Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Hits Apple With 20% Price Increase

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the pay-up dept.

Businesses 447

EthanV2 writes "The Wall Street Journal cites a report which quotes a 'person familiar with negotiations between the two tech giants,' apparently confirming this special price hike for Apple. The source said: 'Samsung Electronics recently asked Apple for a significant price raise in (the mobile processor known as) application processor. Apple first disapproved it, but finding no replacement supplier, it accepted the [increase].'"

cancel ×

447 comments

one word (5, Funny)

magsol (1406749) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957357)

pwnd

Re:one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957417)

NO WTFPWND!

Re:one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957467)

In India, we call it KLPD. Apple lost all the way, and Samsung recovered what they lost elsewhere.

Re:one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957487)

pwnd

partial-pwn only. For a complete pwn they would need the ability to prevent them from producing their product at all.

Re:one word (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957605)

If by 2014 (the time the current contract runs out), Apple doesn't find another supplier, manages to make their own or changes the product to no longer need them, Samsung could, indeed, prevent them from producing their product at all, by simply no longer selling them that processor. Of course that would also mean Samsung wouldn't get the revenues from selling it, which probably isn't in Samsung's interest.

Re:one word (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957791)

I'm sure Samsung would be happy to continue manufacturing for Apple, as it is still income.

But maybe this is flexing some of their muscles to fire a warning shot over to Apple about Apple's recent lawsuit games. On the other hand, this is the first price rise for Apple in five years of manufacturing (where I imagine pricing is on a per-wafer or per-mm^2 basis - not clarified).

It's not hard to imagine that 32nm is more expensive, and that inflation over that time will have raised costs as well, that Samsung have merely invoked a five year price review clause in their contract with Apple to raise pricing to a reasonable level for the next five years.

Re:one word (3, Interesting)

Vapula (14703) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957797)

And, if I remind well, Samsung is/was also a major supplier for LCD screens for Apple... Which are much more expensive than the processor...

And LG (one of the Apple suppliers) is not feeling well...

Re:one word (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957785)

Why? If Samsung can make money from iPhone sales, why would they want to stop the sales completely?

If Samsung caused the cessation of iPhone sales altogether, iPhone customers might move to a brand that doesn't use Samsung parts at all.

Re:one word (5, Funny)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957539)

Apple has quite a few patents on overcharging for products, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung were violating one of them. This isn't over...

Re:one word (2)

dintech (998802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957961)

I wonder if the price hike equates to about a billion dollars...

Re:one word (2, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957555)

Well, "pwnd" until another supplier shows up to provide the goods, or Apple funds a new one into existence.

After that, Samsung loses the contract once and for all.

There's a difference between doing business, and killing the golden goose out of childish motive.

Re:one word (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957671)

There's a difference between doing business, and killing the golden goose out of childish motive.

That goose isn't quite so golden [benzinga.com] anymore. Samsung has the upper-hand; and the time to strike is while the iron is hot. Samsung is right to go for the kill.

Re:one word (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957741)

After that, Samsung loses the contract once and for all.

I believe Samsung has already told Apple they'd be terminating the contract next year or so ... so it's not like they're at risk of losing a contract they've already decided they don't want any more.

Re:one word (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957789)

There's a difference between doing business, and killing the golden goose out of childish motive.

you mean like apple trying to sue android, for instance?

Re:one word (3, Insightful)

t0rkm3 (666910) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957831)

I prefer to call this, "Don't shit where you eat."

Inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957385)

All the companies are waging war on one another. Either Apple will start developing the chips themselves or someone else will.

Missing information (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957403)

Also the contract is a long-term one running until 2014.

Re:Inevitable (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957445)

Yeah... Suing a key supplier with no other substitute products is not a good business move. And this response made me laugh. :)

New business plan (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957591)

1) Sue supplier
2) ???
3) !!!

Re:Inevitable (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957677)

Suing a key supplier with no other substitute products is not a good business move.

It's a good point, but gouging your customers is probably also not a good business move. Apple is not exactly cash-poor, and I expect Samsung to face a very capable competitor in the near future (TSMC?). So sure, in the short term Samsung will make a quick buck and sting their chief smartphone competitor. In the long term, they may see their manufacturing advantage disappear - along with an enormous customer.

Re:Inevitable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957769)

Are you sure that Apple would not have moved away from Samsung to some competitor anyway?

