Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Terminates LCD Contract With Apple

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the not-after-what-you-said dept.

Displays 377

An anonymous reader writes "Samsung has decided to terminate an ongoing contract with Apple to supply LCD panels for use in its growing range of devices. That means, come next year, there will be no Samsung panels used across the iPad, iPod, iPhone, and Mac range of devices. The reason seems to be two-fold. On the one hand, Apple has been working hard to secure supplies from other manufacturers and therefore decrease its reliance on Samsung. On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing, meaning it just doesn't make business sense anymore for Samsung to keep supplying Apple with displays."

cancel ×

377 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Patent disputes (4, Insightful)

AbhiTheOne (2717543) | about 2 years ago | (#41731595)

This clearly seems to be the result of patent disputes...

Re:Patent disputes (5, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41731621)

Or perhaps Samsung was simply not willing to reduce prices as low as Apple's other screen manufacturers like LG were? Or was not willing to commit to the volumes Apple wanted? Or any other many reasons why they might end this kind of supply contract?

Re:Patent disputes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731693)

Yeah this business. They'll do what serves them best, regardless of outside patent disputes.

Re:Patent disputes (0, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#41732113)

Now that I've lost everything to you,
you say you want to start something new,
and it's breaking my heart you're leaving,
baby I'm grieving.

But if you wanna leave take good care,
hope you have a lot of nice things to wear,
but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there.

Re:Patent disputes (5, Interesting)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 2 years ago | (#41731769)

To supply google with 2560x1600 panels for the nexus 10?

I'm just guessing.

Re:Patent disputes (1)

irp (260932) | about 2 years ago | (#41732121)

To supply google with 2560x1600 panels for the nexus 10?

Wish it were so. But the major Android device makers appear to be afraid of Apple. They will never make something with a form factor that can be mistaken for an iPad.

It will probably be 10" 2560x1280... Or similar stupid "widescreen" format :-/

Re:Patent disputes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732407)

Also, they're cheaper and Android mfgrs have lower margins than Apple because of contract sales. So they need to go with the cheaper screen resolution.

Re:Patent disputes (0)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41731943)

Or any other many reasons why they might end this kind of supply contract?

Nobody want's an Apple after finding a worm in it?

Re:Patent disputes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731985)

Or perhaps Samsung was simply not willing to reduce prices as low as Apple's other screen manufacturers like LG were? Or was not willing to commit to the volumes Apple wanted? Or any other many reasons why they might end this kind of supply contract?

Give me a break. The gun is still smoking from two of the worlds largest vendors going head to head in a monster legal battle, and we want to sit here and jerk each other off with all the other business theories as to why a contract was terminated between the two?

Seriously, let's stop bullshitting each other here with answers straight out of the MBA textbook already. After what they just went through, one does not simply kiss and make up.

We all know damn well why this happened, regardless if anyone will utter a word beyond the golf course.

Re:Patent disputes (2, Interesting)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41732129)

It's not that simple.

Apple has been moving away from relying on Samsung for parts, for over a year now.

At some point, one of them was going to cut the ties. The patent lawsuit that turned them from frenemies to just plain enemies was probably that point. And after the outcome, Samsung probably wanted to hurt Apple.

But Apple has been preparing that exit for quite a while now. So it's not too great a hurt.

Re:Patent disputes (5, Interesting)

boristdog (133725) | about 2 years ago | (#41732429)

No, it's more likely economic issues. I work for a semiconductor company and we also stopped doing business with Apple (and some other major names) because they believe they wield such power (because of the huge quantities they order) that they constantly break contracts in order to demand lower prices. We were losing money on every part sold to Apple. Finally, the next time Apple threatened to take their business elsewhere if we didn't lower the price a few more cents per unit, our CEO told them not to let the door hit them on the way out. Since then, our profits have gone up.

Wal-Mart is the king of this type of supplier mistreatment, but they are certainly not alone.

