Slashdot Mirror
Apple Hopes To Drop Samsung As Chip Supplier
danomac writes "Apple is testing out new chip suppliers, trying to find a supplier other than Samsung. Apple is currently suing Android phone manufacturers, and Samsung is included in the lawsuit. 'Apple faces several hurdles should it want to make a switch to TSMC, including patents and chip design issues as well as a push by Samsung to retain the business. ... Analysts and other sources had previously said TSMC, the world's largest contract chip maker, was set to become a supplier of a next-generation processor chip to Apple, likely starting next year. However the chip may not be called the A6, as some reports have indicated, the sources said. TSMC is an obvious candidate to win processor business from Apple as it has budgeted $7.8 billion this year to update technology and add capacity. It also has experience with the architecture of British chip designer ARM Holdings Plc, widely used by Apple to make power-efficient mobile chips."
The next iPad will be powered by an Arduino!
"Consumers hope to drop Apple as computer supplier"
Good luck with that, Apple. I know that if there's one thing I look for in a potential customer, it's a tendency not only to file bogus patents (what was that last one, changing to landscape mode based on orientation but with a phone!111!!!!?) but to ruthlessly sue suppliers over them. (Oh no, you have a product with ROUNDED CORNERS, prepare for the Nazgul!)
Of course, I know I'm being naive. They'll find some company that's more than happy to accept their money, even with the continual threat of being sued to prevent them from using their own technology in the future.
But I can hope that karma comes back to bite them in the ass. I can only hope.
They are either punishing Samsung (the common dramatic spin I see put on the story) or maybe they are expecting to need A LOT of A6 chips. Maybe the rumors of putting them in Macs are true?
Unless they can get Globalfoundries off the ground at 28nm or better, they won't be able to produce enough product to make any sales, with Nvidia and Apple hogging all the fabs' attention. Enjoy your $800 entry level GPUs and your $1000 midrange CPUs.
What exactly did Samsung steal from Apple?
Is this really so surprising? Apple creates end products to sell to consumers and buys parts from Samsung. Samsung creates chips (as well as other parts) to sell to companies but also sells competing end products to consumers. TSMC only creates and sells chips to companies, but nothing to end consumers. And now that TSMC's foundries have been updated, it's kind of a no-brainer isn't it?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Rounded corners, shiny black plastic, and putting icons in a grid.
Apparently.
Please do say what they stole. As far as I can tell apple is complaining about some bogus design patents and some typical bullshit software patents.
File this under the "not well thought out beforehand" category.
Clients....
Nothing. Apple is just dominated by aggressive, corporate-type lawyers, that's why they patent things like round corners and putting icons in a grid. That's what Apple considers "innovation" nowadays...as boring as their latest products.
Please do say what they stole. As far as I can tell apple is complaining about some bogus design patents and some typical bullshit software patents.
Something like this, I believe:
http://allthingsd.com/20110715/itc-rules-htc-violated-two-apple-patents/?refcat=news
What, do you ask?
Their revolutionary and magical products that can make unicorns come rainbows and cure cancer.
Pssst... HTC and Samsung are two different companies. Just a little heads up.
those two patent are some old shit that should never had been granted.....
read this : http://www.google.com/patents?id=aFEWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q&f=false
please tell me what is so novel about that. Things like this were common a the xerox lab. Go read a publication from Alan Kay.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Aside from the fact that the patents seem unnecessarily vague I saw the name Florian Mueller and stopped reading. I'll wait to see what the rest of the board has to say...
Pssst... HTC and Samsung are two different companies. Just a little heads up.
It's not just HTC. This applies to Android also, per the article.
He also said " something like..."
Says Florian. Anything from a non-troll?
The ITC is saying the apple has a pantent on something obvious, who cares?
Unless they actually ban imports it does not matter.
Really? Apple was NOT the first popular PDA or Tablet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_TC1000
They had devices that looked like that before the iPhone came out. Form follows function. Icons will be on a grid, the face will be made of glass, and the edge has metal trim. Nothing innovative there.
Mod parent up.
