• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Samsung Hits Apple With A 20% Price Hike

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
 
Mopetar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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+Partners+With+Samsung+for+Chip+Production/article25103.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:
dagamer34 said:
Though TSMC has no interest in VIP access. Both Qualcomm and Apple have asked but got shot down.
Click to expand...

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.

preslove said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about a take over?

dagamer34 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me.
 
Mopetar said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice!
 
WelshBloke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

KeithP said:
According to a Samsung official, the price increase didn't happen.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11766909/1/apple-investors-can-relax-a-little-bit.html
Click to expand...

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.

Cookie Monster said:
Apple hates IBM (well jobs did anyway) according to my memory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lothar said:
Intel? They doesn't manufacture for their competitors(that means no to ARM processors and non-X86 CPUs of any kind)
Click to expand...

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.
 
I could almost picture AMD and Nvidia owning TSMC with a breach of contract after allowing Apple and Qualcom VIP access.
 
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
 
MagickMan said:
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
acx said:
It would be like a foreign company initiating a hostile takeover of Lockheed Martin. It's not going to get approved by the politicians.
Click to expand...

This is a little off-topic, but I think your analogy would have some rather major issues with ITAR as well. 😛
 
MagickMan said:
Apple has $120B in cash... Samsung is worth ~$160B. Maybe Apple should just execute a hostile takeover? They have the money to do it.
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top