Re:Patent disputes (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#41732361)

In fact, it sounds like you may be exactly correct. Another version of the story I read earlier today had this quote:

“We are unable to supply our flat-screens to Apple with huge price discounts. Samsung has already cut our portion of shipments to Apple and next year we will stop shipping displays,” said a senior Samsung source, asking not to be named, Monday.

And then went on to say:

The report claims that Samsung shipped approximately 15 million LCD panels to Apple in the first half of 2012, with the pace falling to 3 million panels in the third quarter and expected to drop to 1.5 million in the fourth quarter as Apple has shifted to other suppliers.

Long story short, Apple probably made unreasonable demands for price while reducing requested quantities as they shifted to using LG and others, more or less forcing Samsung to terminate the contract. This comes as no real surprise, given the legal battles. Nor is the timing surprising, given that Apple just shifted their chip design (which Samsung had previously collaborated on) to be handled internally, is reportedly moving chip manufacturing from Samsung to TSMC and other companies, and is getting their Flash memory from Toshiba, Micron, and others instead of Samsung, as they used to. If there's something left in the iOS devices that Samsung has a hand in, the smart money would be on it getting moved to a different company as well.

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT HORSECOCK! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731725)

n/t

Re:Patent disputes (1, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41732325)

Business is no place for petty grudges.

understatement of the year? (4, Informative)

Fubari (196373) | about 2 years ago | (#41731599)

From the Fine Article:

With the ongoing legal action between Samsung and Apple it’s no surprise that the relationship has cooled.

Re:understatement of the year? (1)

8ball629 (963244) | about 2 years ago | (#41731685)

That couldn't possibly be the reason!

On the "third hand"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731603)

Apple and Samsung have repeatably been suing each other in court, so it probably doesn't make much business sense for Samsung to continue providing Apple with components.

Re:On the "third hand"... (4, Informative)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#41731733)

It actually makes a lot of business sense. If you have to pay them money you may as well pay them with as much of there own as possible. This is more a case of Apple's reliance on them as a supplier being reduced to the point where the return on investment of each panel has dropped.

Re:On the "third hand"... (1)

tibman (623933) | about 2 years ago | (#41732009)

Not if they are building a competing product with your parts.

Re:On the "third hand"... (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 2 years ago | (#41732233)

Right, because everyone buys a tablet or phone based on who supplied the display. Oh my, this iPhone doesn't have a Samsung display! I better go buy a Galaxy. That makes sense.

Retina Displays? (2)

avandesande (143899) | about 2 years ago | (#41731605)

Curious this wasn't mentioned in the article.

Re:Retina Displays? (5, Insightful)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 years ago | (#41731791)

'Retina Display' is just one of Apple's bullshit marketing terms. Little more than a handy way to convey that they're using higher PPI IPS panels, because the average consumer knows nothing about what PPI or IPS happens to be. It's not a standard.

Re:Retina Displays? (1, Redundant)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | about 2 years ago | (#41731817)

...one of Apple's MANY bullshit marketing terms...
--
EVE. Nice. "What color is your Tengu?"

Re:Retina Displays? (4, Funny)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41731867)

... one of MANY bullshit marketing terms...

come to think of it, that applies to virtually all marketing terms.

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732369)

.. that's bullshit as much as tech spec names being acronyms in consumer products. Consumers don't know ppi or ips, it doesn't speak to your mom or your uncle. Retina Display does. They

Re:Retina Displays? (5, Insightful)

BrooksMarlin (141819) | about 2 years ago | (#41731873)

So it's in fact not a bullshit marketing term, but an effective way to convey an idea that consumers wouldn't normally understand.

Re:Retina Displays? (4, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about 2 years ago | (#41732023)

No, because it is much better to tell people what resolution they get, and what size screen, or such instead of a useless name that means absolutely nothing. The only reason to use such terms is to confuse customers and make it harder to compare your products to the competitions' (of course Apple knows that it's customers don't comparison shop, so they don't really care there)

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732151)

Because soo many nontechnical people know what the hell resolution even is, much less that 1024x768 on a 7" or 10" tablet, or 13" netbook even means.