As far as I can tell, one of those patents (http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_method_for_performing.html?id=aFEWAAAAEBAJ) is about 'detecting structures in data and presenting the user with the ability to perform actions on a structure'.
This can be anything from a hyperlink that you can click (a grammar detects a pattern, a link tag, and presents the user with an interface (right mouse button) to perform actions (opening the link, or bookmarking it) on the structure) to a phone number you can dial from the screen or even all those online ads highlighting words in the text of a webpage.
The only specific feature is that this implementation uses a 'analyzer server' to process the data. But since it is not specified what that is, it can be anything running on the device.
I am sure there must be some prior art to that patent ;)
The primary complaint is about "trade dress". In other words, apple feels that:
1) they've created a product that looks very distinctive from anything ever created before it
2) that product has very strong brand recognition
3) samsung has deliberately created products that look similar to that product
4) many consumers, particularly the non-tech-literate masses, are confusing samsung's product for apple's more well known one
1 and 2 are definitely true. 4 is probably true, even I've been confused by how similar some samsung phones are to older models of the iPhone. If the court finds number 3 to be true then samsung is in really deep shit. And samsung has been found guilty of this exact offence before (copying blackberry's trade dress).
Under trademark law, it's illegal for two companies who compete directly to have the same trademark. If there is one car company "ford motors" and another car company "form autos", it would be confusing.
Under trade dress law, it is illegal to for two companies to produce competing products which are visually similar. It's got nothing to do with functionality, in fact functional similarities are specifically exempt from trade dress and companies are encouraged to copy each other under trade dress law (only patent law protects against copying functionality). If there is one car company, say ford, who sells a product, say the focus, and another completely different car company sells a product that is visually similar to the ford focus, then that would be confusing to consumers and is therefore illegal.
In general, whoever has the more popular product will win the court case, not necessarily whoever came up with the product first. This is about protecting consumers from confusion, not about protecting companies, and therefore the more well known company should be the one to continue using the product while the other company has to come up with a new visual appearance. If the trade dress infringement was intentional, then they'll also face severe monetary damages.
Lol, bogus indeed. If Nilay Patel from TIMN has written a clear and concise breakdown of this lawsuit, you're doing yourself a favour by reading it so I don't have to laugh at the ignorance in your post.
Jonathanjk.com
Really? Apple was NOT the first popular PDA or Tablet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_TC1000
You ever heard of the newton?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(platform)
http://ouriel.typepad.com/myblog/2007/01/iphone_someone_.html
The problem with letting morals interfere with business decisions is knowing where to stop. Now that they've made it plain how little tolerance they have for independent thinking suppliers, the rest are going to be a bit skittish, either in their dealings with Apple, or in their own R&D. Either way, Apple is sending the message that it doesn't want first tier brilliant thinkers, only second tier yes-men.
I have a friend who lets his religious fundamentalism go crazy. I sent some Thomas the Tank Engine chocolate lollipops for Christmas stocking stuffers, and was told that Thomas is a Disney property, Disney supports health insurance for domestic partners, and therefore my stocking stuffers were unwelcome.
So what next? Don't let UPS deliver anything because the driver might be gay, or support human rights? Where does he draw the line? It's one thing (however silly it is) to not buy Disney products himself because they have gay employees, but to chew me out for not following his politics is absurd.
Infuriate left and right
in corporate america it's called "negotiating"
Where else are you going to purchase radiation hardened chips?
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
You ever heard of the newton?
He said popular.
Newton was not popular or first either.
I still don't see why adding a new chip supplier has to mean dropping the old one.
Maybe Apple just want's to make sure it can still build new devices even if one supplier has problems.
Maybe they need additional suppliers to meet the increasing demand (yes, there is increasing demand for iOS devices).
Maybe they hope to gain something by having competing suppliers. Lower prices and/or better products. Faster, more efficient chips etc.
After all, Apple is a company and is doing business to make money; not to win a troll award.
A few exotics aside, for the last thirty or so years all cars have looked pretty much the same.
P.S. You might want to learn the difference between criminal and civil law while you're at it. Illegal my ass.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In other words, you don't know but you're too embarassed to admit it.