Why Apple and Samsung Still Get Along, Behind the Courtroom Battles

After suing each other for the last few years in various courts around the world, you'd think that if Apple and Samsung were human beings they would have walked away from their rocky relationship a while back. The Wall Street Journal explains (beside the larger fact that they're both huge companies with complex links, rather than a squabbling couple) why it's so hard for Apple to take up with another supplier. Things are starting to look different, though: "Apple's deal this month to start buying chips from TSMC is a milestone. Apple long wanted to build its own processors, and it bought a chip company in 2008 to begin designing the chips itself. But it continued to rely on Samsung to make them. ... TSMC plans to start mass-producing the chips early next year using advanced '20-nanometer' technology, which makes the chips potentially smaller and more energy-efficient."

Comments

It's because Steve is gone

[kthreadd]

Now they are just riding it out, both laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Alliance: two thieves who have their hands so deeply insert into each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Alliance: two thieves who have their hands so deeply insert into each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

That sounds like something out of Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[arbiter1]

Um, not really, Apple needs Samsung, Samsung doesn't need apple. Samsung is one few companies that can keep the demand apple has for chips in its phones. Going from company size, Samsung is much larger and worth a lot more considering they make so many products where as Apple 95-98% of their profits are from 2 product's

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Guy Harris]

Alliance: two thieves who have their hands so deeply insert into each other's pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

That sounds like something out of Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary.

That's because it is.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[devleopard]

Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-samsung-chips-idUSBRE84F0BT20120516

Perhaps Samsung doesn't *need* Apple, but they are a major customer and a major source of revenue. Kinda like saying WalMart doesn't *need* to have stores in Texas or California.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Savage-Rabbit]

Um, not really, Apple needs Samsung, Samsung doesn't need apple. Samsung is one few companies that can keep the demand apple has for chips in its phones. Going from company size, Samsung is much larger and worth a lot more considering they make so many products where as Apple 95-98% of their profits are from 2 product's

Samsung's electronics division is a mini corporation within the Samsung empire that cares more about what Apple is doing than what most of the rest of the Samsung empire is doing. At the moment Samsung is making a bundle off of every iPhone, iPad and iPod sold by Apple on top of what they are making from their own like of tablets and smartphones and that has to count as a pretty nice win-win situation. I can't imagine that the bean counters at Samsung are happy at the prospect of a major smartphone and tablet computer manufacturer who commands 20% of the smartphone market and 40% of the tablet computer market (and the lucrative high end segments of those markets at that), will in future be spending money that previously flowed into Samsung 's coffers with Samsung's competitors.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:

Are you seriously trying to imply that the stock market in the short term is an objective measure of, well, anything other than the emotions of the participants?

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[maccodemonkey]

Um, not really, Apple needs Samsung, Samsung doesn't need apple. Samsung is one few companies that can keep the demand apple has for chips in its phones. Going from company size, Samsung is much larger and worth a lot more considering they make so many products where as Apple 95-98% of their profits are from 2 product's

TSMC plans to start mass-producing the chips early next year using advanced '20-nanometer' technology, which makes the chips potentially smaller and more energy-efficient.

Seems Apple doesn't need Samsung.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Bing Tsher E]

If Apple disappeared and 1 Infinite Loop became an instant smoking crater, the market demand for cell phones with Samsung chips and displays would not disappear. So some other company would make those cell phones with Samsung chips and displays in them. Perhaps an enlarged division of Samsung. Perhaps some other customer of Samsung.

The fact that a bunch of speculators leapt at a rumor like that is more a reflection of how flaky investors are, not a reflect on anything about Samsung.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

The world isn't black and white...

I don't think anyone credible claims that the stock market is completely efficient.

But to suggest that it's 100% emotions is just silly.

If you sincerely believe that, then it should be pretty easy for you to go in and make a killing in the market.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrections:
1. Samsung manufacturers some parts in Apple phones. Not the other way around.
2. Samsung doesn't need to create a division to design phones because they already do that.
2. I'm not on board with the magnitude of investor response to that story (nor do I know if 6% is correct), but certainly investors responding to news hardly qualifies as "flakey". Furthermore TSMC is generally ahead of Samsung's fabs (like 1/2 tech node ahead 32 vs 28nm)

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[JonnyO]

Arrangements like Apple's and Samsung's may sound strange at first but it happens a lot more than one might think. I work for a very large French company that has its own in-house IT services group, yet my subsidiary handles the majority of its IT operations on its own, including using external hosting companies and service providers that directly compete with them. We can get away with it because we execute faster, with better flexibility, higher quality, and for less money.

BTW, controlling the manufacturing isn't the advantage some make it out to be. It's a very low-margin industry, which is why so much of it is done in low-wage places like China. If bringing manufacturing in-house had strategic value then you can be assured that Apple and any other company with a decent mountain of cash would work on acquiring such capabilities. Take a look at Sony- nobody is citing their in-house manufacturing as a key differentiator or advantage.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[tlhIngan]

Arrangements like Apple's and Samsung's may sound strange at first but it happens a lot more than one might think. I work for a very large French company that has its own in-house IT services group, yet my subsidiary handles the majority of its IT operations on its own, including using external hosting companies and service providers that directly compete with them. We can get away with it because we execute faster, with better flexibility, higher quality, and for less money.

Actually, what's interesting is there's a huge interdependency on every company - Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc., they're all interdependent. Everyone thinks it's "Apple vs. Samsung" or "Google vs. Apple", but the world isn't so black and white. In fact, I bet a lot of products contain a significant amount of, shall we say, incest, where competitors actually help build part of the product.

And things don't get easier as well - because these interdependencies ensure that the market stays interesting. Remove any one and things start collapsing. Apple and Google compete on a lot of things (and it allows Apple and Google to do a lot of things that if it wasn't for the other, it could be found as anti-competitive), but they also share a lot of things as well.

Hell, you can probably pick any silicon valley company to boycott, and any high-tech product, and find there's a connection between the two.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But to suggest that it's 100% emotions is just silly.

I do believe it is 100% emotions - economics itself is just a branch of psychology.