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732245)

because the concept of a grid of pixels is too much for people and they can't grasp the mulktiplication in a resolution? WTF?

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732495)

You haven't met very many average people, have you?

Addition is hard, multiplication is impossible. Mostly from a lack of use.

Re:Retina Displays? (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#41732259)

True story, my mother asked me to set her computer up to use the highest resolution because that is better. So I did. And she complained that everything got small and that every time she clicked something weird would happen (she was clicking about 3 inches to the left of the edge of the monitor, and that was a different row of icons after the resolution changed.

Re:Retina Displays? (5, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41732169)

Agreed.

Hardware manufacturer: We have a new 15 inch display at 2880x1800, wanna buy it?
Consumer: Well, is it a Retina Display (TM)?
Hardware manufacturer: Well no, that's a brand name owned by Apple. But our display exceeds what they call "Retina Display (TM)" with a PPI of-
Consumer: Not a Retina Display (TM), clearly inferior. If it was better, it too would be called Retina Display (TM). Not interested.

Re:Retina Displays? (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#41732339)

Cornea Display(TM) and then license it to all other display companies for next to nothing. Learn to OUT MARKET Apple.

On the other hand, if you call it Cornea Display, Apple will sue because it is too close to Retina. Then you get free marketing by lawyers.

Re:Retina Displays? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732515)

Its a typo. They were internally called Retard Displays (we at Apple have a history of insulting people) but the name was never meant to be shown to the retards.. i mean consumers - Steve Jobs 2009

Re:Retina Displays? (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#41732197)

My Mom (tm) disagrees.

Re:Retina Displays? (-1, Flamebait)

BrooksMarlin (141819) | about 2 years ago | (#41732213)

MacBook Air is such a bullshit marketing term. They should call it a "tiny computer box with a flippy screen"

Re:Retina Displays? (5, Insightful)

localman (111171) | about 2 years ago | (#41732269)

Telling the average person that their display is 100 ppi or 300 ppi or 600 ppi is not useful unless they happen to know enough about human vision to interpret it. The term "retina display" is a marketing term that means "you won't see pixelation", and that's actually a useful thing to know. I hate when companies use meaningless numbers (i.e. no connection to purpose) to market things. You end up with idiots pushing and buying 600dpi displays because it's "more" even though it's pointless for human vision.

If you're a techie and you want those numbers for some reason, that's fine. Apple still publishes the resolution and screen size like they always have. But marketing to the common person in a way that is useful to them is not "bullshit".

Re:Retina Displays? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732451)

I hate when companies use meaningless numbers (i.e. no connection to purpose) to market things. You end up with idiots pushing and buying 600dpi displays because it's "more" even though it's pointless for human vision.

For the purposes of any further communication with you, I'll just refer to you as "obvious mark". You seem the sort to easily fall for bullshit marketing terms.

Or are you seriously suggesting computer processors should be marketed as "fast", "super fast", "mega fast", "ultra fast", "super mega fast", "mega ultra fast", "super mega ultra fast", "super mega ultra faster", etc? I mean, that avoids meaningless numbers, and each step is fairly pointless for human comprehension of speed. Maybe system RAM should be advertised as "some", "more", "more better", "more betterer", "morer betterer", etc, because numbers are too confusing to mere mortals, as math class was obviously hard enough? Hell, we're already one generation of stupid away from USB sticks advertised entirely in terms of "500,000,000 songs!", "65,000,000,000 e-books!!!", or "780,000,000,000,000 pictures of your kids and all the cute things they do!!!1!!!1!".

Re:Retina Displays? (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41732295)

Actually, it does mean something. It has a defined meaning, from Apple, presented at the keynote based on a formula relating distance, human visual acuity and the spacing between pixels on the display.

At the point where the pixels are indistinguishable (by varying either d or h, or a combination of both), the display is termed "Retina".

