Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Hopes To Drop Samsung As Chip Supplier

Posted by Soulskill on from the why-do-mommy-and-daddy-fight dept.

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."

70 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. It's kind of obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The next iPad will be powered by an Arduino!

    1. Re:It's kind of obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and have a 64kb ram from mouser, a Nintendo DS "replacement" touchscreen from dealextreme and an old Nokia screen from ebay.

    2. Re:It's kind of obvious by narcc · · Score: 1

      Yes, and have a 64kb ram from mouser, a Nintendo DS "replacement" touchscreen from dealextreme and an old Nokia screen from ebay.

      And still sell millions 'cause Steve says that specs don't matter.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
  2. Correction by Chris+Down · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Consumers hope to drop Apple as computer supplier"

    1. Re:Correction by tyrione · · Score: 1

      You have such a singular wit.

    2. Re:Correction by fj3k · · Score: 1

      Of my friends with iPhones, aprox. half have said they would not buy an iPhone again.
      That said, of those who said they wouldn't buy one again and have bought a new phone, less than half bought a different phone. But that's not a representative set, they are the people who buy new stuff when new stuff comes out.
      As an aside, of my friends with Android phones, none have said they would change. But the android phone owners are in the minority.
      As presented, these facts don't make any sense to me.

      --
      Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
    3. Re:Correction by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2

      Here here! What is "uninstall" in Mac terms?

      Drop into the trash.

      And it's "hear, hear".

  3. So... by HumanEmulator · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:So... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe they see the value in having a supplier that doesn't represent a conflict of interest.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:So... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Even if the lawsuits didn't exists, I would have foreseen Apple doing this sooner or later. First of all, having only one supplier for a critical component is risky. Second, Samsung is producing Apple chips on their 45nm line whereas the rumor is that TSMC will fab Apple's chips on their 28nm line which in itself is a huge improvement for Apple in terms of cost.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:So... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      First of all, having only one supplier for a critical component is risky...

      That risk is offset by tying up that supplier so they're the only one that can use them.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:So... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they see the value in having a supplier that doesn't represent a conflict of interest.

      They need to look for an established, large manufacturer who can quickly produce millions of reliable components for Apple. On the other hand, the same manufacturer must not have any business with any of Apple's competitors - who are in the majority and are busily flooding the planet with hordes of Androids.

      In other words, they want a manufacturer with a death wish. The only way a chip maker can agree to those conditions if Apple completely buys it.

    5. Re:So... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the same manufacturer must not have any business with any of Apple's competitors...

      Not quite. It's not about having any business at all with any of Apple's competitors, it's about Samsung themselves being a direct competitor.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:So... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      I doubt there's anything so sinister. One thing to note is that TSMC's 28nm process is ready now; chips will start mass production at the end of the year on it.

      I don't think Samsung has their 32nm HKMG ready for the type of volume that Apple would need for A6. The A5 is already huge and would likely not fit in a phone. Apple's only chance of getting some more horsepower inside future iPhones without having to use the A4 again is to switch to a smaller process.

    7. Re:So... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It's not risky in the sense that should something happen to the supplier like an earthquake, the customer has an alternative.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:So... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Right, but until that quake happens their competitors are on equal footing.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:So... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      No one wants to here that. You take all the fun out of everything.

  4. Looks like AMD might be going under then by mykos · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

      That might be true if the profit margins nVidia & Apple got went to the fab plants. They are all probably paying about the same.

      Apple is probably the only one with some sort of advantage, the whole "we'll help u build it, but it only produces our chips"

    2. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Samsung and TSMC share the same process? So it is easier to transfer from Samsung to TSMC than to Global Foundries? Correct me if I am making a mistake here.

      I guess Apple may be secretly working with Intel too.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    3. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by makomk · · Score: 1

      IIRC, TSMC don't actually share the same process with anyone these days, and even if they did it doesn't exactly work like that...