However, not all emotions are wrong, I just think they aren't an accurate tool, one way or the other, to evaluate the fundamentals of a company.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the cash you're holding is just a bunch of emotions too. Let me guess, you love it so much that you wouldn't want to give them to me. Seriously, those pieces of paper and numbers in a bank account that are inherently of no value. Why so emotional?

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm sure the cash you're holding is just a bunch of emotions too. Let me guess, you love it so much that you wouldn't want to give them to me.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. You got some other interpretation?

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[whisper_jeff]

While "need" might be subjective, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how the internet continues to believe that Samsung doesn't care about Apple as a customer.

Even accounting for the fact that these articles are a bit dated (and I do mean a bit - one is months old and the other is less than a year old), it's clear that Apple is a SIGNIFICANT part of Samsung's finances.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/08/07/apple-now-accounts-for-8-8-of-samsungs-revenue/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2269565/apples-iphone-and-ipad-chips-generated-83-percent-of-samsungs-processor-revenue

I don't know too many companies that are happy about cutting out 9-ish% of their revenue just to spite a rival. That is a HUGE portion of a company's bottom line. I don't know of any company that is willing to lose 83% of a divisions revenue.

So, no, Samsung may not literally _NEED_ Apple - they probably won't fall into bankruptcy if Apple cuts all ties - but it would be foolish to think that Samsung doesn't care about Apple's money that is stuffing their coffers. It would be silly to think that Samsung is happy that Apple is shifting their supply chain away from them. Say whatever you want about Samsung (and there certainly is a lot that can be said about them) but I have to assume their upper management is smart enough to know that losing Apple as a customer is a very bad thing.

How the talking heads on the internet haven't figured that out is beyond me. I guess their hatred of Apple is blinding them to the facts of the business world, namely that companies like having customers that bring in a lot of money and dislike losing customers that bring in a lot of money.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[AmiMoJo]

Assuming TSMC can really start churning high millions of chips on a brand new 20nm process reliably. Seems unlikely considering how often they have had teething problems with new processes in the past.

You don't just buy a machine that turns raw silicone into CPUs or radios. It is of course far too early to predict what will happen but there is a huge amount of risk involved for Apple. It really wouldn't surprise me if new hardware gets delayed or fitted with parts built on an older process as TSMC struggle to ramp up yields and quality to acceptable levels.

Look at it another way, there is a reason why they don't supply chips competing with Samsung's high end stuff at the moment. Apple is hoping they can do it in the future.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[LordLucless]

No; Apple are planning to not need Samsung in the future. They are doing that precisely because they do need Samsung now. They're getting rid of a single point of failure.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't responding to news, they were responding to a rumour. Seems like flakey behaviour to me.

In theory the stock market price of a company would reflect its value, in practice it has been shown time and time again that the stock market gets it wrong.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

It honestly depends on a handful of things. It ends up not being such a rosy deal almost every time.

Saying it's low margin so you have it elsewhere denies a handful of realities- one of which is that you have to watch those offshored fabricators like a hawk or you end up with an Aquadots/Bindeez disaster wherein they substituted one chemically similar plasticizer (1,5-pentanediol) that was intrinsically safe for the other (1,4-butanediol) which metabolizes into gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, the infamous date-rape drug in the gut- all to save a bit of THEIR margins.

In doing so, you end up eating up all those vaunted margins you speak of making sure they don't screw you like that- or you play a game of Russian Roulette wherein the gun's got 2 bullets loaded in the cylinder, just waiting for one of them to go off (at which point you lose even MORE money than you could've EVER have saved by doing it the way you did...)

I know of at least one manufacturer that moved their stuff stateside again precisely because of what I just mentioned. Quality went up, costs actually went down. Just by making it stateside.

Any time I see someone say the stuff you just did- I see some fool that either doesn't have a clue about what they're talking to or someone that's following the almighty dollar gambling on themselves being the "lucky ones" just once.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[bestalexguy]

Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:

Are you seriously trying to imply that the stock market in the short term is an objective measure of, well, anything other than the emotions of the participants?

Yes.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[gl4ss]

manufacturing? this is about manufacturing of parts that you pretty much can't buy from anyone else, and the next years models of the parts you can't either...

as for apple, it's just not in their textbook and they're doing fine as it is. they would have to magic recruit half of samsungs key people and kicking up chip production lines is a process that takes billions and years to do and even then it's risky if they can match the quality of process to actually compete. it's a nasty cutthroat business which can have big payoffs.

I think though that I made this exact same comment a year ago and a year before that and a year before that... getting a bit old.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[maccodemonkey]

Assuming TSMC can really start churning high millions of chips on a brand new 20nm process reliably. Seems unlikely considering how often they have had teething problems with new processes in the past.

According to the article, they've been doing trial runs for a few years. It's not unthinkable that they've worked out the teething issues during that time.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[jellomizer]

Even with Steve.
The competition is across Business Units, Not the actually Businesses.

Companies like Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, Apple... Have a lot of different Units making a slue of different stuff. Chances are these big technology companies will make something the other guy is making, Thus they will be competing to get dominance for that product. However these guys also have a fair amount of stuff that is unique to them. Where the other Companies Business unit is the Valued Customer for that piece.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[hazydave]

Also, it's reportedly just new chips going to TSMC. That makes some sense -- there's work and money to get an existing design moved to a new process. So Samsung's still going to be making A5s or A6s for the near future. And maybe other stuff -- there's certainly a contract between Apple and Samsung that has to be run out. And it's pretty unlikely Apple would bet on a new process. They haven't so far.. the chips Samsung did for them usually started out in a more conservative process. Whether that's Apple being cautious, or Samsung keeping the best for themselves, is anyone's guess.

And no, I don't imagine a machine turning raw silicone into CPUs. Maybe breast implants and the better quality diving masks. But even when you start with silicon, it's still an involved process.

As for competing with Samsung's high-end.. Apple's got some multitasking issues. Android definitely taps four cores... seen that all the time on my tablet's performance monitor. iOS... supposedly, not so much right now. As long as Apple customers are happy that way, Apple's going to be spending less overall money per chip and selling that gear for more than Samsung. Not a bad business if you can get it. Then again, maybe not -- gaming has become so critical to Apple, they tend to ship their new devices with the fastest GPU rigs around (PowerVR, not their own, but still, more/faster cores).

