Samsung, Intel & Tizen

[MisterMac]

..while we all discuss gloom\doom of AMD - ARM's abilities to withstand Intel in the long run - and other funny semiconductor things.

One thing struck my head - as something i haven't seen debated by the wise heads of the Anand Forum.

Intel wants mobile.

Samsung just wants moar - alot more moar.


And then i remembered Tizen - if Tizen can pick up Adoption and become a presence the OS\Dev Ecosystem - how exactly would any entity alive stop a SemiAllied Intel\Samsung mobile front?


Forget that Intel wants to have Silvermont\Airmonts in lots of Android phones - couldn't that actually just be a small demonstration for Samsung publicly?

(Hello! Conspiracy nut - i know, i know).

Obviously you'll never see public flirting\powerbrokering like Wintel.
....but Intel having it's full strangehold on the server market (and all of big iron - if trends continue).

Samsung could be that glorified flagship doll - to secretly dominantly do that in the mainstream media's eyes for the mobile\postpc\lightdevice market.


I don't think Samsung would care as long as they're paid enough for their own demand for greed.


....yea...okay maybe not.

But in seriousness - could there be some secret workings (assuming intel brings game with *mont) around this as a plan for Samtel? (Yes - i just made that up and it will now be a new thing).

 

[USER8000]

Except,Samsung develops its own SOCs and has its own fabs. They will only use other companies when it makes financial sense for them. Remember,they can pretty build almost every part of a modern computer,and that level of integration does help them,rather than sourcing a lot of third party parts.

 

[MisterMac]

Except,Samsung develops its own SOCs and has its own fabs. They will only use other companies when it makes financial sense for them. Remember,they can pretty build almost every part of a modern computer,and that level of integration does help them,rather than sourcing a lot of third party parts.

Except they'd rather use standard bog ARM cores - if it's enough and there's no competition for a complete super SOC.


Samsung would DUMP ARM the minute they loose on key metrics - especially price.
Which would include fabbing them.

 

[Fx1]

Tizen will never catch on.

Its hard to beat an OS with 65% global share that is basically Free and Open Source.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Exactly, Samsung dont care about ARM. Samsung only cares about selling devices. Be it ARM; Android, Tizen, x86. Same deal for Samsung.

 

[USER8000]

Except they'd rather use standard bog ARM cores - if it's enough and there's no competition for a complete super SOC.


Samsung would DUMP ARM the minute they loose on key metrics - especially price.
Which would include fabbing them.

I never mentioned ARM though,just what is cheapest. You are one the going about ARM not me.

Also why should Samsung give a damn about Intel ,when they are a third party company making the chips for mobile phones?? Unless Intel gives them an X86 license,they will go with the chips which cost them the least to design and make using their own fabs. If ARM is the cheapest to license they will use that and if something else pops up that is better for them,they will ditch ARM and so on.

People fail to realise that Samsung can design,build and taylor every single part of a modern tablet and phone,and using in-house developed parts they can achieve a higher level of integration at a lower cost. Samsung has huge volumes to spread R and D costs over too. Remember,X86 is not needed to make a good phone or a good tablet,so people are in some sort of denial thinking,ONLY X86 is the way forward,it isn't and companies like Samsung and the average consumer don't care,only people on forums. Even for commercial and military systems,X86 is not the main standard and neither is Windows.

The companies which are most likely to use Intel X86 SOCs for most of their phones are the companies,who need to buy third party parts since they don't have the resources to develop effective alternatives.

 

[dma0991]

The success of Tizen depends on how well Samsung deals with software developers which from what I know, is abysmal. If Microsoft isn't gaining much ground in their app store, I expect Tizen to be much worse. Without the association of Tizen to be able to utilize the already established Google Play store apps, it will just meet a similar end like Samsung's bada.

Samsung does well on the hardware side(except design) but on the software side, they are the exact opposite. Its for obvious reasons too as providing an upgrade via software would mean that their customers wouldn't upgrade as often. With Android, Google has done well to support the developers and their Nexus lineup.

Locking themselves out of the Android ecosystem would spell disaster for Samsung. They'd like to think that they could be the next Apple but they do not have the marketing/planning prowess to match.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I never mentioned ARM though,just what is cheapest. You are one the going about ARM not me.