    4. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Do yourself a favor and visit GlobalFoundries latest news information. They are soon to be exploding and already have customers spoken for all but the new plant in New York that will be targeting the 22nm and below needs at 300mm wafer size.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2011/07/12/globalfoundries-begins-installing.html

      More News Here: http://www.globalfoundries.com/newsroom/

      Tri-Gate competitor well under way. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2011/07/12/global-foundries-tri-gate-competitor/1

    5. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      AMD did a lot with finfets, so I wouldn't expect the transistor structure to be a problem ... but they're completely fucked with patterning until EUV hits. Intel has chromeless pixelized masks pretty much on lock down patent wise and it's a huge advantage.

    6. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      > $1000 midrange CPUs.

      They still make the Pentium Extreme Edition?!

    7. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by tyrione · · Score: 2

      AMD did a lot with finfets, so I wouldn't expect the transistor structure to be a problem ... but they're completely fucked with patterning until EUV hits. Intel has chromeless pixelized masks pretty much on lock down patent wise and it's a huge advantage.

      You do realize that it's not just AMD but IBM that co-developed much with AMD, right? If you think Intel has it all locked down you better spend a few hundred hours reading up on IBM patents.

    8. Re:Looks like AMD might be going under then by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Intel was able to use pixelated photomasks for functional CPUs in 2006 . No one else has even published papers on attempts with test circuits ... IBM has been fucking around with pixelated source masks, but mostly because that's less patent encumbered AFAICS.

  5. Re:Conflict of Interest by nomadic · · Score: 1

    What exactly did Samsung steal from Apple?

  6. Surprising? by hahn · · Score: 2

    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."
    1. Re:Surprising? by stevew · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)

      Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.

      What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.

      Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    2. Re:Surprising? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.

      Except that Apple has been designing their own chips since the A4 and Samsung manufactures it. I'm sure that Samsung has assisted Apple like they would any other customer but considering that Apple bought PA Semi and Intrinsity (two chip design companies) for their personnel and expertise, I would say their A4 and A5 designs are not bought from Samsung.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Surprising? by tfranzese · · Score: 1

      Just to add to the sibling here, Apple is no stranger to chip design. Back when they were dealing with the PowerPC (and probably before then too) they were very much into motherboard/chipset design within their VLSI research group. I wouldn't sell them short.

    4. Re:Surprising? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      Yep! And it goes beyond that. Apple now designs its own custom chip, and so has effectively become a fabless semiconductor company. Why would Apple want to share its proprietary designs with a *competing* company already involved (as either the thief or victim) in several industrial espionage incidents when it can just use a "neutral" (not to mention the largest) contract fab like TSMC?

    5. Re:Surprising? by hahn · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that TSMC has a different business model than Samsung. TSMC is the largest Chip Fab in the world - bar none. It is ONLY a chip fab. The article is actually in error when it implies that the relationship between ARM and TSMC is a big deal. The relationship between Samsung and ARM is likely exactly the same! They BOTH have a license to ARMs IP. The BIG difference between the two is that TSMC doesn't have System Architecture experience. They take designs from others - and create masks, then fab them for you. Most of the "fabless" semiconductor companies in the world use either TSMC or UMC (the number 2 player..)

      Samsung is different in that they do both Architecture/Implementation of the design along with fabrication. TSMC doesn't really have that ability.

      What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves and send the design to TSMC for fabrication. That would put Apple more in the "fabless" semiconductor business. What they do now is they buy most of the design from Samsung, i.e. they use Samsung's IP on their chip, then Samsung implements the device, and fabs it. They ship the completed device to Apple.

      Hope this straightens out some of the differences between the two approaches.

      My understanding is this: both the Apple A4 and A5 are SoC's (System on a Chip) with ARM cores (A4 - single, A5 - dual) but are designed by Apple. Samsung only provided manufacturing capability. Design of the end product (iPhone and iPad) was done by Apple. Integration of the chip into the finished product and mass manufacturing (iPhone 4, iPad 1 and 2) was done by Foxconn and Pegatron (iPhone 4 CDMA only). I don't recall ever reading that Samsung was involved in any part of the iPhone 4 or iPads beyond the manufacturing of the chips (and flash memory). Please provide a link if you know differently. Here's one that lists parts and suppliers for the iPhone 4: LINK

      Thus, at least to my understanding, replacing Samsung is simply a matter of finding someone else who can manufacture chips (and maybe even memory if they just want to be rid of Samsung). At the very least, it benefits Apple to find more than one potential supplier both for getting more supply and lower prices.