Re:Inevitable (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957923)

Correct, Apple seems to be throwing money at Samsung's competitors anyway - clearly this is part of Samsung's calculus. I just wonder whether this will accelerate the rate of their competitor's growth.

Re:Inevitable (1, Flamebait)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957773)

The Galaxy S3 is a bigger seller than the iPhone. Your rational analysis falls on the deaf ears of all the fucks Samsung does not give; if they can wound Apple while they're weak, they might be able to keep their product in consumer hands by being inexpensive (the Galaxy Nexus was $350 and the LG Nexus 4 is $350, Samsung could sell their S3 or upcoming S4 etc. for $300-$400 while Apple hangs onto a $600+ price tag and exclusive network service...) as well as top-notch, and then it's just a matter of keeping the wide lead ever-widening. Make Apple the underdog and then try to not be the crap product being overtaken by the top-notch underdog.

Re:Inevitable (1, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957863)

"The Galaxy S3 is a bigger seller than the iPhone." Thats all well and good, but if you dont make any money off it (and Samsung doesnt) it doesnt mean shit to investors, Apple is still king and Samsung is still cheap plastic junk in their eyes.

Re:Inevitable (3, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957909)

Huh? Samsung doesn't make money off of the GS3? Then why are the most profitable Android device manufacturer?

Re:Inevitable (4, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957903)

The Galaxy S3 (their biggest seller) is selling slightly faster than Apple's biggest seller (the iPhone 4s), in terms of units. I don't know what the respective profit margins are. However, both companies have many other products, not the least of which are the tablets. Losing Apple as a customer would hurt, not just because Apple is their largest - it would also indicate that their competition has gotten good enough and large enough to play with the big boys. Any of their customers would then have the luxury of shopping around, not just Apple.

I suspect that Samsung knows what they are doing, but the stakes are quite high if they misjudge.

Re:Inevitable (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957835)

I think Samsung is just reading the tea leaves. With the iPhone 4, Apple used to source [isuppli.com] components such as SDRAM, NAND flash, and CPU from Samsung. With the iPhone 5, they've dropped Samsung as suppliers of commodity chips, and now they're only sourcing the A6 processor from Samsung [isuppli.com] .

One might reasonably project that with the iPhone 6 or 5s or whatever it will be, Apple will drop Samsung altogether. Samsung might as well milk Apple while they can.

Re:Inevitable (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957945)

I think you are right :)

Re:Inevitable (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957911)

It's a good point, but gouging your customers is probably also not a good business move.

This made me smile for so many reasons.

Re:Inevitable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957939)

A 20% increase in price does not, in any way, constitute price gouging. If it did, nearly every company in the world would be guilty of it.

When your "enormous" customer (which is much smaller than your company) is in the process of shedding every supply contract they have with you, the smart thing is to make money while you can.

Re:Inevitable (5, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957715)

It looks like Samsung passed their costs for the $1Billion judgment along to the consumer, and that consumer is Apple.

Re:Inevitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957779)

Both companies have been acting like spoiled children. I have a hard time feeling sorry for either, no matter the consequences.

Yes, they should have made it 50% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957877)

If Samsung knew before hand that they were Apple's only realistically-possible supplier, and if I were Samsung, I would've made it 50%.

Re:Inevitable (4, Funny)

Krojack (575051) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957597)

Either Apple will start developing the chips themselves or someone else will.

Well that worked out well for Apple Maps didn't it? =)

Re:Inevitable (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957757)

The problems with Apple Maps have been somewhat exaggerated.

Re:Inevitable (0)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957825)

Just curious, where do you live? If it's the US, the problems were very minor there in comparison to other parts of the world.

Re:Inevitable (5, Funny)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957891)

I thought I lived in the US until I opened Apple Maps.

Re:Inevitable (0)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957955)

Agreed, my friends all love the new maps.

Re:Inevitable (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957615)

Uhhh, apple already develops the chips themselves. Samsung just fabs them.

Re:Inevitable (2)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957915)

The chip is an Apple design. Samsung is just the foundry.

Is it a special price hike? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957399)

Or is it the removal of a special price break?

If farmers told the supermarket chains to go eff themselves and that they can pay the same price as any other wholesaler, then this would be opined by those supermarkets as "a price hike".

Whereas it is instad the removal of a special price.

(cf removing temporary tax cuts becomes a tax hike to those affected...)

Re:Is it a special price hike? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957695)

Isn't that just semantics? At the end of the day, if you have to pay more from one day to the next - that's a price increase.

Re:Is it a special price hike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957969)

Isn't that just semantics? At the end of the day, if you have to pay more from one day to the next - that's a price increase.

There's actually a significant emotional difference. Raising the suggested price generates backlash on consumer products, but removing discounts does not, as long as the discounts are overt.

Of course, this is a b2b transaction, so that principle doesn't really apply.

Re:Is it a special price hike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957821)

current policy dictates, that you can't discriminate prices.
EVERY price is special!

"no price left behind" "no price left behind"

Re:Is it a special price hike? (1)

theendlessnow (516149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957893)

Agreed. I think Samsung is only wanting to increase prices for customers buying in quantities of 250,000 or larger. However, I hear that Apple is more open to the idea of increasing prices for quantities of 1,000,000 or larger. Gridlock....

Cue the Nelson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957419)

...picture captioned with "Ha-Ha"

This is known as (1)

mknewman (557587) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957431)

Global Thermonuclear Warfare. Looks to me like escalation has begun. Loser will be end users. Buy stock in both Apple as well as Samsung as higher prices mean higher profit margins.

Re:This is known as (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957497)

I'm not really sure what kind of crazy logic you're using. Companies spending money infighting = higher costs = lower profit margins. Otherwise this would be a *good* thing for them (and they would negotiate to pay the highest possible price).

Re:This is known as (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957543)

No way! I'm getting rich on Rubber Boot futures!

Re:This is known as (1)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957765)

Otherwise this would be a *good* thing for them (and they would negotiate to pay the highest possible price).

They would very much like to do so, but we call that "collusion" and have a whole slew of laws making it illegal.

Re:This is known as (1)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957803)

It makes perfect sense, I bet the parent is a Keynesian.

Re:This is known as (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957811)

The thing is, companies often raise prices to "offset higher costs" but it's a fairly convoluted area. Take a pub as an example: imagine a pub sells a gin & tonic at £2, £1.50 for the gin and 50p for the tonic. If they give the option to get a double gin and tonic for £3 are they making a smaller profit margin compared to the single? It certainly looks like it.

However, the cost of the drink isn't the only thing to take into account. When the drink is served the pub also has to factor in the fixed costs: the wages, electricity, glass cleaning etc etc, and this figure does not change when serving a double (OK, maybe slightly on the wages by a second or two), so the margin on the double can actually be higher than on the single.

So if Apple were to raise the price of an iPhone by £5 and the chip costs them £5 more per unit then Apple will make more money on each unit. Even if they subsidise the new cost to the tune of 50% they'll probably still make more money in the long run.

Re:This is known as (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957925)

So if Apple were to raise the price of an iPhone by £5 and the chip costs them £5 more per unit then Apple will make more money on each unit.

You want to re-check your math. Hint: If that bar selling gin+tonic for £2 would buy the gin for £1.50 and the tonic for 50p, they'd lose on every gin+tonic they sell.

Re:This is known as (1)

mwfischer (1919758) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957541)

Maybe not so much.

However we don't get to see full nuclear warfare because Tim Cook isn't Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is a peace maker. Steve Jobs was a psychopathic OG.

If we wanted great entertainment, Steve Jobs, I honestly believe would spend hundreds of billions to just fuck Samsung.

Re:This is known as (2, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957629)

Global Thermonuclear Warfare.

Looks to me like escalation has begun. Loser will be end users. Buy stock in both Apple as well as Samsung as higher prices mean higher profit margins.

Its probably best for Apple's users, anyway. They've all got Stockholm syndrome at the moment, but once they're freed from that incarceration, they can start the long road to recovery.

Re:This is known as (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957899)

Its probably best for Apple's users, anyway. They've all got Stockholm syndrome at the moment, but once they're freed from that incarceration, they can start the long road to recovery.

I'm sorry, but after years of Microsoft's half-assed or insecure offerings, Linux alternatives which would require jumping through all sorts of hoops to get only most of the functionality ... I'll take my iPad which worked straight out of the box on day 1, and has done so since.

I think you're confusing Stockholm syndrome with "bought a product they're happy with".

Despite all of the bile on Slashdot directed at Apple, outside of here, people with Apple products tend to be quite pleased with them.

Nelson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957439)

HAHA!

Yeah hows that suing your supplier over rounded corners going. lol.

You have to wonder who in the world at apple thought this was going to turn out well for them. And you also have to wonder how in the world he got his head up his own ass like that...

So???? (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957443)

So it's what, a $4 increase in a BOM that totals out around $200? This is news?

Re:So???? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957513)

Are you joking? This will decrease Apple's profit margins from $300 to $296 per unit! The horror! They will have to lay off some of their Chinese workers, of course. No way they can afford them now.

Re:So???? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957953)

They will have to lay off some of their Chinese workers, of course.

I would never lay off my Chinese slaves. Maybe just withhold dinner.

Re:So???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957533)

The chip costs $10.75

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1719652/iphone-cost-usd18751

So a 20% increase is only around $2

Re:So???? (5, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957561)

That's the iPhone 4. The iPhone 5's A6 chip (two generations newer) costs an estimated $17.50. So a 20% increase is $3.50.

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Many-iPhone-5-Components-Change-But-Most-Suppliers-Remain-the-Same-Teardown-Reveals.aspx [isuppli.com]

Re:So???? (2)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957815)

Estimating from this chart*: about 40 million iPhones sold each year (it actually was increasing, so this is an underestimate), would bring in an additional 140 million dollars for samsung per year. And if you are Samsung, you know that Apple has got to be considering moving suppliers - but they have no current options! I would charge at least $25 more, which would make up the 1 billion dollar settlement.

*http://www.asymco.com/2012/02/16/ios-devices-in-2011-vs-macs-sold-it-in-28-years/

Re:So???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957575)

Well, you're forgetting about how much this will inflate the padding the gets put towards executive compensation. Genius(tm) Leadership doesn't come cheap, you know.

Re:So???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957645)

You obviously are not a businessman apple will layoff people or piss off the shareholders. They are a business they will layoff people .

Re:So???? (1)

Sassinak (150422) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957693)

Actually remember, Samsung holds patents on several parts apple is using..
So the actual cost may not be 4 dollars.. might be closer to 10.. (just on the iphone).. what about the ipad(s), laptops, desktops, appleTV.. etc...

So net increase to apple (Across the product portfolio) may be something like 50 dollars.. PER device made.. (doesn't matter if its sold or not).. and don't forget.. rejects/faulty devices still require the increase.

Its certainly not putting anyone our of business.. but its a healthy chunk of change for Samsung.. a little reminder/sting to apple.. ("Do you REALLY want to f*ck with us?"), and helps to finance this insane zealot war that apple is pushing.

Re:So???? (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957841)

20% of $200 is $40, unless I've misunderstood your comment?

Re:So???? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957881)

Yes, you've misunderstood his comment.

Re:So???? (1)

Sollord (888521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958005)

Will probably see sometime early in Q1 Samsung and Apple will reach a patent deal for $4-$5 an android phone. It's all smoke and mirrors for investors

20% eh? (1)

Jintsui (2759005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957455)

So, everything Apple sells with a Samsung part will now become 20% more expensive?

Re:20% eh? (1, Insightful)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957557)

No, because we're talking about $3.00 per device. Apple will eat it, and instead start building up other foundry companies to build the Ax SoC's and take the billion dollar business away from Samsung.

Typical case of small short term gain, big long term loss.

Re:20% eh? (5, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957667)

No, because we're talking about $3.00 per device. Apple will eat it, and instead start building up other foundry companies to build the Ax SoC's and take the billion dollar business away from Samsung.

Typical case of small short term gain, big long term loss.

Well... maybe, depends on whether Samsung are figuring that that's the route Apple is taking anyway (Apple have taken a few pieces of iPhone in-house recently to save costs) and are making hay while they still have a competitive advantage. If Samsung guess that Apple will eventually transition away from them as a supplier (and given the ongoing animosity, it's not a bad guess) then while they are they will want to squeeze their customer.

Re:20% eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957783)

Apple has been trying to cut off Samsung as a supplier for the past two years or more, so they were certainly going to do that anyway. Might as well get a few extra bucks per unit on the way out.

Re:20% eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957639)

Likely not. iPhones seem to be like video games when it comes to pricing; they're sort of expected now to be a certain price. It took video game publishers a long time to come out of the $50 price point set in the 90's to the current $60 point.

Apple's in the same boat, not as much but it's still there. Their consumers expect a certain price point; if the iPhone 5 at it's lowest storage capacity costs $599, consumers will find it hard to suddenyl accept the same phone for $719. Especially now with many viable alternatives through Android phones, including the Samsung Galaxy, moving that price point up for Apple might lose them more customers and further reduce revenue already. No, this is much more likely to affect Apple's profit margin before it comes back and affects consumers.

Re:20% eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957723)

So, everything Apple sells with a Samsung part will now become 20% more expensive?

Don't be silly. Of course not. It'll mean they become 80% more expensive, especially after the extra printing costs required to include the smug note passively-aggressively suggesting the extra cost that customers NEED to pay is Samsung's fault. It'll also stop all sales of Apple products for at least 14 days, as it'll take them that long to write the note.

Re:20% eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957759)

No, 120%. Learn to MacMathics. And in the end, you'll still gladly pay for it.

Consumers lose again. (1)

JasonDT (550477) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957509)

And once again the consumer will pay for these bullshit patent wars... Samsung loses patent suit...charges Apple more to make up for the loss... Apple passes that cost off to consumers... Awesome....

Re:Consumers lose again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958001)

You can always buy a non-Apple product...

And how much is this, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957523)

The A6 processor is estimated to be $17.50 [iSuppli [isuppli.com] ]. Whatever chip that the article refers to is likely to cost less than that. So we are talking at $2-$3 per iPhone? Apple can easily swallow that. Samsung is really asking to be shown the door, it's only a matter of when Apple moves to another supplier.

Re:And how much is this, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957579)

Yup! I'm rather surprised Apple isn't just going to an unbiased non-competing pure fab shop, e.g. TSMC.

Apple already designs their own chips.

Re:And how much is this, really? (1)

Vapula (14703) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957761)

Apple already mentionned leaving samsung to go to other suppliers...

Then, they went on with samsung for their LCD screens on some devices because no other suppliers could give them the same level of quality...

There are other suppliers, but matching Samsung is difficult... Samsung is everywhere... From refrigerators to microwaves, from hard drive to whole computers, from Blue-Ray and DVD players to television sets, from electronic parts to smartphones and tablets... this gives them an huge advantage in scaling costs... which very few competitors may match.

By the way, one of the TFT screen suppliers for Apple, LG, could go down (and stop activities) anytime soon... Who will be able to supply the huge LCD demands from Apple ??? Samsung ? ;-)

I think that Apple's best move is shut up and keep a low...

Re:And how much is this, really? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957883)

Sharp, the other major LCD panel manufacturer is in trouble as well. That leaves Samsung and Japan Display as two remaining major display manufacturers. LCD industry suffers from both lack of competition due to four huge companies owning most of the fabs and insane costs of entering into the business. It also suffers from deep specialization leves needed, with only some of the aforementioned companies having necessary tech to manufacture OLED displays. Some are overinvested in IPS or xVA technologies and these factories aren't easy to modify for another technology (which is one of the main with sharp's LCD business at the moment - their choice of technology was suboptimal from current market's view).

Re:And how much is this, really? (1)

hattig (47930) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957853)

TSMC doesn't have a 32nm process.

TSMC's 28nm process ramped really slowly, and couldn't cope with the quantities that Apple wanted.

Maybe TSMC's 20nm will work nicely, and not be late, etc, but form doesn't suggest it.

The fact that Apple had to agree to the price rise shows that they have no other options right now.

In addition, who says this isn't merely a 5 year price review by Samsung on their fab contract with Apple, or that another fab would be able to offer significantly more competitive pricing?

Re:And how much is this, really? (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41958007)

TSMC was an example. Another example is Global Foundries, which does have a mature 32nm process. Point being, there are a lot of companies able to spin wafers today to the technical abilities of Samsung, all over the world.

That said, I'd be very very surprised if those talks haven't already happened with a variety of fabricators.

Sad - even if I dislike Apple (0, Redundant)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957531)

Sad - even if I dislike Apple.

Even if Apple doesn't play by the rules, Samsung should.

I hope this is not a 'vendetta' but a sound and fair business decision.

Howeve, I expect Apple to label it 'unfair' whatever Samsung's rationale was.

Apple has lost all credibility a long time ago. Pray Samsung doesn't follow Apple's sullied path.

