CNET: Apple to move A6X production from Samsung to TSMC

[grimpr]

Thanks for the helpful contribution.

Sure, its free after all. Just keep that in mind, as times goes by and all industry follows the Apple example, Microsoft already started with 8, windows store and phones/tablets, Intel will follow too. Apple already dictates the future of the pc, it wont be long where the freedoms you have for granted will be sellable as upgrades and options in the applesque post pc world.

 

[Skurge]

It sounds like you're assuming that the Galaxy S3 uses the Snapdragon S4 because of supply constraint, but I recall reading articles that state it was so Samsung could use Qualcomm's LTE radio.

This article on the lack of LTE in the iPhone 4S somewhat covers it:
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index...&slug=why-no-lte-iphone-5-blame-28nm-maturity

The Galaxy S3 was released in June in the United States, which most likely would have been way too late to include the 9615 in the S3. The 9615 is what Apple uses in the iPhone 5 as seen on iFixIt:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5+Teardown/10525/3

Yep, it was a time to market thing, shown by the fact that the Note II that came much later has Exynos 4 and LTE.

 

[mrmt]

There is a huge conflict of interest at Samsung right now, and while general assurances are given that "IP firewalls" are in place that protect the foundry customer's plans and IP from the other divisions of Samsung, it is clear from what happened with Apple (and continues to happen with Apple) that those firewalls are rather leaky :sneaky:

Samsung manufactured the SoC, the memory, storage and the display in Apple smartphones. I don't think Samsung could *not* know what Apple was going to do with their future smartphones regardless on how strong the IP firewalls were.

To pursue or not pursue a product that rivals your customer's is a business decision and maybe ethical issue, but I don't think Samsung actively went after Apple IP (industrial espionage). They just put the IP pieces together.

 

[Exophase]

It sounds like you're assuming that the Galaxy S3 uses the Snapdragon S4 because of supply constraint, but I recall reading articles that state it was so Samsung could use Qualcomm's LTE radio.

That's only one of many examples of Samsung phones and tablets not using Samsung SoCs. The same explanation doesn't work for the Galaxy S2s that used Tegra 2, for instance.

It's much more likely that Samsung Mobile considers the Exynos their "secret sauce" and isn't willing to part with it to any of their major US competitors (it has popped up in the Meizu MX Quad-Core, so I don't think it's a supply issue).

Much like how Intel isn't just going to give ARM licensees the ability to manufacture ARM chips at its fabs, I don't expect Samsung to just give Exynos to anyone.

That may be true for now, but if Samsung needs to increase volume they may do this with more outside selling of their SoCs, particularly to vendors (possibly smaller ones) that aren't in big competition with their products and contracts.

I don't really see the Intel situation as comparable, selling a chip you make and opening up your fabs to third parties are very different propositions.

 

[Centauri]

Sure, its free after all. Just keep that in mind, as times goes by and all industry follows the Apple example, Microsoft already started with 8, windows store and phones/tablets, Intel will follow too. Apple already dictates the future of the pc, it wont be long where the freedoms you have for granted will be sellable as upgrades and options in the applesque post pc world.

You need to go outside.

 

[grimpr]

You need to go outside.

I'm just fine thank you, i dont like Apple thats all and thats perfectly normal.

 

[Nintendesert]

So what stops Nvidia and AMD from using Samsung's fabs for their future chips? We all know TSMC hasn't done either company any favors with their low yields and volume delivery problems.

Is it simply a problem of it taking years to get into the proper relationship with Samsung?

 

[tviceman]

So what stops Nvidia and AMD from using Samsung's fabs for their future chips? We all know TSMC hasn't done either company any favors with their low yields and volume delivery problems.

Is it simply a problem of it taking years to get into the proper relationship with Samsung?

Take this with a shot of tequila, but http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...samsung-fab2c-ibm2c-globalfoundries-next.aspx Reported back in March of last year (2012).

 

[BrightCandle]

I thought tsmc was effectively full for the first half of the year with existing orders. Surely the timescales and volumes tsmc can give them is going to be a problem?

 

[Idontcare]

And how long until Apple sue TSMC?

TSMC is safe until Apple patents the circle.

After that all bets are off as Apple will then sue TSMC for making its own rectangle* shaped chips on circle* shaped wafers

* rectangle and circle shaped objects, real or imagined, are patent protected by Apple

 

[Idontcare]

I thought tsmc was effectively full for the first half of the year with existing orders. Surely the timescales and volumes tsmc can give them is going to be a problem?

Motivated buyer meets motivated seller.

Remember that they are talking about ramping an essentially mature node at this point.

True they are planning to ramp faster than they have any other node in their history but the challenges are just that, throw money at problems and scale them up.

10yrs ago this would have been an insurmountable challenge for TSMC because the competitive environment for tool orders was rate-limiting in capacity buildouts.