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

As for competing with Samsung's high-end.. Apple's got some multitasking issues. Android definitely taps four cores... seen that all the time on my tablet's performance monitor. iOS... supposedly, not so much right now.

Multitasking issues? Don't be ridiculous. Much like Android's use of the Linux kernel, iOS uses Darwin, aka the same kernel as OS X. iOS is essentially a mobile-optimized OS X with a bit of high level framework skew. It has all the support for multicore which desktop OS X has, right down to technologies like Grand Central Dispatch. There aren't any technical problems preventing the use of more than 2 cores in iOS.

I get the feeling you're referencing the longstanding Apple hater memes about iOS multitasking -- Apple's can't write a multitasking OS, etc. Those memes are so, so very dumb. iOS restrictions on multitasking were always artificial, not fundamental. Apple wants ordinary users to be able to download any damn thing from the App Store without ever experiencing it invisibly draining their battery in the background. That's very difficult for nontechies to understand, track down, and fix, and minimizing the need for that kind of sysadminning is a core iOS design goal. Apple's crude initial solution was simply to prohibit 3rd party apps (note: not their own!) from running in the background at all. Later they began to permit 3rd party apps to run in the background -- but they're only permitted to do a limited set of things and the OS watches background threads to make sure they're not using excessive resources.

The real issues keeping quadcores out of Apple's phones and tablets follow that same theme. Apple likes to keep battery life high and physical form factor small. The only way to deliver both at once is to be very careful about system (HW+SW) design. Part of that system level optimization is not building in excessive CPU power -- if most mobile apps don't really need four CPUs, then you make do with two, and push as much compute as you can to more energy-efficient hardware such as GPUs and video encode/decode blocks.

Apple's going to be spending less overall money per chip and selling that gear for more than Samsung. Not a bad business if you can get it. Then again, maybe not -- gaming has become so critical to Apple, they tend to ship their new devices with the fastest GPU rigs around (PowerVR, not their own, but still, more/faster cores).

The extraordinarily large GPUs actually mean Apple's often spending more per chip than Samsung. Even the Exynos 5 Octa (which has four Cortex-A7 plus four Cortex-A15 cores) only manages to come out to about the same die size as Apple's A6X (two Swift cores). And Apple's practice of putting in big, fast GPUs is not a new development in response to iOS gaming.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Plumpaquatsch]

Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:

Are you seriously trying to imply that the stock market in the short term is an objective measure of, well, anything other than the emotions of the participants?

Everybody knows it's only valid for AAPL.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Plumpaquatsch]

No; Apple are planning to not need Samsung in the future. They are doing that precisely because they do need Samsung now. They're getting rid of a single point of failure.

By that reasoning, Samsung does needs Apple - else they would just stop doing business with them.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[LordLucless]

No; by that reasoning, if Samsung needed Apple, you'd be seeing Samsung frantically wooing customers so they're not dependant on one company.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

and you dont know what your talking about.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[Plumpaquatsch]

No; by that reasoning, if Samsung needed Apple, you'd be seeing Samsung frantically wooing customers so they're not dependant on one company.

And by the same reasoning Apple wouldn't change to a different supplier.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[LordLucless]

Reasoning; I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

Re:It's because Steve is gone

[crutchy]

two thieves who have their hands so deeply insert into each other's pockets

sounds kinda gay to me

It's because of Steve

[tuppe666]

Now they are just riding it out, both laughing all the way to the bank.

Wow. Ironically Apple could have manufactured themselves under Steve Jobs regime but instead chose through cost saving go elsewhere(Samsung). They famously laughed at the president at the suggestion of bringing Apple Manufacturing to the states, and now are having the unpleasant sunrise of of their top (and only) phone looking mid range and 12-18 months out of date at launch. While Samsung refresh a product range every three months. Now thousands of patents are on various hardware components by various Korean and Chinese companies....with Apple having relatively few design & interface patents, admittedly with a friendly court system looking favourably at them.

Thankfully Jobs does not have to live with the consequences of this...as he died, but in context of going to the bank article...Apple is going to the bank with less profits (less market share, less market cap, less brand value, less cutting edge, less interesting products, less news, less innovation). At least Dell finally got to say I told you so.

Re:It's because of Steve

[dfghjk]

Usually when you find an Apple-related comment this ignorant its from a pro-Apple perspective.

"Thankfully Jobs does not have to live with the consequences of this...as he died..."

You're not only a fool but an asshole.

Re:It's because of Steve

[rtb61]

It was always about Apple saturation marketing. Even this article falls for the trap, Apple designed chip, what bloody Apple designed chip. Three other companies chips, stuck on a daughter board and called a chip does not make it a chip beyond Apple marketing.

Re:It's because of Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a decent blog post that I concur with as a multi-platform developer. Time to tuck away that phanboy attitude and open your eyes to the world of tech, it improves your health (always happy to hear of any new tech!) and smells a lot less like shit too! http://www.passion4teq.com/articles/ios-android-development-comparison-1/

Re:It's because of Steve

[Guy Harris]

Wow. Ironically Apple could have manufactured themselves under Steve Jobs regime but instead chose through cost saving go elsewhere(Samsung).

Manufactured what? Chips? Apple never did that, and I'm not sure it would have made sense for them to own Their Very Own Foundry. LCD panels? See previous comment. Systems? Samsung doesn't do that for Apple, an assortment of companies, most but not all Chinese/Taiwanese, do so (although that page claims some company named "Apple" also assembles Macs in Cork, so they're probably Irish :-)).

Now thousands of patents are on various hardware components by various Korean and Chinese companies....with Apple having relatively few design & interface patents,

Just out of curiosity, has anybody trawled through various patent databases to get numbers on that? Apple has a number of patents (at least in a quick US Patent Office search, looking for "Apple" in the assignee name and "Cupertino" in the assignee city, the number is 6581), and pulling out the hardware patents might be a bit of work. The same applies to the Korean and Chinese/Taiwanese companies, but you then have to pull out the relevant hardware patents; for example, U.S. Patent 8,471,469, assigned to Samsung, is probably not particularly relevant unless we start putting plasma displays into laptops, tablets, or smartphones.

