RAID0, MSI GTX 680 PE @ 1110MHz, 12GB G.Skill Riojaws DDR3 1600, Corair 850HX, Corsair 800D case. Win7 x64 Ultimate. Dell U2412M.
Heatware
Ajay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 08:11 PM   #67
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,551
Default

Cisco is another company that never learned to deal with competition of any kind. Overpriced equipment and expensive poor support while living with an outdated mindset. Not to mention they got beaten so badly on the 4G/LTE network they had to use lobbyists.


Last edited by ShintaiDK; 12-06-2012 at 08:19 PM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:53 PM   #68
Cookie Monster
Diamond Member
 
Cookie Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 4,749
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Sounds extreme? Ah, ok. Samsung has never had issues with abdicating ethics in the name of profits.
The problem with this is that "Samsung" could be replaced with just about any big names in the industry today, including Intel (and from other industries not just semiconductor). So Im kind of surprised that your singling them out especially when the basis of the reasoning was highlighted by their "price fixing" scandal.. which involved more than one party. I dont blame them (the parties involved) either seeing as how dried up some of the above markets are/were e.g. the DRAM market.
__________________
Heatware
Cookie's Rig:
Intel i5 2500K@4.5GHz/1.36V//Corsair H80 || Asus P8Z68-V PRO || G.Skill RipJaws 2x4GB@DDR3-2133 || EVGA GTX680 SC@1200/6500MHz || 2xSamsung 840 250GB || 2xWD Green 1TB || Seasonic X-560 || Asus Xonar Essence STX || Silverstone FT02 LE || 2xDell U2412M || Windows 7 Pro x64 || Logitech M950 || Sennheiser HD595 || Audioengine A2
Cookie Monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 02:23 AM   #69
Av9114
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 10
Default

The thing that confuses me is given how capital intensive semiconductor manufacturing is, why isn't Samsung more concerned about idle fabs? Do they just assume that they'll be able to fill them with their own designs? Seems like they risk sinking the whole ship, no?
Av9114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:05 AM   #70
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av9114 View Post
The thing that confuses me is given how capital intensive semiconductor manufacturing is, why isn't Samsung more concerned about idle fabs? Do they just assume that they'll be able to fill them with their own designs? Seems like they risk sinking the whole ship, no?
The people who manage the semiconductor division are concerned, the people who manage the consumer products division not so much.

This is the problem with having a large company that has competing internal interests. Not only does the left hand not communicate with the right hand, on occasions they are undermining each other's stated business charter.

Consider Samsung's legal dept, suing your own foundry customer is not good business from the foundry perspective, but it is good business for the legal dept and they have to justify their budget and headcount...so they file lawsuits and keep their own jobs at the expense of the jobs that are surely going to be lost in the foundry division when the customers leave.

The same is true of the mobile products division. You don't compete with your customers, you can try but you quickly find out that your customer is no longer your customer, they go to your competitor to be better enabled to compete against you in the future.

It is one big huge conflict of interest, which is why Samsung as a foundry has struggled ever since the business unit was created. And it will continue to be like that because it is a culture thing that will never change, no one can trust the samsung foundry even if the foundry wants to be trustworthy it has no control over what the other business units do to its customer's products or with its customer's sensitive roadmap information.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:21 AM   #71
Arzachel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
They don't excel for innovate, they excel in manufacturing. They have very efficient fabs in whatever product they make, plus a government that piratically tailors the school curriculum for them and ensures that their business will always have funding and provides a cheap currency to boost their exports.
I'll have to call bullshit on this, at least in the smartphone business. Specs have pretty much always been irrelevant when competing with Apple, what Samsung did was actually "out-Apple" Apple. They pushed their Galaxy branding with their "S" line of phones (iPhone), they pushed large screens as something desirable (Retina) and both paid off immensely, to which Apple had pretty much no answer to because they were so used to things running their way. Samsung has taken a lot out of Apple's playbook, which ironically has lead them to become pretty much the most innovative smartphone manufacturer in the market since Apple released the first iPhone, but their tech isn't it.
Arzachel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 08:39 AM   #72
podspi
Golden Member
 
podspi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,680
Default

Samsung isn't Foxconn. I would argue that Samsung did not steal tech from Apple, but probably Apple paid for a lot of tech from Samsung.

What Samsung did steal from Apple are a lot of design cues. While I don't agree with being able to patent a rectangle, I think it is obvious to anybody who isn't biased against Apple to see that (and I do not like Apple). Even their current products remind me of the iPhone, with the distinctive middle home button. But none of this has anything to do with being a foundry. You don't have to fab an SoC to look at the shape of a product, or button placement, or icon design language, which is (if I understand correctly) what the lawsuit was about.

The danger of having a competitor fab your next-gen SoC is that they see you've added 3x the GPU capacity, and so you turn around and change your plans to include 4x the GPU capacity (or whatever). There are ways to firewall one segment of a business from another to prevent that kind of information leaking between departments, and given Apple's obsession about secrecy I would imagine provisions for such containment were included in the contract. Make no mistake, this is tit-for-tat. Unlike Samsung, Apple holds a grudge. Once they got into a huge legal battle, there was no way they would continue being Samsung's customer, even if it was their best choice.

For more Apple choices like this one, see the replacement of Google Maps.
podspi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:15 AM   #73
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,076
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arzachel View Post
I'll have to call bullshit on this, at least in the smartphone business. Specs have pretty much always been irrelevant when competing with Apple, what Samsung did was actually "out-Apple" Apple. They pushed their Galaxy branding with their "S" line of phones (iPhone), they pushed large screens as something desirable (Retina) and both paid off immensely, to which Apple had pretty much no answer to because they were so used to things running their way. Samsung has taken a lot out of Apple's playbook, which ironically has lead them to become pretty much the most innovative smartphone manufacturer in the market since Apple released the first iPhone, but their tech isn't it.
Yes, you are calling bullshit while saying *exactly* the same thing I wrote in the first paragraph.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:32 PM   #74
Av9114
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
The people who manage the semiconductor division are concerned, the people who manage the consumer products division not so much.

This is the problem with having a large company that has competing internal interests. Not only does the left hand not communicate with the right hand, on occasions they are undermining each other's stated business charter.
I totally understand that. Samsung has a somewhat weird business model in general. Traditionally, when you vertically integrate you don't also sell to your competitors. The difference is that Samsung started as a supplier whereas historically companies that end up vertically integrated start out at the top or bottom of that stack and build down or up respectively. But it seems hard to imagine Samsung not eventually having to be a more traditional vertically integrated company and stop supplying to others. Thoughts?
Av9114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 09:40 PM   #75
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av9114 View Post
I totally understand that. Samsung has a somewhat weird business model in general. Traditionally, when you vertically integrate you don't also sell to your competitors. The difference is that Samsung started as a supplier whereas historically companies that end up vertically integrated start out at the top or bottom of that stack and build down or up respectively. But it seems hard to imagine Samsung not eventually having to be a more traditional vertically integrated company and stop supplying to others. Thoughts?
I agree. And I think Samsung sees themselves moving in that direction as well.

They don't care whether their foundry fabs are full of their own internally designed ICs for their smartphones or full of externally designed ICs for fabless customers...but they know they make the most money if their fabs are loaded with their own chips. Intel knows this too.
Idontcare is online now   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 05:17 AM.


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