      --
      "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    6. Re:Surprising? by tftp · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple want to share its proprietary designs with a *competing* company already involved (as either the thief or victim) in several industrial espionage incidents when it can just use a "neutral" (not to mention the largest) contract fab like TSMC?

      This naively assumes that nobody at the "largest" contract fab is willing to sell a couple of designs to whoever is interested in them. But they are ready to spend millions on chasing that dream.

      Apple should understand that once they release something to another company that "something" is instantly copied and sold to the highest bidder. Their only hope would be to keep the high level design in Cupertino and send only the lowest level stuff to be manufactured. But if they want to take this road they can do it already - and as some people commented earlier, they do just that.

      As it seems, though, Apple developed a case of corporate paranoia. There were signs of this disease before, but now Apple openly proclaims that "everyone is stealing from us" and such things. They need a head doctor.

    7. Re:Surprising? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Considering the rules set out by Sarbox, I would actually trust Samsung a hell of a lot more than I would TSMC not to sell or reuse those designs for another product. Because they're in direct competition, Samsung could find themselves delisted from the stock exchanges, which would hurt their business a hell of a lot more than any profit they could garner from it, meaning that Samsung is likely to be significantly more open about how they're treating Apple's proprietary designs.

      My guess is it has more to do with capacity, and switching from a 45nm to a 28nm fab than it does blocking out the competition. Building their i-somethings on a 28nm fab will mean less loss to heat, which means less power consumption, and longer battery life.

    8. Re:Surprising? by gatodecat · · Score: 1

      Why would Apple want to share its proprietary designs with a *competing* company already involved (as either the thief or victim) in several industrial espionage incidents when it can just use a "neutral" (not to mention the largest) contract fab like TSMC?

      This naively assumes that nobody at the "largest" contract fab is willing to sell a couple of designs to whoever is interested in them. But they are ready to spend millions on chasing that dream.

      Apple should understand that once they release something to another company that "something" is instantly copied and sold to the highest bidder. Their only hope would be to keep the high level design in Cupertino and send only the lowest level stuff to be manufactured. But if they want to take this road they can do it already - and as some people commented earlier, they do just that.

      As it seems, though, Apple developed a case of corporate paranoia. There were signs of this disease before, but now Apple openly proclaims that "everyone is stealing from us" and such things. They need a head doctor.

      Don't forget.
      What the eye doesn't see. The heart doesn't grieve about.
      To Apple, Samsung is clearly infringing on their IP. A change is in order.
       

    9. Re:Surprising? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yes TSMC could sell designs from one of their clients to another of their clients. But here's the problem: If anyone ever found out, TSMC would most likely lose all their clients as no one would ever work with them again lest they have the same thing happen to them. With Samsung if all their external customers stop using them, they still have internal customers.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Surprising? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yep - it's 100% of TSMC's business but just a few percent of Samsung's (at most)...

    11. Re:Surprising? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      What Apple would have to do is take on the Architecture/Implementation roll by themselves

      Samsung had no role in the design.

    12. Re:Surprising? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Samsung are a Korean company with a secondary listing on the Pink Sheet Market, so I don't really think they are affected by Sarbanes Oxley.

    13. Re:Surprising? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      If they're listed at all on an American market, they are affected by it. I work for a Canadian company that has a secondary listing on NYSE, primary listing on TSX, and we still have to comply with Sarbox.

    14. Re:Surprising? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      You don't have to comply with any regulations to list on the Pink Sheet market. Even SCO Group is able to list on there. If you are listed on NYSE or Nasdaq then of course it is a completely different matter.

  7. Re:Good luck with that by alamandrax · · Score: 1

    Sir, I do believe you shall find that it is spelt "numbnuts".

    sip

    --
    'tis but a scratch.
  8. Re:Conflict of Interest by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Conflict of Interest by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3

    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.

  10. Re:Conflict of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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

  11. Re:Good luck with that by Nimatek · · Score: 1

    I believe he spelled it this way intentionally, in order to avoid any potentially existing patent claims to the original spelling. As any law-abiding citizen should do. I would be careful with your use of 'Sir' if I were you. That's a very common and stylish word. Apple might have claims to it.