At least Dell finally got to say I told you so.

No, not yet. Maybe at some time he'll be able to say that, although it'll be interesting to see where Dell Computer is at that point.

Re:It's because of Steve

[R3d M3rcury]

But in 1+ year, the iPhone will still be supported by (decent) software updates

Which is great, because you'll be able to get that neat feature next year.

Re:It's because of Steve

[immaterial]

Apple uses their own custom-designed ARM CPU core.

Re:It's because of Steve

[rtb61]

Marketing is always marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture. Let's guess the customisation is it says Apple everywhere instead of ARM Holdings plc. They designed the cores not Apple, but hey, don't let Apple marketing or troll moderating stop you.

Re:It's because of Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Marketing is always marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture. Let's guess the customisation is it says Apple everywhere instead of ARM Holdings plc. They designed the cores not Apple, but hey, don't let Apple marketing or troll moderating stop you.

This is why AMD chips and Intel chips are identical, they're all just x86 so there's no difference between them, right? No instructions that only exist on one or the other, no different pipeline lengths, no different dispatchers and resource blocks, no different cache sizes or line allocating algorithms, etc.

You really shouldn't pretend to be an expert on something you don't know. The Instruction set is just the interface between the software and the hardware, and whilst it limits the options, there is still plenty of scope for differentiation. Unless you're about to tell me that Linux and BSD are identical just because they're both POSIX compliant, or Windows 98 and Windows 7 are the same because you can run applications from 98 on both.

Re:It's because of Steve

[chowdahhead]

Apple has licensed the ARM cpu design, PowerVR GPU, and Qualcomm radios for years. They may design the layout, but not the IP. As far as I'm aware, only Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Marvell have ARM architecture licenses that allow them to design custom logic compatible with the v7/v8 instruction sets. Everyone else is building SOC's with the reference implementation provided by ARM.

Re:It's because of Steve

[immaterial]

As far as I'm aware, only Broadcom, Qualcomm, and Marvell have ARM architecture licenses that allow them to design custom logic compatible with the v7/v8 instruction sets. Everyone else is building SOC's with the reference implementation provided by ARM.

You are unaware. Apple is an ARM architecture licensee. Apple'a A6 core is a fully customized architecture - the Anandtech link I already posted made that clear.

And while we're on the subject, let's not also forget ARM's historical ties with Apple in designing ARM cores in the 80's and 90's.

Re:It's because of Steve

[immaterial]

Let's guess

No, how about some facts?

Re:It's because of Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's guess the customisation is it says Apple everywhere instead of ARM Holdings plc. They designed the cores not Apple, but hey, don't let Apple marketing or troll moderating stop you.

FYI, you're being pretty fucking stupid right here. It is well known which Apple phones used ARM Holdings plc cores, and which don't.

iPhone & iPhone 3G: ARM Holdings 1176
iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4: ARM Holdings Cortex-A8 (hardened by Intrinsity)
iPhone 4S: Dual ARM Holdings Cortex-A9 (hardened by Intrinsity)
iPhone 5: Dual Apple Swift

Apple is one of the handful of companies known to have paid ARM Holdings plc for an ARM architectural license, which allows the holder to design their own ARM cores. They acquired two key companies to take advantage of that license -- Intrinsity for physical design (hardening), and PA Semi to design their CPU core. Swift is the result. It really was designed by Apple, no matter what "hurr hurr MARKETING!!!!" trolls like you may say.

(The especially stupid thing about your claim? Apple doesn't even use the fact that they designed the CPU cores in their marketing.)

How to make money and lose business outsourcing

[Cassini2]

A simple sure-fire plan:
1. Outsource all of your core competencies - parts, production, everything. Keep nothing in house.
2. Profit!!!
Quietly, suppliers start selling direct to customers to make more money.
3. Find cheaper suppliers - more Profits!!!
Discover your original suppliers now sell a better product.
4. Liquidation sale! More Profits!!!

Last Step:
1. Write a business school textbook, preaching the virtues of the first 3 steps.

Re:How to make money and lose business outsourcing

[csumpi]

ROFL. Wish I had mod points for you.

Re:How to make money and lose business outsourcing

[Guy Harris]

A simple sure-fire plan: 1. Outsource all of your core competencies - parts, production, everything. Keep nothing in house.

So to what company are you referring here? Apple never fabbed their own chips; they have designed their own support chips (although, these days, the Mac probably mainly use Intel and/or Nvidia support chips); they do much of the design (and, no, I don't mean just "styling") work on their machines; and they do a lot of the software engineering. I don't know whether assembly was ever a core competency, but a lot of the other stuff Apple doesn't do is stuff they never did, and the design and engineering work, which I'd consider core competencies, haven't been outsourced.

Re:How to make money and lose business outsourcing

[ozmanjusri]

Quietly, suppliers start selling direct to customers to make more money.

Samsung was making and selling phones long before Apple employed them to make iPhones.

Re:How to make money and lose business outsourcing

[Zontar The Mindless]

I have a Samsung flip phone I bought in 2004 or '05 (this one). Let a friend borrow it for a couple of weeks after he his was destroyed* while visiting here last month. Still has good reception and voice quality, and lasts about 3 days between charges.

(*And therein lies a tale. I'll include it in my memoirs.)

He also got hooked on the (Java) photo fishing game, and tried to buy the phone from me so he could keep playing it.

One very nice advantage to the form factor (if you're male, or not, but wear guys' jeans) is being able to tuck it into your watch pocket, since most men's trousers still come with one.

Highest paid in World

[tuppe666]

I'm just thinking out loud but, could he be taking bribes from Samsung (or others) to make himself rich on the sidelines?...

From his Wikipedia Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook "In early 2012, he was awarded compensation of 1 million shares, vesting in 2016 and 2021, by Apple's Board of Directors.[5] As of 2012, Cook's total compensation package of US$378 million makes him the highest paid CEO in the world"

So I would say No!