Also why should Samsung give a damn about Intel ,when they are a third party company making the chips for mobile phones?? Unless Intel gives them an X86 license,they will go with the chips which cost them the least to design and make using their own fabs. If ARM is the cheapest to license they will use that and if something else pops up that is better for them,they will ditch ARM and so on.

People fail to realise that Samsung can design,build and taylor every single part of a modern tablet and phone,and using in-house developed parts they can achieve a higher level of integration at a lower cost. Samsung has huge volumes to spread R and D costs over too. Remember,X86 is not needed to make a good phone or a good tablet,so people are in some sort of denial thinking,ONLY X86 is the way forward,it isn't and companies like Samsung and the average consumer don't care,only people on forums. Even for commercial and military systems,X86 is not the main standard and neither is Windows.

The companies which are most likely to use Intel X86 SOCs for most of their phones are the companies,who need to buy third party parts since they don't have the resources to develop effective alternatives.

You do know that the wast majority of Samsung smartphones dont contain a Samsung CPU? Samsung dont care if its a Samsung produced CPU or something else, they only care about the value of the sold product as a device.

 

[MisterMac]

I never mentioned ARM though,just what is cheapest. You are one the going about ARM not me.

Also why should Samsung give a damn about Intel ,when they are third party company making the chips for mobile phones?? Unless Intel gives them an X86 license,they will go with the chips which cost them the least to design and make using their own fabs. If ARM is the cheapest to license they will use that and if something else pops up that is better for them,they will ditch ARM and so on.

People fail to realise that Samsung can design,build and taylor every single part of a modern tablet and phone,and using in-house developed parts they can achieve a higher level of integration at a lower cost. Samsung has huge volumes to spread R and D costs over too. Remember,X86 is not needed to make a good phone or a good tablet,so people are in some sort of denial thinking,ONLY X86 is the way forward,it isn't and companies like Samsung and the average consumer don't care,only people on forums. Even for commercial and military systems,X86 is not the main standard and neither is Windows.

The companies which are most likely to use Intel X86 SOCs for most of their phones are the companies,who need to buy third party parts since they don't have the resources to develop effective alternatives.

And the point remains that - it's harder for ARM to scale up performance than it is for x86 to scale down voltage.

I fully expect there to be a cleft and Intel to take the pure performance crown , even perf\watt.

Of course for phone designs - x86 will have a certain price in terms of no control in low level.


If Tizen picks up - and the cleft happens - i don't see why samsung wouldn't buy a full SOC incl. fabbing - at a certain price and just control the market with Intel.

That's why it's a "funny" scenario that could play out - if Intel brings game.


EDIT:

As Shintai also points out for a company that can do everything themselves - they sure as hell don't for a vast majority of their products.

And that's not just in the mobile\tablet division.

They want moar - they don't care if it costs em 1 division if it's profitable.
see Apple v Samsung.

 

[USER8000]

You do know that the wast majority of Samsung smartphones dont contain a Samsung CPU?

Most mobile phones and tablets worldwide don't contain an X86 CPU either,and that is down to cost.

The only area that Intel has dominance is in X86 systems running Windows.
If you don't run Windows why do you need X86?? Moreover,even MS has decided to make Windows RT for ARM too - even after two decades plus of Wintel,they can see where things are heading.

 

[MisterMac]

The success of Tizen depends on how well Samsung deals with software developers which from what I know, is abysmal. If Microsoft isn't gaining much ground in their app store, I expect Tizen to be much worse. Without the association of Tizen to be able to utilize the already established Google Play store apps, it will just meet a similar end like Samsung's bada.

Samsung does well on the hardware side(except design) but on the software side, they are the exact opposite. Its for obvious reasons too as providing an upgrade via software would mean that their customers wouldn't upgrade as often. With Android, Google has done well to support the developers and their Nexus lineup.

Locking themselves out of the Android ecosystem would spell disaster for Samsung. They'd like to think that they could be the next Apple but they do not have the marketing/planning prowess to match.

I don't know if i agree - The only reason Apple is still ahead is they pioneered the market - and as such have a fanbase.

I expect over time that will erode - unless they somehow become more exceptionally stellar at SOC design that the rest of the players.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Most mobile phones and tablets worldwide don't contain an X86 CPU either,and that is down to cost.

The only area that Intel has dominance is in X86 systems running Windows.
If you don't run Windows why do you need X86?? Moreover,even MS has decided to make Windows RT for ARM too - even after two decades plus of Wintel,they can see where things are heading.