But pretty much every sector has slowed except TSMC, which leaves them the benefactor of what would have otherwise been idled tool building capacity at all the tool vendors.

Chance favors the prepared and TSMC is busting out all the stops to nail this account.

 

[Homeles]

I thought tsmc was effectively full for the first half of the year with existing orders. Surely the timescales and volumes tsmc can give them is going to be a problem?

TSMC also didn't have Gigafab 15 up and running. Now they have all 3 phases running (I believe), with phase 1 and 2 well-ramped up by now. Today, they have plenty of capacity to spare. I don't even feel it has anything, or at least much, to do with Apple.

 

[Ajay]

TSMC also didn't have Gigafab 15 up and running. Now they have all 3 phases running (I believe), with phase 1 and 2 well-ramped up by now. Today, they have plenty of capacity to spare. I don't even feel it has anything, or at least much, to do with Apple.

I think they were likely motivated by Apple (a high "Prestige" win) and Qualcomm (who was looking to GloFo for more SoCs). So the need for ARM SoCs is likely the driving force behind their scale up - unless TSMC comes out and says something to the contrary.

 

[Haserath]

TSMC is safe until Apple patents the circle.

After that all bets are off as Apple will then sue TSMC for making its own rectangle* shaped chips on circle* shaped wafers

* rectangle and circle shaped objects, real or imagined, are patent protected by Apple

On a serious note, many complain Apple 'keeps everything the same,' and sucks due to the 'childish OS.'

WTF does Samsung do that's different?

Android is similar to iOS and GS3 is similar to iPhone. Yet Apple's products suck? Bigger screen woopdidoo.

Everyone hates on Apple, but Apple made the mobile OS. Android copied it and everyone copied the iPad and iPhone.

Then we make the jokes that Apple sues for rectangles...

 

[Idontcare]

On a serious note, many complain Apple 'keeps everything the same,' and sucks due to the 'childish OS.'

WTF does Samsung do that's different?

Android is similar to iOS and GS3 is similar to iPhone. Yet Apple's products suck? Bigger screen woopdidoo.

Everyone hates on Apple, but Apple made the mobile OS. Android copied it and everyone copied the iPad and iPhone.

Then we make the jokes that Apple sues for rectangles...

"Copy-and-improve" is a strength of humans as a species.

It works great until ego gets involved "I want my dues, give me credit for what I have done!"...or until money gets involved "I own that IP, give me money for what I own!".

It is no wonder that copying and improving is something that comes so natural to so many in this industry.

There is also the fact that with 7 billion human brains on this planet the notion of a "unique idea" is rather questionable. The same idea can be independently developed simultaneously from many different sources.

(but that conflicts with the ego, everyone is a super-smart special little flower who's ideas could not have been independently conceptualized by another human :| instead we must resort to claiming everyone stole our novel idea)

I'm firmly in the "I don't care" camp on this, I'm all for the free market and letting the consumer decide whether they want to support unethical enterprise by voting with their wallet.

 

[ctsoth]

"Copy-and-improve" is a strength of humans as a species.

It works great until ego gets involved "I want my dues, give me credit for what I have done!"...or until money gets involved "I own that IP, give me money for what I own!".

It is no wonder that copying and improving is something that comes so natural to so many in this industry.

There is also the fact that with 7 billion human brains on this planet the notion of a "unique idea" is rather questionable. The same idea can be independently developed simultaneously from many different sources.

(but that conflicts with the ego, everyone is a super-smart special little flower who's ideas could not have been independently conceptualized by another human :| instead we must resort to claiming everyone stole our novel idea)

I'm firmly in the "I don't care" camp on this, I'm all for the free market and letting the consumer decide whether they want to support unethical enterprise by voting with their wallet.

I couldn't agree more. The whole idea of patents is the establishment of a legal monopoly. It has nothing to do with the financial health of the consumer.

 

[Haserath]

"Copy-and-improve" is a strength of humans as a species.

It works great until ego gets involved "I want my dues, give me credit for what I have done!"...or until money gets involved "I own that IP, give me money for what I own!".

It is no wonder that copying and improving is something that comes so natural to so many in this industry.

There is also the fact that with 7 billion human brains on this planet the notion of a "unique idea" is rather questionable. The same idea can be independently developed simultaneously from many different sources.

(but that conflicts with the ego, everyone is a super-smart special little flower who's ideas could not have been independently conceptualized by another human :| instead we must resort to claiming everyone stole our novel idea)

I'm firmly in the "I don't care" camp on this, I'm all for the free market and letting the consumer decide whether they want to support unethical enterprise by voting with their wallet.

I agree with you. "Idontcare" either.:sneaky:

But I get a bit frustrated at the people hating on Apple when Apple brought us to where we are today.

Apple has improved mobile immensely and they want to keep their innovation as long as they can.