Re:Highest paid in World

[GumphMaster]

OK, so just as those shares vest there's great scope for a bit of dump-n-dump... but no need for Samsung to be involved in that

Re:Except that you asume everybody is dumb like yo

[kesuki]

'Or are you too dumb not to question why a company that makes the CPUs and retina displays for Apple can't use them in their own product line."

first off there are patents, which both accuse the other of violating, next of all there is the fact that ios doesn't come with 'knowing' how to make the parts, which you claim samsung doesn't know despite making them. of course the agreement to not reuse apple tech is needed because well we all know how the government feels about patents and trademarks. especially in china where most of apple's product line is made...

personally i call prior art, on tablets as st tng used them heavily...

I remember 2007

[tuppe666]

Midrange and out of date. Last I checked it still blew anything else out there out of the water in pretty much any benchmark. How's the iPhone mid-range in anything other than fanboy nonsense?

2007 was a great year, the film 300 game out, The last episode of the price is right, and Anna Nicole Smith's untimely death.

I can't think of a flagship phone from competing company that is not newer, higher DPI, More RAM, Faster processor, With features like waterproof and IR running a later OS.

Apple fell behind a long time ago, This is just getting more and more marked as time goes on.

Re:I remember 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

It's telling you are speaking outside your area of expertise, there's a rather large optimization gap between Apple's in-house iOS vs Samsung's use of Android.

Re:I remember 2007

[JDG1980]

It's telling you are speaking outside your area of expertise, there's a rather large optimization gap between Apple's in-house iOS vs Samsung's use of Android.

Agreed. I liked what I've heard about the Galaxy Note II, so I took a look at one that was on display at a local electronics store. Oh, the hardware looks really nice, but the user interface is nasty and cluttered compared to iOS, and animations were jerky and dropped frames. To some extent this may have been due to all the crapware AT&T loaded onto the phone, but that in itself is a problem for Samsung: they haven't been nearly as effective at playing hardball with the carriers as Apple has been. They need to be able to put their unblemished product out there rather than let those parasites shit it up.

Re:I remember 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is Tuppe666 for his daily iPhone bashing and Google fellating. Hooray for the shills!

Re:I remember 2007

[MrDoh!]

To be fair, I've never understood why Samsung allows their demo models to be so terrible to use. The Galaxy Tab's on display to play with, I couldn't believe how laggy/slow they were compared to the one I had (pre messing about with custom roms). Don't know if it's because of the demo software/out of date OS, or lesser hardware to save a few bucks on a device that isn't actually sold, but yeah, when you play with one in a store, and one that someone actually owns, the difference is incredibly noticeable.

Re:I remember 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh joy - another trolling from the 'tuppe666' twat and some morons mod it as insightful.
Sigh.

Re:I remember 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

It's telling that you're an Apple fanboi- and speaking outside of your area of expertise.

It matters not whether the OS is in-house or not (Hint, the core of the Android that Google supposedly does is being adapted by Samsung and then the UI on top is too- there's a reason Google's trying to more normalize this stuff...). And the rest you just simply blew off. Fact of the matter is tuppe666 has the rights of things and you seized on an irrelevant detail of things, claiming it's important and you can just do an ad-hominem to gloss everything over, trying to get your way.

I suggest you practice what you preach and be silent unless you have better than what you lead with.

Move to Google Play Edition Phones

[tuppe666]

top (and only) phone looking mid range and 12-18 months out of date at launch

Samsung's phones might be more cutting edge at launch. But in 1+ year, the iPhone will still be supported by (decent) software updates, and the Samsung phone will be long forgotten for the latest and greatest.

Interesting I have seen a launch of what is dubbed "Google Play edition phones"(including samsung) from a few manufacturers that come with stock android. In response to this very issue. They now come with Vanilla Android and will be easier to update. Apple conversely is expanding their product line instead of using older models as a product line so expect support lengths to drop dramatically.

Re:Move to Google Play Edition Phones

[Anonymous Coward]

top (and only) phone looking mid range and 12-18 months out of date at launch

Samsung's phones might be more cutting edge at launch. But in 1+ year, the iPhone will still be supported by (decent) software updates, and the Samsung phone will be long forgotten for the latest and greatest.

Interesting I have seen a launch of what is dubbed "Google Play edition phones"(including samsung) from a few manufacturers that come with stock android. In response to this very issue. They now come with Vanilla Android and will be easier to update. Apple conversely is expanding their product line instead of using older models as a product line so expect support lengths to drop dramatically.

GP here. So if you didn't buy a "Google Play edition phone" then kiss off right?

Re:Move to Google Play Edition Phones

[Plumpaquatsch]

What's up with you bringing up Google's efforts to fix things as proof that they aren't broken?

TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[Nova Express]

TSMC is a foundry; Apple contracts with TSMC to manufacturer their chips for them.

Re:TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[TechyImmigrant]

Same thing. Apple give TSMC money. TSMC do wafer starts for Apple.

Re:TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

So TSMC has a contract with Apple to sell them chips to their specifications. How is that not selling?

Re: TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, sort of, SEH is the foundry, TSMC is the processor.

Re:TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[gl4ss]

TSMC is a foundry; Apple contracts with TSMC to manufacturer their chips for them.

actually the definition depends on who carriers the risk.. if it's apples risk then sure.. but I seriously doubt they made a deal with tsmc that is not directly tied to output of working chips.

Re:TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed. However, seeing as TMSC is pretty much the last foundry they can go to (Global Foundries doesn't have the capacity for it and Intel doesn't do fab work) I somehow doubt the terms they got are as much in favour of Apple as they would like.

Re: TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[slew]

Most folks in the (fab-less) semiconductor industry are referencing the foundry business model of TSMC. In the historical foundry business model, a foundry is where you can contract to have *custom* metal parts forged. In modern usage, SEH would generally be considered a supplier to TSMC, since the silicon wafer is more of a *standard* part, not a *custom* part.