  12. Re:Conflict of Interest by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Pssst... HTC and Samsung are two different companies. Just a little heads up.

  13. Re:Conflict of Interest by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    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
  14. Re:Conflict of Interest by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. Re:Conflict of Interest by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. Re:Conflict of Interest by Skuto · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up.

  17. Re:Conflict of Interest by K-Mile · · Score: 1

    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 ;)

  18. Re:Conflict of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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

  19. Good luck with that by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  20. Re:Good luck with that by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    So explain, then, exactly how you know where to draw the line.

    Suppose you consider Disney to be evil for having health benefits for domestic partners, and you refuse to do business with them. Suppose you own a company which makes piping.

    Do you refuse to sell piping to Disney?

    Do you refuse to sell piping to a local hardware store which sells to Disney?

    Now being the owner, it's entirely up to you to make these decisions. But what if you work for this piping company?

    Suppose you are a salesman, and Disney calls up wanting to buy piping, and you know you'd get fired if you turned down the sale.

    Do you do the honorable thing and quit?

    Do you do the dishonorable thing and turn them down and hope your boss doesn't find out?

    Do you turn the sale over to a co-worker who isn't as principled?

    Do you take the sale but turn down the commission?

    I'm not trying to be tricky or snarky. I'd really like to know how you deal with these matters.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  21. Re:Good luck with that by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I always thought of myself as a fundamentalist but apparently not. I have to admit to watching Thomas the Train with my grandson.

  22. it's not a problem, it;s a feature by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Where else are you going to purchase radiation hardened chips?

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  23. Re:Good luck with that by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    I think you're missing his point. He was not arguing in favor of your friend's position, but was attempting to humorously point out that your position is at odds with reality. Samsung is not "independently thinking." It's doing the opposite - mimicking Apple's products. that's where Apple's objections lay.

  24. Re:Conflict of Interest by X.25 · · Score: 1

    You ever heard of the newton?

    He said popular.

    Newton was not popular or first either.

  25. Re:Good luck with that by X.25 · · Score: 1

    Samsung is not "independently thinking." It's doing the opposite - mimicking Apple's products.

    Which products is Samsung "mimicking", exactly?

    Please, just don't tell me that tablet/icon look is Apple's "invention". I've had enough laughs today.

  26. Re:Good luck with that by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh pulleez. Don't start pretending Apple's the only original thinker in town and everybody else steals from them. Steve Jobs isn't the first person to wear black.

    --
    Infuriate left and right
  27. Re:Good luck with that by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    When I take my Samsung Galaxy S out of my pocket, a lot of people seem to think it is an iPhone.

  28. Re:Good luck with that by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    Which products is Samsung "mimicking", exactly?

    I'm not sure why you put scare quotes around the word mimicking. It's an apt description. And why do you transform that into the borderline straw man of invention? All products have a trade dress. Samsung's Galaxy S shamelessly mimics the iPhone's trade dress right down to the packaging. Here's a pretty good example.

  29. Adding a supplier doesn't mean dropping one by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 2

    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.

  30. Re:Good luck with that by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    If it were me, I'd turn down the "Christmas Stocking Stuffers" on several grounds, before "gay" would be included.

    1) My kids wouldn't know what or who Thomas the Train was. They don't get to watch TV. They play with toys and read books instead. If they do watch TV, it is Discovery or some other program that is at least educational without dumbing down.

    2) Christmas is a made up holiday, and commercialized at that. "Jesus" wasn't born on Dec 25, nor anywhere close to that date. However pagan gods were, which was the origins.

    3) Santa Claus is a made up character. Telling kids that Santa is real is setting them up for eventual disappointment when they realize you've lied to them all those years.

    And none of that makes a bit of difference to my Christian friends, they keep doing it anyways. I expect more from my kids, and I'm rarely disappointed.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  31. Re:Good luck with that by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    That's because you're holding it wrong.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. Re:Good luck with that by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I like how one of the comments accuses the author of copying him. And then the author waves his hands implying that because lots of people are writing about the same thing it's almost inevitable that similar stories will arise.

    Two-faced asshat.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Re:Conflict of Interest by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    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.

    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."
  34. Re:Conflict of Interest by nomadic · · Score: 1

    In other words, you don't know but you're too embarassed to admit it.