They might not be the first one to think of it, but they were first to improve and make money on it.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

 

[Idontcare]

I agree with you. "Idontcare" either.:sneaky:

But I get a bit frustrated at the people hating on Apple when Apple brought us to where we are today.

Apple has improved mobile immensely and they want to keep their innovation as long as they can.

They might not be the first one to think of it, but they were first to improve and make money on it.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

The entire field of the sciences, including mathematics, would have gone nowhere if scientists didn't share and build upon each other's work.

 

[Keysplayr]

:whiste:

What isn't clear to me is whether this really means anything to the end-user.

It obviously becomes one more distraction for TSMC's planning teams, an Apple account is going to get more attention than AMD's existing account for example, so net-net this might actually be a negative for the PC enthusiast market that depends on Nvidia and AMD to be the recipient of TSMC's devoted engineering teams.

Frees up some room for other companies to use Samsung fabs. Apple can go ahead and have all the tantrum it wants to while I enjoy my GSIII here.

 

[Ajay]

I couldn't agree more. The whole idea of patents is the establishment of a legal monopoly. It has nothing to do with the financial health of the consumer.

There are reasonable patents. A company spends years developing a unique process or product and they should have reasonable protection to be able to recoup their expenses and make a profit. This encourages innovation in where that innovation is time consuming and expensive.

It's the ridiculous patents on things like 'a smart phone in the shape of a rectangle' which have totally fluxored the patent system. That's where the system badly needs reform. That would get rid of the vast majority of patent trolls and return the patent system that does benefit the consumer by encouraging the pursuit of R&D by companies.

 

[Haserath]

The entire field of the sciences, including mathematics, would have gone nowhere if scientists didn't share and build upon each other's work.

But we also wouldn't have gone so far so fast if there wasn't the incentive of money. It needs a balance.

 

[Idontcare]

The biggest issue I have seen with patents (have a number myself) is that they are used as an anti-competitive tool to prevent competition and essentially enable the creation of product-specific "mini-opolies".

Look at what Rambus attempted for example, or the drug industry where they fight tooth and nail to delay the introduction of generic versions of the same drug.

One way to keep this from happening would be the requirement that all patents are licensible (no blocking competition "just because", like Intel keeping Nvidia from an x86 license) and that the max licensing fee would be derived by an industry-wide formula that stringently relies on proven accounting of the R&D expenses that went into the creation/invention of the IP in question.

 

[Ajay]

The biggest issue I have seen with patents (have a number myself) is that they are used as an anti-competitive tool to prevent competition and essentially enable the creation of product-specific "mini-opolies".

Look at what Rambus attempted for example, or the drug industry where they fight tooth and nail to delay the introduction of generic versions of the same drug.

One way to keep this from happening would be the requirement that all patents are licensible (no blocking competition "just because", like Intel keeping Nvidia from an x86 license) and that the max licensing fee would be derived by an industry-wide formula that stringently relies on proven accounting of the R&D expenses that went into the creation/invention of the IP in question.

I think that goes too far. Say a company spends 8 years and $22B to develop a commercial fusion reactor. Forcing them to be in a competitive situation a year after release by some Asian conglomeration would a strong disincentive to embark on said R&D. The situation with NV and Intel was ridiculous, but I don't see any easy answers.

 

[Idontcare]

I think that goes too far. Say a company spends 8 years and $22B to develop a commercial fusion reactor. Forcing them to be in a competitive situation a year after release by some Asian conglomeration would a strong disincentive to embark on said R&D. The situation with NV and Intel was ridiculous, but I don't see any easy answers.

Except that (1) the licensing fee would be directly proportional to the R&D expense so the IP generator is making an ROI on their R&D investment, and (2) the "Asian conglomeration" itself would then be operating at a financial disadvantage because of said licensing fee, preserving the opportunity for the IP holder to still generate superior profits while competing with the "Asian conglomeration".

I didn't say they had to give away their IP with nothing in return, but your post implies you cannot foresee a licensing model of any kind that would provide incentivizing compensation to the IP holder. Surely this is not true, otherwise there would be no such thing as IP licensing now.

 

[Ajay]

Except that (1) the licensing fee would be directly proportional to the R&D expense so the IP generator is making an ROI on their R&D investment, and (2) the "Asian conglomeration" itself would then be operating at a financial disadvantage because of said licensing fee, preserving the opportunity for the IP holder to still generate superior profits while competing with the "Asian conglomeration".

I didn't say they had to give away their IP with nothing in return, but your post implies you cannot foresee a licensing model of any kind that would provide incentivizing compensation to the IP holder. Surely this is not true, otherwise there would be no such thing as IP licensing now.

Good point. Lawyers will now have to fight over what are reasonable fees :sneaky:

Dang, I'm in the wrong profession! Lawyers always get a piece of the pie :'(