SEH might have been considered analogous to foundry of sorts since a historical metal-works foundry poured metal into casts and finished them and SEH actually make the silicon ingots and cuts and finishes them into "blank" silicon wafers. However, since it is TSMC which sells custom services, and the wafers are more-or-less standard parts, TSMC are more akin to the foundry provider from a business sense and thus are called that in modern usage.

Re:TSMC doesn't sell "To" Apple

[slew]

In common usage TSMC is the foundry not Apple (even if apple started buying equipment to process wafers, then it would simply be running a captive fab).

FWIW, the common terms of large foundry contracts have varied greatly over the last few decades. Some examples of "pure" pricing models:

* wafer starts (to reserve some fraction of capacity)
* processed wafers (that had their wafer process monitor circuits working within a range of pre-agreed parameters).
* working die (pre-diced chips that pass a short customer defined wafer probe tests)

Nearly all large contracts are a blend between these pure pricing models and are a function of the times.

When wafers are cheap and factories have lots of capacity (say when a new process comes on line, the older factories may have extra capacity and/or a competitive yield advantage relative to other companies), OR when the process is new and proper yield correlations are unknown, most customers can get the working die pricing model.

When capacity is really tight, a large customer might have to pay some amount of money for a wafer start just to reserve capacity at the factory (even if the processed wafer doesn't yield any working parts). Typically this somewhat negates most of the volume discount they would get and puts the pricing more on par with a smaller customer.

Of course everything is negotiable and there is probably a price for everything. However, given the current pricing environment with the capacity limitations TSMC had with 28nm, I doubt anyone could negotiate pure working die deal now unless they paid a handsome penny for each one.

Or using industry measures

[tuppe666]

It's telling you are speaking outside your area of expertise, there's a rather large optimization gap between Apple's in-house iOS vs Samsung's use of Android.

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/03/samsung-galaxy-s-4-benchmarks/ The analysis shows the new Samsung flagship is significantly faster than competing phones including the HTC One, and its predecessor, the Samsung Galaxy S3. However, the S3 also benchmarked faster than the iPhone 5.

So slower than the last generation of Samsung Phones

Re:Or using industry measures

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look. Yet another benchmark showing how superior a new handset is...yet every new handset is still laggy and jerky, including the S3. Something that even a quad core processor and a GB of ram haven't fixed.

Specs are fine and all, but if the basic interface is still laggy, the speed of the processor in a non-real world benchmark, isn't all that attractive when the user can't help but notice.

http://androidforums.com/samsung-galaxy-s3/597461-why-my-samsung-galaxy-s3-getting-laggy-slow.html

Technology Reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

"Potentially" makes them smaller and more power efficient. Or rather "does" but the reporter isn't knowledgeable enough to know one way or another. And the real reason for the switch? TSMC will be shipping 20nm, and Samsung wont be for months and months and months, they haven't even announced a switch to a smaller process.

Apple tends towards sticking the highest quality components it can find in its devices, and next year TSMC will provide that while Samsung won't be. Not hard to figure out why the switch is happening.

Re:Technology Reporting

[TechyImmigrant]

>"Potentially" makes them smaller and more power efficient. Or rather "does" but the reporter isn't knowledgeable enough to know one way or another.

No. The reporter is spot on. While in the past doing a simple shrink without redesign or significant relayout would always give power and area savings, the same is no longer true, since energy density and leakage may go up faster than dynamic power goes down. So you may need to re-layout to dilute the heat concentrations and you may find yourself consuming more power.

These days, adding advanced power features to chips is a necessary step to yield the full power and area benefits of denser transistors. Witness the power and area improvements in Haswell over Ivy Bridge, while the process (22nm) stayed fairly constant.

Re:Technology Reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

"Potentially" makes them smaller and more power efficient. Or rather "does" but the reporter isn't knowledgeable enough to know one way or another. And the real reason for the switch? TSMC will be shipping 20nm, and Samsung wont be for months and months and months, they haven't even announced a switch to a smaller process.

Apple tends towards sticking the highest quality components it can find in its devices, and next year TSMC will provide that while Samsung won't be. Not hard to figure out why the switch is happening.

If a smaller manufacturing process was the most important consideration, Apple would have had Intel manufacture the chips for them.

Why would they?

[tuppe666]

'Or are you too dumb not to question why a company that makes the CPUs and retina displays for Apple can't use them in their own product line.

Apples CPU's are measurably slower tham the Samsung Galaxy SIII Samsung last generation product and retina Display has become synonymous with Low DPI as 1080P becomes the new normal for Android.

Re: Why would they?

[alen]

No, the galaxy s3 is slower than my iPhone 5. I have both phones and use them daily. The s3 is laggy compared to my iPhone.

Re:Why would they?

[JDG1980]

retina Display has become synonymous with Low DPI as 1080P becomes the new normal for Android

That's true on smartphones, but on the tablet side, Apple still has better DPI than any Android device except the Nexus 10. Samsung's flagship Galaxy Note 10.1 still has a mediocre 1280x800 display, which is worse than some newer smartphones. And I haven't seen a replacement with a high-DPI display announced yet.

Samsung does seem to be making some efforts to bring high-DPI displays to Windows laptops. They have an upcoming product with a 3200x1800 screen, which is definitely nice to see. Other vendors have announced the same thing, so hopefully software companies like Adobe will get off their ass and start to make their software play nice with DPI scaling. (Photoshop currently ignores the Windows scaling factor completely, since it draws its own widgets rather than relying on the system to do so. This means really, really tiny controls on a high-DPI screen.)

Re: Why would they?

[Khyber]

The iPhone sucks, because you're treated as if you're a child. Can't go into 18+ rooms on Camfrog, you're stuck to General (which usually has more vulgarity and that's where you find most of the wankers jacking off on camera ANYWAYS) or Camfrog-sponsored rooms (which universally suck.)

My POS ZTE Score treats me like an adult, and runs rings around the iPhone in terms of software availability and freedom.

Guess which one gets more usage?

Re:I can't believe fanbois buy the lie

[Anonymous Coward]

like coke and pepsi, the only thing the 2 parties hate more than each other are a third party.

It takes years to change logistics

[alen]

Apple can't just order 100 million cpu's from someone. You need the infrastructure and supply chain to be able to meet the orders. And you don't dare drop existing customers

It's taking apple five years to diversify its suppliers which is about average for a company their size

Apple's capital expenses have been huge lately which most likely means they are buying the machinery for their suppliers to make their stuff for them

It's just business

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung still has Apple business and knows better than to eat the hand that feeds it. They know how to calculate the bottom line.

As long as Samsung has Apple business it will only defend itself in court only to the extent that it doesn't affect the business relationship. When Samsung no longer has Apple business, it no longer has a reason to play by Apple's rules.

Perceptions

[DaMattster]

Sometimes the perception of conflict really works well because it draws media attention to those involved: almost like some free advertising. For the longest time, Coca Cola and Pepsi played up on the public's perception of bitter competition and conflict. In reality, the competition is a good bit friendlier with the executives at each company respecting their counterparts; If you recall, a few years ago someone tried to steal a recipe from Coke and hand it to Pepsi. Pepsi Co ended up reporting this to authorities.

Re:Perceptions

[tlhIngan]

Sometimes the perception of conflict really works well because it draws media attention to those involved: almost like some free advertising. For the longest time, Coca Cola and Pepsi played up on the public's perception of bitter competition and conflict. In reality, the competition is a good bit friendlier with the executives at each company respecting their counterparts; If you recall, a few years ago someone tried to steal a recipe from Coke and hand it to Pepsi. Pepsi Co ended up reporting this to authorities.

That's not friendliness, that's clean business. Most companies will refuse to hire someone based on the secrets they hold. After all, if someone is willing to "defect" to you based on secrets they have, there's nothing stopping them from stealing your secrets and defecting as well.

That guy is effectively radioactive - do not even get close because he won't respect any NDA.

Also, the perception that you hired an employee from a competitor for the secrets has the potential to taint the entire company. In this case, if Pepsi decided to hire him for the secret formula, it taints ALL of Pepsi's products. And you can't prove a negative ("we did NOT use the recipe in this product! Honest!"). And tainted product can be the target or lawsuits, forced licensing or other nastiness.

Just like how the leak of source code for Windows was avoided by all OSS developers to avoid taint issues, Pepsi wished to avoid taint as well. Especially since the alternative route is easier - just get a damned mass spectrometer and analyze Coke. It'll be cheaper than multi-million or multi-billion dollar lawsuits any day.

Reporting it is also generally good business, again for NDA monitoring.

Sorry fanboy ... NO

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a rather large optimization gap between Apple's in-house iOS vs Samsung's use of Android.

The analysis shows the new Samsung flagship is significantly faster than competing phones ....

Talk about completely missing the point!

The geekbench benchmarks are measuring only hardware performance. An example of Apple's in-house optimisation re iOS is that iOS has, in the first place is that the touch screen interface forms the core of the OS, it's not an add-on like in Android. The basic fact remains, for Android to deliever anywhere near the same user experience as an iOS phone it need to be run on significantly faster hardware.

Now with the G4 Samsung may well have achieved this, however your reliance on geekbench simply begs the question.

Only the iPhone is laggy

[tuppe666]

Oh look. Yet another benchmark showing how superior a new handset is...yet every new handset is still laggy and jerky, including the S3

Actually the CPU allows you to run better(give it a name) programs at higher resolutions. Its why Flash was not the problem for Android that it is for Apple. Google put an awful lot of effort into improving things like responsiveness. Goolge finally managed to put this lie to sleep with Project Butter http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3118769/android-4-1-jelly-bean.

Here are a few links to fixes to make the iPhone and iPad a little less laggy http://www.imore.com/speed-laggy-ios-device

Re:Only the iPhone is laggy

[93 Escort Wagon]

ts why Flash was not the problem for Android that it is for Apple.

That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've seen on Slashdot in a long time - and that's saying something.

Re:Only the iPhone is laggy

[demonlapin]

Project Butter hasn't effectively made its way into every handset yet. Not even a Galaxy S3 (that was last year's flagship device on VZW) running stock ROM. Still have plenty of lag. I distinctly prefer Android over iOS, but my wife's iPhone never staggers the same way that my GS3 does a few times a day.

Re:Only the iPhone is laggy

[Plumpaquatsch]

Oh look. Yet another benchmark showing how superior a new handset is...yet every new handset is still laggy and jerky, including the S3

Actually the CPU allows you to run better(give it a name) programs at higher resolutions. Its why Flash was not the problem for Android that it is for Apple. Google put an awful lot of effort into improving things like responsiveness. Goolge finally managed to put this lie to sleep with Project Butter http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/27/3118769/android-4-1-jelly-bean.

Google trying desperately to make Androids UI smooth is proof it always was. Yeah right.

Just like Cutler Beckett said...

[AnuradhaRatnaweera]

"It's nothing personal, Jack. It's just good business."

TSMC has a bad track record with new processes

[JDG1980]

"TSMC plans to start mass-producing the chips early next year using advanced '20-nanometer' technology, which makes the chips potentially smaller and more energy-efficient."

I'll believe this when I see it. TSMC has a chronic problem with moving to smaller process nodes; they've got a long history of over-promising and under-delivering. Oh, they eventually get it right, but early customers are basically paying for the privilege of being their beta testers, and Apple is going to find this out if they try to move away from Samsung too quickly. NVIDIA's infamous "bumpgate" fiasco was due, at least in part, to problems with an immature TSMC manufacturing process.

Re:TSMC has a bad track record with new processes

[R3d M3rcury]

Oh, they eventually get it right, but early customers are basically paying for the privilege of being their beta testers, and Apple's customers are going to find this out [...]

FTFY.

But it's okay. I'm sure Tim will write a really nice apology.

Re:TSMC has a bad track record with new processes

[Anonymous Coward]

NVIDIA's infamous "bumpgate" fiasco was due, at least in part, to problems with an immature TSMC manufacturing process.

If by "in part" you mean "not at all". Bumpgate was about packaging, not the circuits. TSMC and other merchant fabs don't always do packaging in-house -- it's up to the customer. IIRC, in this case, Nvidia was having the die bumped and assembled entirely outside of TSMC.

