Samsung Increases Price For Apple's Processors

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny, there is no Zak hating so far. Hmmm, coincidence? Where are all the "Zak Islam should be fired" comments. ...guess those only come when the article can't be construed as negative towards Apple.

Anywho, Apple is getting what they deserve. Sammy should have raised the prices higher.
 
[While one can enjoy the irony, from a consumer point of view we should all be concerned what Samsung is doing. Samsung is using it's monopoly power in an effort to hurt what can be argued is their top competitor in the smartphone market. If they don't have the ethics to deal fairly with Apple, regardless of how badly Apple has done them, then how can they be trusted to deal fairly with the rest of us.]

Despite one is inclined to think as such in a situation like this, there is no concrete proof of any kind that Samsung raised the price just because they had lost the lawsuit. For all we know, it might be a simple "pass along the cost due to rising cost of labor and raw materials".

And how fair do you think Apple is when they include Nexus phone in their list of banned item? Nexus phone, with all original Google design and no TouchWiz UI, is considered by Apple to violate their patent. But Apple does not have the guts to go after Google, they choose Samsung the Asian company so that they can sway judge and jury easier. Notice how Apple has lost most of the lawsuits in countries other than USA? How can you blame your opponent not fighting fair while you started fighting dirty in the first place?

And Samsung is hardly a monopoly, but merely an important supplier to Apple. Apple knows they can get the parts from somewhere else, but it will be more difficult to manage as others might not be able to produce the same level of volume and quality, and deliver them at similar cost. But their sue happy attitude on trivial thing such as "rounded corner triangle" will eventually alienate most of their suppliers. This is just a start if they continue the same path. And their sue happy attitude? Imagine what would happen to the car todays if earlier automobile manufacturers forbid each other to have 4-wheels design, a round steering wheel etc etc.
 
[citation][nom]keither5150[/nom]Apple threw the first punch. Apple copies from other companies and then stands on their mountain declaring that what they stole is theirs and no company can even think about producing anything that is in the shape of a rectangle...... and it better not have rounded corners or we will sue you into the ground. You really can't believe what you just said. If technology = celebrities then Apple = Kim Kardasian. Kim shouldn't be loved but she is. The majority scratches their heads.Apple shouldn't be buying anything from their biggest competitor.... This could explain why Samsung is always far ahead when it comes to tech.[/citation]
Doesn't matter. And I never said Apple was in the right on those matters. However, two wrongs do not make a right. If anyone thinks Samsung doing something unethical to one company or group or person is ok and doesn't think they will do the same thing to someone else, well, that person is ignorant.

You may very well be right, Samsung likely should never have gotten into business with Apple, but hindsight is always 20/20. The right thing to do is honor the contract, and stop doing business with them. Because as a consumer, if they will do this to Apple, they will have no qualms doing this to any of their other customers, such as us,

This isn't some sort of game where you root for your favorite side. This is two companies who should be doing the right, ethical thing. Now, if there was some sort of reason that Samsung needed to raise the price, such as the cost of manufacturing rose, that would be different. However the article makes it clear this is just profit..."With the price increase, Samsung is expected to pocket a healthy amount of profit". Since they have a contract with Apple and Apple has no other recourse for the product Samsung has agreed to supply, this could very well fall under antitrust violations. And courts don't accept the excuses made by 5 year olds of "But they did it first".
 
[citation][nom]maddy143ded[/nom]really now, no one in their right mind would say that samsung is in antitrust hot waters with this move,this is just good business, and business also includes legal costs, so if Apple wants to impose legal costs on samsung then it has to pay for those increased costs... only judge who would find samsung guilty of doing anything other then business are the one's who have been paid off by apple...[/citation]
Except you seem to miss this line in the article....
"With the price increase, Samsung is expected to pocket a healthy amount of profit"

There is no mention of this price increase being done because of increased costs. It does however mention that Samsung is expected to make profit because of it.

And yes, it can be construed as an antitrust violation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

Fact, Samsung entered into a contract with Apple to supply CPU's for the iPhone. Now we can debate whether this was a smart business move or not, but whether or not it should have been done is a moot point, it was done. No other supplier can supply Apple the CPU's needed (Apple first disapproved it, but finding no replacement supplier, it accepted the [increase]). This means Samsung has a monopoly on the market.

Another fact is that Samsung is one of the top, if not the top, competitor to Apple in the smartphone market. That means if they are going to get into a business arrangement with Apple to supply parts for it's competitor, they have to be careful to make sure they do things totally above board.

Has Apple done a lot of things unethical to Samsung in my opinion? Yes, in my opinion they have. But that doesn't give Samsung the right to do something unethical themselves. Anyone cheering Samsung doing this may as well be a 10 year old with that type of thinking. All Samsung has done is proven they aren't above acting like Apple. And if they will act like Apple to another business, then your foolish to think they won't act like Apple to the individual consumer.
 
I don't wanna talk big but it seems to me that these are the best days of Apple. They are one of the most profitable companies (if not the most) now but in the future they will lose big ground to the competition. A couple of reasons come to mind.