WinRT sold what sofar? 100K, 200K devices? Its already dead inside MS.

The CPU cost, even using Intel is tiny compared to the device cost and profit.

As shown with the Intel based 199$ Chromebook. Add 2GB memory and Windows and its 319$.

Its some desperate illusion that Intel CPUs cost too much.

Even Google used alot of effort and money getting Android for x86. So they must believe in something.

And as said, ARM already seem to have hit the wall. Thats why you now already see the 2 type core solutions.

Specially if x86 offers something better for the consumer. Then Samsung, Apple and whatever will ditch ARM in a heartbeat. Even if the CPU cost is twice as high. Better to sacrifice a 10-25$ part of the profit than losing the entire 400$ profit. Samsung first of all sells devices, secondly they run a foundry. But price wise, ARM and x86 CPUs in the segment actually seem to cost the same.

 

[USER8000]

And the point remains that - it's harder for ARM to scale up performance than it is for x86 to scale down voltage.

I fully expect there to be a cleft and Intel to take the pure performance crown , even perf\watt.

Of course for phone designs - x86 will have a certain price in terms of no control in low level.


If Tizen picks up - and the cleft happens - i don't see why samsung wouldn't buy a full SOC incl. fabbing - at a certain price and just control the market with Intel.

That's why it's a "funny" scenario that could play out - if Intel brings game.


EDIT:

As Shintai also points out for a company that can do everything themselves - they sure as hell don't for a vast majority of their products.

And that's not just in the mobile\tablet division.

They want moar - they don't care if it costs em 1 division if it's profitable.
see Apple v Samsung.

The problem is that performance is a relative thing though. Only enthusiasts on forums really are obsessed with performance benchmarks,whereas consumers don't care. If pure performance was the only important thing tablets would not be doing so well,but they are and are eating into PC sales.

Do people really think when the new iPad comes out people are looking at performance benchmarks,measurebating away?? The same with phones too?? There seems to be some religious like obsession with X86 and some religious like dislike of anything which isn't X86 on technology forums,which I never understood. Even Intel tried ditching X86 with Itanium.

More and more average consumers seem to be keeping their desktops and laptops longer and longer,indicating even for a fully featured Windows OS,performance is deemed more than good enough for the average user. So instead of buying a faster laptop people buy a tablet now,even though it is a slower device with a lower lifespan.

Too many people are in denial about this. People are more worried about style and not substance nowadays.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The problem is that performance is a relative thing though. Only enthusiasts on forums really are obssessed with performance bencmarks,whereas consumers don't care. If pure performance was the only important thing tablets would not be doing so well,but they are and are eating into PC sales.

Do people really think when the new iPad comes out people are looking at performance benchmarks,measurebating away??

More and more average consumers seem to be keeping their desktops and laptops longer and longer,indicating even for a fully featured Windows OS,performance is deemed more than good enough for the average user. So instead of buying a faster laptop people buy a tablet now,even though it is a slower device with a lower lifespan.

Too many people are in denial about this. People are more worried about style and not substance nowadays.

Even my GF thinks her S3 is slow. And the TV using ARM as well is utterly slow.

If performance was enough, why do people upgrade their smartphones so aggressively as they do? The average lifespan of a smartphone in the US is around 1½ year.

 

[dma0991]

I don't know if i agree - The only reason Apple is still ahead is they pioneered the market - and as such have a fanbase.

I expect over time that will erode - unless they somehow become more exceptionally stellar at SOC design that the rest of the players.

Without someone like the late Steve Jobs at the helm, they wouldn't have the fanbase like they do now. It is definitely showing signs of eroding with Tim Cook at the top but what Steve Jobs had built before his death will take a very long time for it to erode.

They've taken the initiative to actually control the design of their SoC which I think is a good step in ensuring that their software works well with their hardware. With Apple doing a tug of war with Intel on hiring and the shift to TSMC, I'm thinking that there's a lot of room to grow.

However, I'd like to see Intel blow away their ARM competitors in terms of performance and power efficiency to a point where it makes more economical sense for Apple to have Intel chips in their devices.

 

[MisterMac]

However, I'd like to see Intel blow away their ARM competitors in terms of performance and power efficiency to a point where it makes more economical sense for Apple to have Intel chips in their devices.

No doubt another possible scenario Intel would love to play in.