This is the actual slide presented by Apple when explaining the terminology ("a" is the viewing angle subtended by the pixel spacing "h" and distance from your eye "d").

http://www.melamorsicata.it/mela/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/formula-Retina-display.jpg [melamorsicata.it]

Just because you *think* it's bullshit doesn't mean it actually is. Your ignorance of a fact doesn't make it untrue.

if it's a scientific term, then should be open (5, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#41732497)

If "retina display" is used as a scientific rather than marketing term then it shouldn't be copyrightable by Apple. Any display of equivalent angular density should be freely called a "retina display".

Re:Retina Displays? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 years ago | (#41732383)

No, because it is much better to tell people what resolution they get, and what size screen, or such instead of a useless name that means absolutely nothing. The only reason to use such terms is to confuse customers and make it harder to compare your products to the competitions' (of course Apple knows that it's customers don't comparison shop, so they don't really care there)

IPS QSXGA? WTF does this mean to a normal person? Does this chart [wikipedia.org] really help anyone figure out if a device is useful for them? Really they have no idea, because it's not just the size of the pixels, it's how the UI handles it. Retina, while it may be a bit hyperbolic, is very very accessible to the market, and makes sense out of the alphabet or number soup that is display resolution.

Retina is a "brand", and a brand is a promise. Many folks like that kind of speak, and don't care to listen to what they may consider "weasel words" to figure out whether things are going to work for them.

Re:Retina Displays? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#41732549)

Wait, to confuse customers who know nothing? Me thinks you are mad at the wrong party here...

Apple is doing what's right for them as a company, seeling to people.

This seems to be yet another case of geeks getting mad they aren't being first and foremost courted in the electronics arena.

Re:Retina Displays? (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#41732025)

So it's in fact not a bullshit marketing term, but an effective way to convey an idea that consumers wouldn't normally understand.

"The vertebrate retina (play /rtn/ RET-nuh, pl. retinae, play /rtini/; from Latin rte, meaning "net") is a light-sensitive tissue lining the inner surface of the eye. ", right, totally that definitely makes a lot of sense being applied to a display technology. Very self explanatory.

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732425)

So it's in fact not a bullshit marketing term, but an effective way to convey an idea that consumers wouldn't normally understand.

"Effective way to convey an idea that consumers wouldn't normally understand" is the bullshit marketing way of saying "Bullshit marketing term".

Re:Retina Displays? (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41732021)

So basically it's a brand name for a component. You have to admit 'Retina Display' sounds better than 'highest PPI IPS panel'.

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 years ago | (#41732309)

Not to me, because I'd rather know what I'm buying than buying into marketing jargon. People that buy Apple, I wouldn't call most of them the the sharpest blades in the butcher's block

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732481)

People that buy Apple, I wouldn't call most of them the the sharpest blades in the butcher's block

Insulting people is a clear sign of a weak mind.

Re:Retina Displays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732555)

BLAST PROCESSING!

Re:Retina Displays? (3, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41732091)

It was mentioned that LG and Sharp will supply the new displays.

Personally I'm surprised Apple had allowed Samsung to have so much of the component business for so long. I'm not talking about patent disputes. Instead I refer to the lessons learned from basing your desktop computer manufacturing on a single supplier's (Motorola) ability to produce the components needed.

It makes good business sense to have alternate suppliers to keep the pricing competitive.

And it's not like they're fighting patent wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731607)

retaliation, anyone?

Stabbed 'em right in the retina display? (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about 2 years ago | (#41731611)

This could not possibly have anything to do with Apple's recent legal activities, eh?

Apple playing WAL-MART (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731617)

" On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing" Same tactic Wal-Mart used to close most American manufacturing..

Why doesn't Apple push its pricing lower, is suppliers are reducing their cost?

Re:Apple playing WAL-MART (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | about 2 years ago | (#41731635)

It's what we call "increasing profit".

Re:Apple playing WAL-MART (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#41732417)

Because $110 billion in cash is not enough.

Re:Apple playing WAL-MART (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 2 years ago | (#41732089)

Apple pushes its suppliers to provide at lower cost. It's our job to push apple to lower its prices, if we want their products....

Re:Apple playing WAL-MART (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | about 2 years ago | (#41732125)

Why doesn't Apple push its pricing lower, is suppliers are reducing their cost?

