Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Terminates LCD Contract With Apple
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."
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?
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.
To supply google with 2560x1600 panels for the nexus 10?
I'm just guessing.
'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.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
So it's in fact not a bullshit marketing term, but an effective way to convey an idea that consumers wouldn't normally understand.
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.
Samsung delivery drivers can't find where to drop off the monitors when they use the GPS on their iPhones
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.
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.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
$
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".
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
Just because you *think* it's bullshit doesn't mean it actually is. Your ignorance of a fact doesn't make it untrue.
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.
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.
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".
Oooh baby baby it's an iWorld...
what?
When you can make a profit of $4 a part from 20 smaller customers who together buy say, 10M parts, but you lose $0.05 per part on 100M parts for Apple (or another big supplier-raping customer, there are many - just pick a big name), the choice is pretty easy.
Since dumping Apple and a few other major customers we gained hundreds of new smaller customers who could never get our inventory before because all the big players were buying it up. We went from a $2.5B gross revenue company that had a loss every quarter to a sub-$1B gross revenue company that has a profit every quarter. And now many of the big players are coming back, hat in hand, to try to get some of our inventory.
With what results? Have you found other customers who will buy comparable amounts (in aggregate) and pay higher prices? Or did your company's product volume simply decrease?
You just asked if they could make it up on volume when they clearly stated they
... were losing money on every part sold to Apple.
.
How pointy is your hair?
Volume is a huge deal if you are loosing money on each item. If you're losing 5 for each unit you ship but only ship 1000, you lost $50. If you are losing 5 for each unit and you ship 100,000,000, you lost $5,000,000. That is pretty significant.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
https://plus.google.com/103125075016130428003/posts/j5yHU4U1ssA
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Like the parent to your post said, the Nexus 10:
"Google has also been working with Samsung to launch a 10-inch tablet, confirming leaks which suggested Google had teamed up with the Korean manufacturer for another device. Our source tells us that internally the tablet goes under the name “Codename Manta”, runs Google’s new Android 4.2 operating system (previously referred to as Key Lime Pie, but is set to retain the Jelly Bean branding), and will offer a 2560×1600 pixel (16:10) resolution, which we believe will offer around 300 pixels per inch (PPI) compared to the new iPad’s 264 PPI."
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/10/21/revealed-everything-that-google-will-announce-at-its-android-event-on-october-29/
All the talk is of Apple going thermonuclear against Android. Looks like the opposing sides are about to get serious. It might be verging on being anti-competitive but there must be some Samsung execs saying "screw 'em, they wanted a war? We'll give them a war. How long can we run at cost on tablets using the components we would have shipped to Apple to make phones/tablets so cheaply Apple will have no sales for the next year". Then we can get back to dealing with people who are fair. The usual rules of business deals appear to have been thrown out of the window by Apple's aggression, now time to reap the seeds they've sown in the tech sector.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
When I worked for IBM in the '80s there was a policy for suppliers:
1. We aren't the supplier's sole/major customer.
2. They aren't our sole/major supplier.
3. We changed suppliers every few years so there was no risk of dependency building up.
Also, it doesn't do anyone any good to bankrupt your suppliers. Some competitor could swoop in and buy them out. Their skilled people may leave the industry. They may merge with their competitor and reduce diversity of supply. And so on.
No sane manufacturer puts his suppliers in jeopardy by forcing them to sell at a loss.