The point originally was to highlight if Samsung gets behind Tizen - in a marketing factor (Cause no else has the possible skill\resources to) to make it big - one way or the other.

I'm sure Intel would agressively follow with chips for samsung - at whatever price that would make both of them happy.

The straw is IF - Intel can follow the ambition of taking x86 below ARM in Perf, Perf\Watt so much that Samsung has no choice but to also run with them.

Price would be the least of worries - when dealing with the volumes Samsung\Intel has.

 

[Exophase]

You do know that the wast majority of Samsung smartphones dont contain a Samsung CPU? Samsung dont care if its a Samsung produced CPU or something else, they only care about the value of the sold product as a device.

Do you have any real statistics on that? As current as possible please.

Of course Samsung cares if they can save money by using a Samsung SoC...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you have any real statistics on that? As current as possible please.

Of course Samsung cares if they can save money by using a Samsung SoC...

Like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exynos_(system_on_chip)

 

[Exophase]

How is a link to Exynos on wikipedia a statistic of what percentage of Samsung's phones (as in by overall sales, not by model of course) use Samsung's SoCs?

I think Samsung cares very much about keeping their fabs from being grossly underutilized, and I think that next to Apple's SoCs (which are likely to be leaving Samsung) Exynos is likely what's filling the most wafers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Its very limited what Samsung phones even uses their own SoC. Not to mention most of those listed also uses other SoCs in some models.

I dont think that will change. Samsung doesnt work like a unity as such. Its each division for itself. If it cant stand on its own legs it gets closed.

Since you mention Apple. It was basicly Samsungs legal department vs Samsung foundry department.

 

[Piroko]

WinRT sold what sofar? 100K, 200K devices? Its already dead inside MS.

Source? MS have shown to fight for several generations in a market if they have to.

The CPU cost, even using Intel is tiny compared to the device cost and profit.
As shown with the Intel based 199$ Chromebook. Add 2GB memory and Windows and its 319$.

Again, any source? Cost structure can be very different for two seemingly similar devices. Especially if one party subsidizes.

Specially if x86 offers something better for the consumer. Then Samsung, Apple and whatever will ditch ARM in a heartbeat. Even if the CPU cost is twice as high. Better to sacrifice a 10-25$ part of the profit than losing the entire 400$ profit. Samsung first of all sells devices, secondly they run a foundry. But price wise, ARM and x86 CPUs in the segment actually seem to cost the same.

Well that might be true. But Intel has yet to show that they are willing to sell volume for the same margins as Arm vendors. The cost structure on the Arm side seems to be very efficient.

 

[MisterMac]

Well that might be true. But Intel has yet to show that they are willing to sell volume for the same margins as Arm vendors. The cost structure on the Arm side seems to be very efficient.

You mean extremely dependant on TSMC working and functioning.

Samsung has it's own foundry knowledge - but the rest are fucked if TSMC does not deliver.

20nm\14nm is super duper - but it's not going to come cheap.

 

[Exophase]

Its very limited what Samsung phones even uses their own SoC. Not to mention most of those listed also uses other SoCs in some models.

I dont think that will change. Samsung doesnt work like a unity as such. Its each division for itself. If it cant stand on its own legs it gets closed.

I'm asking you for real statistics. Not just to repeat your claim. I'd like you to actually support it with hard numbers.

Since you mention Apple. It was basicly Samsungs legal department vs Samsung foundry department.

That could be the case, but the end result is the same - Samsung will try to fill keep fab utilization high enough one way or another.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Source? MS have shown to fight for several generations in a market if they have to.

Again, any source? Cost structure can be very different for two seemingly similar devices. Especially if one party subsidizes.

Well that might be true. But Intel has yet to show that they are willing to sell volume for the same margins as Arm vendors. The cost structure on the Arm side seems to be very efficient.

MS aint giving out any information. But everyone I talk to, including MS people says it doesnt sell at all. Even core develoeprs are bold enough to say WinRT is dead.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/acer-c7-chromebook.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...ag=dynadata-20

Intel will be happy to sell at the same margins as ARM. Just look at Qualcomm and TSMCs margins.

 

[dma0991]

Source? MS have shown to fight for several generations in a market if they have to.

MS has been doing this battle for a very long time and with no positive outcome. Surface RT isn't doing quite well when it only sold 1 million units as of Q4 2012. In contrast, iPad sold 20 million units in the same time period, do the math. To make matters worse, sales are usually very good during the holidays.