Consumers lack the power (or more appropriately the acumen) to act on their own to push their "supplier(s)" to lower their costs. Typically companies do this for us "customers" by competing with other suppliers for space in the market. Such as if multiple Android tablet companies were sparring for customers and driving prices lower on each other. Did I fall into a land of the obtuse? Do I need to even continue?

Hey Apple! (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41731637)

Here's a link you can use:

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/crt-monitor-manufacturers.html [alibaba.com]

Re:Hey Apple! (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#41731879)

Here's a link you can use:

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/crt-monitor-manufacturers.html [alibaba.com]

Yaj! In the light of the new vinyl rage, I would definitely welcome CRT screens for The Next iPad. Pick-up on the back side, monitor on the front, it would be the gadget of the year.

And on the third hand (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731647)

Fuck Apple.

FUD (4, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41731665)

Uhm, Apple has been rapidly reducing their orders to Samsung. Samsung admits as much in the article.

In other words, this is a (lame) face-saving PR stunt by Samsung. "WE'RE CUTTING OFF APPLE'S SUPPLY OF DISPLAY PANELS (uhm, as soon as Apple stops ordering from us)."

Re:FUD (5, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 2 years ago | (#41731731)

It can be both ways. If Samsung made it clear to Apple that they would ship them panels only for as long as the contract required them to, and would then terminate the relationship, obviously Apple is going to reduce the size of their orders as fast as possible because transitioning to an alternative supplier takes time and you need to ensure everything runs smoothly with the new factories, etc.

Re:FUD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732067)

Not really. You see, until now, Apple had time, it was negociating with others. Now, it's a certainty when the contract ends, they'll need displays, so, they'll have to bend over and accept what other suppliers offer price, quality and quantity. They simply won't have a choice.

If anything, they'll have to stock-up on more of Samsung's LCDs.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732191)

Or it's because Apple was pissed at Samsung copying them when Apple was basically handing them their early designs. And thus planned to get rid of them.

Re:FUD (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731993)

Samsung has provided Apple with heavily discounted prices based on really large volume. Apple has actively been working to find other display providers so as to not purchase from Samsung. Samsung no longer has economic interest to provide Apple with heavily discounted displays since Apple is no longer providing the volume to which Apple negotiated. Samsung is simply telling Apple to finish finding their other suppliers as fast as possible because Samsung is no longer going to stay in an agreement to which Apple is actively working to fuck over Samsung. To do so would be stupid and extremely poor business.

Basically this is Apple crying like little bitches and Samsung making sane business decisions based on Apple's efforts to tell Samsung to fuck off. Once again, Apple is acting like a spoiled little bitch.

   

Re:FUD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732149)

Basically this apple diversifying it suppliers because Samsung won't agree to pricing arrangements. Once again Samsung is acting like a spoiled little bitch telling apple to fuck off when they've already gone.

Samsung bought this on themselves and they're spinning it into apples fault. Sadly your petty hatred of apple has blinded you to what's happening.

Re:FUD (1, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41732217)

How is Apple crying if it's Samsung saying this?

Oh, right. Apple hater. Nevermind.

Third Reason: (4, Informative)

jesseck (942036) | about 2 years ago | (#41731671)

On the one hand, Apple has been working hard to secure supplies from other manufacturers and therefore decrease its reliance on Samsung. On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing, meaning it just doesn't make business sense anymore for Samsung to keep supplying Apple with displays."

On my third hand, Apple and Samsung have been suing the piss out of one another, and that is beginning to strain other business relationships.

Re:Third Reason: (3, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#41731805)

That's my GRIPPING hand, you insensitive clod!

Re:Third Reason: (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41732351)

They're gigantic multinational corporations dealing with patent law, not two kids going to prom. Neither executive board should suffer any illusion that the other one is going anywhere anytime soon, or that they are the good guys and the other are the bad guys. Neither should be holding grudges.