Firstly, technology world has changed a lot and hardware/software availability is no longer an issue. That means a lot of companies (like the ones we have never heard of before) can buy licenses from a variety of big hardware/software companies and produce their own devices. Low cost production is no longer a so big issue like the old days IMO.

Also the product quality gap has closed widely. What makes bigger companies special about their products is their workmanship, marketing campaigns and price point. There is also the difference in innovation and R&D budgets. But making a spectacular or unique innovation is getting harder and harder.

As a result, products from companies like Apple is no longer as "unique" or innovative as they were 10-20 years ago cause many companies can produce good stuff as of late and their devices can compete with Apple's, this way or another. My 2 cents...
 
As a hardware enthusiast I will always support the company that invests in innovation.

R&D Budgets based on revenue
Apple 2%
Samsung 6%
HTC 5.1%

I'll be happier knowing more of my money is going to a better, faster tomorrow faster.
 
[citation][nom]grit5[/nom]Most of yal realize this is not only going to effect apple. Raising prices only to 1 company on a contract and not others would just invite lawsuits. Seems more likely that all custom ARM processors they make are gonna take a similar bump in price. Pretty sure or at least hope that apple isnt the only one making custom ARM processors for their devices[/citation]
hatred will stop people to think rationally.
 
Samsung is Apple and Apple is Samsung.
thumbs down please, fanboys can suck it.
Nokia 3210, I can play snake.
 
to me something like this bound to happen. i think apple might see this coming that's why there are rumors before that apple approaching TSMC to deal about TSMC will making chips only for apple alone.
 
The processor for the iPhone 5 used to cost $28. But since not all of Apple's processors are that fast, it is safe to assume they cost less. If we estimate the average cost of each processor sold to Apple is $22, a 20% increase would mean an increase of $4.40 per processor. Multiplied by 200,000,000 for 2012's value, Samsung can expect an additional income of $880,000,000 annually for no extra work. Of course, it won't come all at once. And of course, if Apple sells more products, Samsung wins, but if they sell fewer products, then Samsung absorbs the market space. Either way is a win for Samsung.
 
[citation][nom]robochump[/nom]Lol...bitter much?!? But funny how most of you think Samsung is just an innocent company, thats just as funny![/citation]
Of course you can't find innocent company, we're not naive.
Therefore the lesser evil company wins, well this is easy for anyone who is going against the mother of all evils, Arrogant Asshole Apple(aka the AAA).
 
[citation][nom]Uberragen21[/nom]Lol, the Sheeple will cry wolf no doubt. I have to rub this in to my girlfriend. She's apart of that flock... :-/[/citation]

good luck, I'm happy that I recently brought my gf back from the dark side. No more iProducts for her. Haha, again good luck to you. With persistent, even "royal" apple users can be convince 😉
 
[citation][nom]leandrodafontoura[/nom]I think this is actually bad for Samsung, as Apple will probably not renew its contract with Samsung, and the Asian company will lose a huge business partner. Not that this is a fight free relationship, but it defenetly brings profits to both companies, and this is soon to be over, but only on the Samsung side.[/citation]

LOL, do you know about tech? Where is Apple going to run to? Intel?(the world's biggest chip producer) NO, because Intel hates Apple more than Samsung does. TSMC? they already have more on their hands than they can handle. UMS? lol Maybe Apple can buy out Global Foundary(formerly AMD). Apple has no choice.
Read the Wall Street Journal version of this story, Samsung knows Apple got no where to run, they got them corned.
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]While one can enjoy the irony, from a consumer point of view we should all be concerned what Samsung is doing. Samsung is using it's monopoly power in an effort to hurt what can be argued is their top competitor in the smartphone market. If they don't have the ethics to deal fairly with Apple, regardless of how badly Apple has done them, then how can they be trusted to deal fairly with the rest of us.[/citation]Get your facts straight. Samsung doesn't have a monopoly on manufacturing ARM processors. There are several fabs that have ARM licenses.

Apple's problem is that they want to deal with a single supply source instead of relying on a few smaller sources. The few smaller sources are unable to guarantee to produce the quantity that Apple requires.
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Doesn't matter. And I never said Apple was in the right on those matters. However, two wrongs do not make a right. If anyone thinks Samsung doing something unethical to one company or group or person is ok and doesn't think they will do the same thing to someone else, well, that person is ignorant.You may very well be right, Samsung likely should never have gotten into business with Apple, but hindsight is always 20/20. The right thing to do is honor the contract, and stop doing business with them. Because as a consumer, if they will do this to Apple, they will have no qualms doing this to any of their other customers, such as us,This isn't some sort of game where you root for your favorite side. This is two companies who should be doing the right, ethical thing. Now, if there was some sort of reason that Samsung needed to raise the price, such as the cost of manufacturing rose, that would be different. However the article makes it clear this is just profit..."With the price increase, Samsung is expected to pocket a healthy amount of profit". Since they have a contract with Apple and Apple has no other recourse for the product Samsung has agreed to supply, this could very well fall under antitrust violations. And courts don't accept the excuses made by 5 year olds of "But they did it first".[/citation]