My anecdote can whip your anecdote

[Zontar The Mindless]

My S3 runs rings around my girlfriend's iPhone5. She's mad as hell about it, too. ;)

Re:My anecdote can whip your anecdote

[Anonymous Coward]

On the GPU side iphone 5 is hell of a lot faster than pretty much anything non-powervr-based. Samsung got the memo however. SGS4 switched back to pvr and it has about twice the performance of phone 5. It also needs it though, given its absolutely insane resolution.

Re:My anecdote can whip your anecdote

[Zontar The Mindless]

Contrary to what she would like to have you think, my daughter did not spring fully-formed from my forehead, and was generated in the traditional and time-honoured manner.

Re:My anecdote can whip your anecdote

[Zontar The Mindless]

I don't really know about the speed--they seem roughly the same to me--but the part about her being peeved is true.

I generally avoid Apple products for other reasons, but the phone itself seems okay. One thing I must give Apple credit for regarding the software, though... WTF was with you, Google, that you should overlook something that every other OS on the planet has had since 1985, namely UNDO? Seriously, Windows Three Fucking One had undo functionality. What were you thinking?

Re:My anecdote can whip your anecdote

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to what she would like to have you think, my daughter did not spring fully-formed from my forehead, and was generated in the traditional and time-honoured manner.

So what you are saying that your daughter is your girlfriend.

Re:Except that you asume everybody is dumb like yo

[AmiMoJo]

Samsung and LG own all the patents on the LCDs used in the retina screens. Keep in mind they are pretty low end screens, not even 720p HD, where as those guys are both using 1080p as standard on their own high end models.

Apple doesn't really invent much tech. They are mostly a design company. They take technology from other companies and integrate it, then patent the overall design. That's why they are having problems with FRAND patents - they don't have any to license in return so have to pay cash.

Tax evading perhaps?

[angel'o'sphere]

Apple sues Samsung for damage, Samsung pays perhaps a billion.

I could assume the money Samsung pays to the other one is covered as expenses for Samsung. So it reduces earnings.

OTOH I would assume the money Apple receives as "damage" compensation is not counted as taxable income.

Did Samsung not in return sue Apple for damage on another silly patent?

So both pay each other a billion, reducing their "income" and receive a billion in damage back, which is not counted as income. The costs are court and lawyer costs ... sounds like profit.

In school

[John Allsup]

We'd screw up scraps of paper and throw them at each other.  Here is their 'rich corporate' version: pay expensive lawyers to write
lots of 'legal magick' words on lots of expensive paper, then pay expensive lawyers to throw said paper on behalf of the corporation.
Essentially it's a mischievous children's activity for those with money to burn.  Both corporations can easily pay their 'big' losses, and neither
has anything useful to do with the winnings except pay more lawyers to throw more 'paper snowballs'.

Re:Except that you asume everybody is dumb like yo

[the_B0fh]

That's why they are having problems with FRAND patents - they don't have any to license in return so have to pay cash.

How come you are such an expert on this? Because you sound so damned sure of yourself, yet I know for a fact that Apple does have FRAND patents. For example the ones on x264 that they worked on, or the digital camera ones worked on with Kodak, or even the wireless ones bought from Nortel.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/13/justice_department_approves_apple_patent_purchases_from_nortel_novell

Gotta love those android fanbois that make up bullshit like its real.

Re:Conspiracy

[the_B0fh]

You have shit for brains. Learn how finance at large companies work before you post again on financial stuff. Take a course at a local college. It'll really help you out.

Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung also produces the screens for all of the Apple's mobile products as well... you really think they're going to burn that bridge???

70% are bots

[cheekyboy]

its fact by volume, 70% is pure bots/software

Re:Except that you asume everybody is dumb like yo

[Plumpaquatsch]

Samsung and LG own all the patents on the LCDs used in the retina screens.

Bullshit. http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/06/apples-retina-display-patent-comes-to-light.html

Logically Logistics

[DarthVain]

Of course they thought they could make Mapping software over night. They only did that because they didn't want Google's name to feature more prominently within their phone.

Sometimes even big companies make stupid decisions based more on ideology VS common sense.

All it takes is a CEO that wants to make a name for themselves or some think tank to dream up some sort of strategic advantage.

I think it is very much like MAD when they get really entangled, but if one starts to achieve a superior mine shaft numbers...

hahahha your funny

[cheekyboy]

Touch screen is only an input that generates a realtime buffer matrix with values, kind of like a digital camera has a matrix of values.

The rest is software to smartly figure out drags/presses etc.. and convert those to high level messages in the OS.

The code in size wouldnt be more than ONE percent of all code.

Your statement is like saying a serial mouse is a core feature of windows, its so embeded in it.

Only the Amiga had mouse input at all levels of the OS , even before the OS booted, since it was just a simple 60hz interrupt reading values from a serial port, but always there.

iOS sharing data is crap

[cheekyboy]

I have a 285mb video i copied to the iPhone, how do I easily without some shit crud http method, transfer that file to the iPad? Or use the iPad as a 2nd screen and play the video on the iPhone to the iPad like AirPlay?

IOS sharing of files or data between apps without the internet, is impossible. About the only data type allowed is photos, because they have to let any photo app load and edit photos. Where is the my docs folder, or my files that any app can access.

Re:iOS sharing data is crap

[Zontar The Mindless]

To be fair, Samsung are guilty of some of the same sort of BS--the Galaxy S3 and later phones are MTP-only, as are the Tab 10.2s (do any of the big players even make a tablet with a standard USB port?), thus a big part of the reason for the existence and popularity of apps like AirDroid (which I've used and think is pretty damn spanky). I am pretty sure the decision to *replace* a tried-and-true protocol that *everything* in the damned world supports with an "ooh, NEW SHINY SHINY MUST HAVE IT EVEN THOUGH WE'LL SHUT OUT HEAPS OF DEVICES AND USERS" must have come from the twin brother of a particularly annoying product manager (let's call him "Mr Youbuntu") with whom it is my dubious pleasure to work.

Just upgraded from OpenSUSE 12.1 to 12.3, in which MTP support finally seems to be working right.