Now, trying to leverage their positions makes more sense "If you don't drop that lawsuit over patents X and Y, we're going to raise the rates on our screens." And if that doesn't work, that obviously could lead to deals being ended.

Also, that's a big "should." Obviously there may be and probably are some arrogant morons at one or both companies that DO take it as a personal affront.

Tapering off... (1)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41731687)

It would appear they've been tapering off their shipments of displays for while. This really should not shock anyone, aside from the fact that everyone knows Samsung hates Apple, companies move to where the components are priced where they want them to be all the time. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Tapering off... (1)

eddy (18759) | about 2 years ago | (#41731841)

>everyone knows Samsung hates Apple

Congratulations, you win the Backward Assertion of The Day.

Re:Tapering off... (1)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41731885)

You liked that one eh? =D

3rd reason... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731691)

Its personal, not business.

Not the whole story (4, Interesting)

SilenceBE (1439827) | about 2 years ago | (#41731811)

Demand from Apple went from 15 million to 1,5 million panels and they are in the process of eliminating Samsung as a supplier completely. They have invested in Toshiba plants [reuters.com] for a reason. There is also an indication that the reason that Foxconn have invested in Sharp had something to do with Apple [businessweek.com] . Although I'm more convinced it has something to do with their IZGO panels then AppleTV.

That Samsung "terminated" the LCD contract has zero impact as Apple wanted to eliminate them from the process anyway and seeing how steadily demand dropped (1,5 million are peanuts if you take into account how many products have LCD panels) that process was already underway. The only thing here is that Samsung can save a little face.

So is this pure PR or even damage control. And it is understandable, if a big client like Apple announced it takes it business elsewhere as a company you gonna take a hit.

Re:Not the whole story (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about 2 years ago | (#41731917)

Hey! Don't let logic get in the way of a good 'Roid rage against Apple.

Re:Not the whole story (-1, Flamebait)

FreakyGeeky (23009) | about 2 years ago | (#41732045)

But but but ROUNDED CORNERS. Apple sux0rs!!!!!!111111

Re:Not the whole story (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41732229)

Actually, logic does not really get in the way of rage against Apple. Well, most of the time, it does not.

Re:Not the whole story (5, Interesting)

ne0n (884282) | about 2 years ago | (#41732235)

I would not say "zero impact" lightly, and other Mac owners agree. Fact is, Samsung makes the best panels Apple offers. As a loser of the 2012 MBA panel lottery myself, it sucks to pay full price and get a clearly inferior machine. There are many threads on this. The worst Apple laptop is the one with an LG panel and Toshiba SSD. The best are those with Samsung parts instead.

Naturally, has nothing to do with Samsung tablets (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#41731835)

None of this has anything to do with patent disputes, Samsung tablets, Samsung smartphones, or anything else.

Because gullible American media people believe any lie they're fed by their Corporate Overlords.

IT's a dog eat dog world (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731837)

Fortunately the Koreans are used to this.

But there's nothing new about this situation. Every manufacturer has the opportunity to employ smart people to improve the products it initially replicates en masse. Some are more predatory than others. I don't believe it's any surprise that Apple is at loggerheads with Samsung after Galaxy of legal allegations that have been tossed back and forth, worldwide between the 2.

If war is the result of diplomatic failure between states, then lawsuits are the result of a diplomatic failure between corporations.

Big Surprise?

Another theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731845)

I thought Apple was supply constrained. Perhaps Samsung was allocating the maximum they could for Android devices. Could it be every Apple LCD was a lost Android opportunity.

Re:Another theory (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41731971)

No one is ever really supply constrained for long periods of time. On anything that isn't on the periodic table and on earth anyway. You can artificially constrain supply, for marketing purposes or because of voluntary stupidity.

Samsung must figure they can sell the parts to themselves or someone else for more money, a couple of days ago I figured (in a comment on /.) that they were trying to keep their parts and products businesses separate to not lose Apple as a cash cow, but they obviously had other ideas. The Samsung guys aren't going to throw away a million units in sales for the fun of it, and I'm sure if apple wanted to order 10 million units they'd find a way to come to some agreement, but neither party seems all that committed to the LCD panels relationship anyway.

Seriously? (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41731863)

On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing

Since when???

Re:Seriously? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731939)

That refers to the prices of its suppliers, not to the prices of its products.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732001)

On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing

Since when???

Lower prices from Apple's suppliers, silly, not the prices on Apple's products.

Re:Seriously? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41732391)

On the other, Apple is well-known for demanding and pushing lower pricing

Since when???

The price they, Apple, pays.

The real question is, if it's so "well-known" that Apple pays less and less for parts with each generation, why aren't Apple customers pushing Apple for lower prices on their finished goods?

I assume it has something to do with that old "sucker born every minute" adage...

And the real losers are the apple customers... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731919)

Samsung displays were actually the only non-defective displays that shipped with the new retina macbooks. Other screens have had huge ghosting issues (I went through 4 laptops before getting a Sammy screen that actual worked right) pretty much fresh off the lot.

It would be nice if this brought these ridiculous issues out into the light so Apple has to face the fact they completely screwed up the retina launch... of course, we all know that would never happen.

Re:And the real losers are the apple customers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732531)

No kidding. Samsung displays are also the premium feature in Apple's other laptops. My local Apple store doesn't (seem to) have LG displays next to Samsung. Could just be small sample bias I suppose.

And Apple is PISSED OFF (0)

MistabewM (17044) | about 2 years ago | (#41731927)

Fucking i-Tards.

Its the maps... (5, Funny)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41731945)

Samsung delivery drivers can't find where to drop off the monitors when they use the GPS on their iPhones

What do you expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41731963)

When you get a billion dollar judgement against you, not that I think that will stick on appeal, your bound to have some grievances with continuing to provide your product to the person who sued you.

This is terrible news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732013)

I thought this was illegal. How can Samsung get away with supplying Apple with LSD all these years?

-Emily Litella

About bloody time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732055)

Took them long enough to tell Apple to sod off.. :-)

In other news... (1)

Morpork (170585) | about 2 years ago | (#41732115)

In other news, shares in Sharp Electronics and LG Electronics jumped sharply today, for unspecified reasons.

Isn't the 3rd reason obvious? (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 2 years ago | (#41732133)

Reason 3: Samsung didn't appreciate being sued by apple?

Self reinforcing cycle (5, Interesting)

Daetrin (576516) | about 2 years ago | (#41732209)

1: Apple and Samsung get involved in lawsuits.
2: Apple decides to reduce orders from Samsung and order from competitors.
3: Apple demands lower prices for components.
4: Samsung decides to reduce the supply available to Apple.

It sounds like all of those have been gradually happening to a greater and greater degree over time. I don't know which particular item happened first, but once the cycle started it just kept on escalating. The smaller the size of the order by Apple (either in terms of number of components or price per component) the less valuable the contract becomes, and the more Samsung is going to focus on finding alternatives to sell to. The smaller the number of units Samsung makes available to Apple and the less they're willing to budge on price, the more Apple is going to focus on finding alternatives to buy from. The less dependent each of them get on each other, the more the gloves come off in the courtroom. The more lawsuits that get filled, the less comfortable both of them are going to feel about depending on the other to sell/buy components to/from.

do77 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41732359)

OUR CAUSE. GAY For trolls' platform for the to any BSD project, To die. I wiil jam our chances The point more claim that BSD is a operating systems,

Yeah. (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41732435)

And the fact that Apple and Samsung have been at each others' throats in court for years has nothing to do with it.

To be honest, I'm surprised they still did any business with each other. Generally when one company gets the other's product banned from sale, it tends to put a strain on the relationship. But in the mobile market where everybody is suing everybody else, it's probably hard to keep track.

I don't know... (1)

RLU486983 (1792220) | about 2 years ago | (#41732437)

sueing the living shit out of your business partners doesn't seem to be a very fruitful negotiation tool for continued contracts!

Early termination penalty? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 2 years ago | (#41732539)

Most contracts have a penalty for early termination, any news on one?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>