I love how noble you sound. Please show up and comment again when Apple brings out their bullshit gun/cannon and starts shooting randomly. I'll remember your username and look forward to your insightful comments 😉

By the way, we all wish Samsung can just drop Apple on the spot, that way there will be no more iProduct to sell on the market. But then again, Samsung being such honorable company, they are fulfill their contract and keep producing for Apple, at least until 2014.
If Samsung plays as dirty as you sound, they can easily drop Apple off, yes, they'll lose cpu sale, but they will gain so much more from the sales of their phone/tablet due to Apple off the market.
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Except you seem to miss this line in the article...."With the price increase, Samsung is expected to pocket a healthy amount of profit"There is no mention of this price increase being done because of increased costs. It does however mention that Samsung is expected to make profit because of it.And yes, it can be construed as an antitrust violation....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_lawFact, Samsung entered into a contract with Apple to supply CPU's for the iPhone. ...[/citation]Did you actually check the news source for this opinion piece?

Nowhere in the source article (i.e. MarketWatch from The Wall Street Journal) does it say anything about "Samsung is expected to pocket a healthy amount of profit".

This is just Zak Islam's opinion or speculation because he doesn't even provide a source or any proof to back it up just like most of his "articles".
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom] Apple has no other recourse for the product Samsung has agreed to supply, this could very well fall under antitrust violations. And courts don't accept the excuses made by 5 year olds of "But they did it first".[/citation]
Your logic is a little all over the place. "But they did it first" is what you took from my post. BTW any legal contract between two companies will have numerous escape or cancellation clauses. Apple has overestimated the public's tolerance of their bullying. It is human nature to cheer for the underdog when the underdog finally fights the bully. Apple has not only started the war, they started the war with an opposition that supplies the ammunition. Is their no limit to their stupidity? They should take their money spent on legal fees and try to bribe some great minds from Google to work for them. Google maps/earth is so far ahead of the competition, I can't see anyone catching them in my lifetime. I said the same thing about Microsoft during the windows 98 days. They still have 88% of the market. Microsoft made the rest of the computing world their bitch just like Apple did with itunes. Android will be the next one to make Apple their bitch. Now I am not trying to be funny here but is the $125 worth of Apps that you have worth staying with a product like the iphone or ipod? Don’t you compare products when you shop? Or do you just buy whatever the TV tells you to buy? I have extensive experience with Apple’s products and I can tell you that they don’t make anything that is not totally dominated by the competition. However their ipod (which all other Apple mobile devices came from) is pretty slick. It is too bad that it has to be married to itunes. My household hasn’t had anything Apple since the Galaxy S2 came out. I enjoy reading these Apple/ Samsung articles because I am entertained by the high level of delusional behaviour on both sides (but mostly on Apple’s side). Did you ever see the bullied fat kid that fought back? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6uJ2yKzxZE Samsung is the fat kid.
 
I need to practice with the voice recognition. I had to add a few ((( in there after the fact. And what's with not printing out mild curse words? Is there a security level I can change. Forgive my ignorance, I just got the note 2
 
[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Fact, Samsung entered into a contract with Apple to supply CPU's for the iPhone. [/citation]


There's a few things that you seem to be jumping to here just on the basis of the contract. First of all, do you know what the contract actually states? For most contracts that I've been involved with if they cover a length of time, there are provisions to protect each party such as rise in cost of goods, failure to deliver, etc. As you mention, Apple went looking for other suppliers. If you think the contract was as iron clad as you seem to think, could Apple look for other suppliers? This is probably one of the other provisions to protect Apple, and similarly there would be provisions to protect Samsung. Stop assuming things that are not in evidence unless you know exactly how the contracts were written, and while I myself do not know, but I do know no company unless they plan to be out of business in a few years, won't have contracts signed that doesn't cover their asses for all possible contingencies.

How does making a profit even a hefty profit construe as anti-trust behavior, sorry the leap of logic is beyond me. That would mean any company posting a hefty profit could be anti-competitive, then better start lining up all those profitable companies in line to be called labeled as anti-trust lawsuits. Because a company raises rates on a product they sell you have the option of accepting or not, and to claim anti-trust you first have to show that they are a monopoly which you haven't even met the burden of proof.

Just because you claim that Samsung is a monopoly of CPUs, where's the proof, I read that Apple tried to seek another source of the chips but the company declined because they had established clients that they did not seek to enter into a contract that tied them that heavily into Apple with the possible lost of their other clients. So your claim that Samsung has a monopoly is false if other companies are available to provide chips to Apple, just that none are willing to risk their current clients and none that are willing or able to provide in the quantities that Apple seeks. There are many makers of chips but quality and quantity are issues that arises, that Apple doesn't want to deal with.

If you really want to task anyone with anti-trust actions, I'd think you'd consider Apple first with their lawsuit against Samsung, considering that Apple virtually has a monopoly on the tablet in the US, and using the lawsuits could be construed as anti-trust actions.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom