Apple Now World's Largest Semiconductor Buyer

Lucas123 writes "Apple has leaped two spots to become the world's largest consumer of semiconductor technology, including NAND flash, NOR flash and microprocessors. Apple spent $17.5 billion on semiconductors in 2010, an increase of 79.6% over 2009. Sixty-one percent of Apple's semiconductor budget in 2010 was spent on wireless products such as the iPhone and iPad, while second place HP spent 82% of its semiconductor budget on computer products like desktops, notebooks and servers."

Comments

surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

it is surprising how hard it is for slashdot posters to click one link further to the real article instead of linking to the one with adds.

http://www.isuppli.com/Semiconductor-Value-Chain/News/Pages/Apple-Becomes-Worlds-Largest-OEM-Semiconductor-Buyer-in-2010.aspx

Re:surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you link me to the one with subtracts?

SAMSUNG

[brunes69]

And Samsung is the world's second largest semiconductor MANUFACTURER, after Intel.. including providing a lot of chips to Apple.

Meanwhile, Apple is in the middle of a giant lawsuit against Samsung for it's mobile phone division, which is starting to seriously make a run for crown of the Android market, and is eating away at Apple's business.

Fun times ahead.

Re:SAMSUNG

[papasui]

Well I think Apple's kinda got Samsung by the balls. Yeah Samsung is probably pissed about the lawsuit, but on the other hand if they say fuck Apple they just lost one of their largest customers. Granted Apple would need to get a new supplier but one thing I've learned in business is you never want the vendor thinking they are your only option. Hell I imagine Apple probably could start manufacturing the parts they want, I believe there sitting on around 60 Billion in cash.

Re:SAMSUNG

[wisty]

I'm guessing Samsumg's VP of mobile considers the VP of manufacturing to be an enemy, as both of them are in competition for the CEO postion. If hitting Apple hurts manufacturing, that's two birds with one stone.

Re:SAMSUNG

[Karlt1]

Meanwhile, Apple is in the middle of a giant lawsuit against Samsung for it's mobile phone division, which is starting to seriously make a run for crown of the Android market, and is eating away at Apple's business.

Apple:

1. Generates more revenue than any other company in the world selling cell phones (yes they generate more revenue than Nokia)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20056289-248.html

2. Has 50% of the worldwide profit in cell phones compared to 13% for all Android manufacturers combined:

http://www.asymco.com/2011/05/16/iphone-share-of-phone-market-in-q1/

3. The iOS app market is more than 17x bigger than Android's by revenue:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/

Android from a business perspective isn't really doing that great.....

That was fast...

[Max Romantschuk]

About ten years ago, before the iPod and OS X, I suspect very few of us suspected anything like this from Apple. As much as I don't agree with their walled garden approach to software, it's hard not to be impressed with what they have accomplished.

And yet, we're very much in a transformative age in computing. Desktops are increasingly rare for mainstream computing, tablets are on the rise, and there are billions of people who are getting their first taste of the Internet not through a traditional computer, but instead a smartphone. Everyone is searching for the holy grail, the next big thing.

It's gonna be an interesting next ten years. I for one is staying idealistic and hoping for open standards and interoperability across devices, platforms, and operating systems. Sorry, Apple.

Re:That was fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right: desktops are dying. Smartphones and iPads are the choice of younger people now, and using those they can stay in touch via social networking wherever they are, rather than being tied to a desktop and a power cord. That's why this line from TFS was telling:

> iPhone and iPad, while second place HP spent 82% of its semiconductor budget on computer products like desktops, notebooks and servers.

Apple's share is in devices with explosive growth - they're positioned well for the post-PC world (and no matter what some people think, it IS coming - not 100%, but a world where the PC has little relevance to most people's lives). But HP's share is in the old world: desktops, notebooks, and so on. Servers will continue to be important, but one out of three is not a good thing for HP's future.

Apple has managed to transform personal computing to something that people are excited about again. It's no surprise they have the biggest market cap of any tech company right now.

Re:That was fast...

[rolfwind]

There has to be closed-garden companies like Apple to make new paradigms. They control the OS, they can make it do what they want. They're also not afraid to do away with tradition that has no use anymore.

Unlike PC manufacturers, who with Microsoft, can only design computers with what Microsoft had in mind. Tweaking can be done, but nowhere near the level needed that went from OS X -> iOS. They had PC tablets from 2001, and guess what, they were just junk. Just like the Windows phones, which had the same start button on bottom left mentality - give me a break!

Even after 15 years of Linux, I haven't seen the open approach yield much in productive innovation on the desktop front. Design by committee is the worst. Or a 100 comittees in this case. And Microsoft has that same problem. And PCs have design by tradition. It took Apple to get rid of the floppy and some legacy ports that 99% of people don't use.

And even after Apple is gobbling up the notebook market, I don't see many of the PC manufacturer so much as even copy them. Same plasticky, gimmicky shit notebooks as ever. Sure, Dell make copy MacBook Air with Adamo or whatever it's called (as useless as either were), and they may also make the shiny screens, or chicklet keyboards - but the bodies, the very first impression of a notebook on PCs has remains the same plasticky, unwiedly, fugly crap that they've been pushing out in 1998. No clean lines or anything like the Power Mac or moreso MacBook Pro. Boggles my mind.

And I say this as someone that would like to see nice computers on the PC front as I work on a PC desktop. I recently got a hand me down desktop and it was fucking gaudy - LED lights and gauges everywhere, like a poor man's F1 racer in computer case form. Tried to find something minimalistic, and the nicest thing I could find was a black case version of das keyboard.

*(I do love open source and open standards, but keep them the hell away from the GUI :D)

Re:And?

[hedwards]

Apple manufacturers very little themselves, they contract out to folks like Foxconn for the actual manufacturing. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with contracting out the actual manufacturing, I just think that it's important to keep in mind that the contractors hardly work just for Apple.

Re:And?

[NatasRevol]

You're comparing wrong.

Apple is larger than HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, HTC, RIM, etc. And not by just a little bit either.

Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.
Think how many phone models/tablet models HTC sells. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid.

[Kjella]

Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed".
(...)
While Apple rocks.

Funny that, since Apple is the IBM of cell phones while Android is the Microsoft. If you invest heavily in Android apps, you can switch between any number of clones. If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iPhone myself because it has features ahead of its time - but so did OS/2. But unless they keep moving they'll end up just like IBM did, overrun by cheap clones doing pretty much the same at a much lower cost.

Re:And?

[dgatwood]

The HP Revenue is twice that of Apple.

Your numbers are out of date. For the quarter ending in February (HP) and April (Apple) of 2011, HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion, and almost all of that difference comes from HP's printer division. In fact, if you subtract out printers, the HP services group (IT support, etc.), and the HP financial services group, HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.