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957619)

Sad - even if I dislike Apple.

Even if Apple doesn't play by the rules, Samsung should.

I hope this is not a 'vendetta' but a sound and fair business decision.

Howeve, I expect Apple to label it 'unfair' whatever Samsung's rationale was.

Apple has lost all credibility a long time ago. Pray Samsung doesn't follow Apple's sullied path.

LOL, implying Samsung has any credibility/dignity left

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (2)

ccguy (1116865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957621)

I hope this is not a 'vendetta' but a sound and fair business decision.

Probably Samsung's CEO thought "there's no way we can keep a long term relationship with these assholes so we should just milk them while we can [removes Tim from speed dial and moves Larry one number up]"

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957687)

Slambdamsung is a big corporate like any big corporate and needs to dominate its position somehow.

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957799)

Probably Samsung's CEO thought "there's no way we can keep a long term relationship with these assholes so we should just milk them while we can

I think you are probably correct. I suspect this will lead to more competition for Samsung, though, since Apple will probably actively participate in making the other suppliers more capable. In other words, gouging Apple may bring the inevitable competition a little sooner. Samsung seems like a pretty well-run company, so I can't really armchair quarterback the company's decision.

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (0)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957709)

kudos to Samsung. You can't really expect Samsung to bend over and take it with the recent $1B Apple win on silly patents, can you?

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957729)

Why should Samsung not start to remove it's "favored partner" status discounts?

Seriously, if I were Samsung, I'd say...hey...sorry for the delay. But a worker at the factory that builds your screens destroyed vital equipment over his duress at your lawsuit. We can't produce anything for a year.

Re:Sad - even if I dislike Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957919)

The price increase is a reflection on the cost and risk in doing business with Apple. I think they simply remove the volume pricing/favorite customer discount from Apple.

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Many-iPhone-5-Components-Change-But-Most-Suppliers-Remain-the-Same-Teardown-Reveals.aspx
> iPhone 5: FLASH $76.80, DRAM $9.10

Samsung is also one of the few big memory manufacturer(s) still left in the market. There is still a big chunk of profit there for them should Apple switched SoC vendor, but they have to compete price-wise with the rest of the commodity market.

This was expected.. (3, Insightful)

Sassinak (150422) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957607)

Come on.. why would you sue and attempt to bully one of the worlds largest manufacturer chips/screens/etc... and especially those used in your own device. Its akin to me suing my employer while I still work for them.. You know there are going to be repercussions.. Its not a lot (most likely because anything higher than 20% could get them sued (ie: retaliatory business practices).

Sucks that its all going to get pushed down to the consumer. (with a suitable markup).. of course, this could be what Samsung wants.. (gets apple to price themselves out of the market).. because the carriers are not going to absorb that cost.. Apple sure as heck won't take it..

(Glad I'm an Android / Hackintosh guy).

Re:This was expected.. (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957751)

Sucks that its all going to get pushed down to the consumer. (with a suitable markup)..

That's not true, unless the price increase also hits Apple's competitors. The price for Apple products is in no way directly tied to the cost of producing them. Look at their profit margins.

Re:This was expected.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957867)

Come on.. why would you sue and attempt to bully one of the worlds largest manufacturer chips/screens/etc... and especially those used in your own device. Its akin to me suing my employer while I still work for them.. You know there are going to be repercussions.

Damn right. If I were running Samsung, the minute I got the notice from Apple's lawyer saying they were suing, I would have put all shipments to Apple on hold indefinitely. Then I would notify Apple that if the lawsuit were not dropped within 30 days, all orders would be permanently canceled and no further orders taken.

"Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding!"

so the court costs.... (5, Funny)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957673)

will be paid on the installment plan.

Mouth that feeds you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957833)

Samsung had to raise the prices on Apple. How else will Samsung get the money to pay Apple for the lost lawsuit.

This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41957837)

Apple phone screens get a price hike of roughly 200% to pay for the 20% increase on their end.

Shouldn't (-1, Troll)

WillyWanker (1502057) | about a year and a half ago | (#41957861)

Companies shouldn't shit where they eat. How's that shitpie taste, Apple?

Next Samsung move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41958015)

Then, Samsung will buy Qualcomm and significantly increase prices for Apple before contract termination... and this would probably be Game Over for Apple

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...