Apple Learns That Suing A Key Supplier May Not Be So Smart; Samsung Jacks Up Prices On Apple

from the oh-look-at-that dept

Mon, Nov 12th 2012 1:21pm — Mike Masnick

Apple may be happy it won the first round of its patent fight against Samsung in the US (it's not faring quite so well elsewhere around the globe), but these things have consequences. Besides being a competitor, Samsung is also a key Apple supplier... and it appears that Samsung is now using that to its advantage, jacking up the price on a mobile processor supplied to Apple by 20%. The report notes that Apple pushed back initially, but after realizing it couldn't find a reasonable replacement, agreed to the new prices.

According to the report, Apple buys all APs used for production of iPhone and iPad from Samsung Electronics with the volume estimated to be 130 million units last year and more than 200 million units this year.

Samsung Electronics has a long-term contract to supply APs to Apple until 2014, the report added.

So even if Samsung has to pay Apple for patent infringement, perhaps it'll be financed by the higher prices on processors Samsung sells Apple.

Maybe, next time, instead of suing each other, they could just focus on building products people like and letting the market sort the rest out.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lawsuits, patents, processors, technology
Companies: apple, samsung

75 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Skeptical Cynic (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:12pm

Got to love the irony.
Patent protection does not equal price protection.

You win some and lose some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:24pm

This is all going to end in tears for both companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glen, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  And all of us who love actual innovation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Neither Apple not Samsung has anything remotely close to a monopoly on innovation. Actual innovation would be unharmed by the absence of these companies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - elemecca (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 2:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Google seems to think so. After a long string of Samsung devices the new Nexus is a variant of the LG Optimus G. It's a pretty awesome handset.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  but right now... the popcorn is tasty
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ethorad (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thus proving that popcorn farmers require patents (and the silly lawsuits/retribution that follows) in order to survive.
    
    Or was it copyright they needed?
    
    I forget.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 7:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Patent #823798239832798237498
      Methods for applying the tears of corporations to enhance the flavor of popcorn.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CrushU, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:32pm

This Just In
Samsung asked to justify price increase; cites recent rise in litigation costs. Apple unable to dispute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: This Just In
  If that is for real, do you have a citation? Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - CrushU, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re: This Just In
    Nah, I was joking. I can easily see this happening, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: This Just In
  Considering the fact that Samsung has $100billion iniquid assets, and that the price was contracted between them for a certain price...wait no, it is all irrelevant because Apple still can afford the extra cost per chip without so much as pissing in an ocean.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 4:39pm
    
    Re: Re: This Just In
    Or increasing the price of their devices for their consumers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digger, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:34pm

Apple is a Yellow-Bellied mucus swilling back-stabber
I believe that Samsung wanted to do things that way, but Apple, petulant child that it is, doesn't like things that way.

Look back to the Laser 128 Computer that outsold Apple IIe that it was a clone of by a factor of 4. This was of course when Apple rescinded the license for Laser Computers to manufacture the clones.

Poor Apple, never could compete on an even playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: Apple is a Yellow-Bellied mucus swilling back-stabber
  So according to your mixed up sense of history...Apple coppied a form factor that Samsung "invented". If you are referring to The Apple IIe came out in 1983, and used a form factor that had been around as an INDUSTRY STANDARD since 1977 (given the MAJOR design differences betweem the two internally and externally). Did you consider that in 1977, the first Apple II models were sold and the IIe was the result of engineering work done by Steve Wazniak and company? Yup, *rolls eyes in sarcasm* The IIe is definitely a Samsung clone running on totally different hardware, design, memory control, blit masking techniques by the DMA controller rather than CPU, and comparatively simple to use and install hardware controller cards, and coming from a company who INVENTED THOSE tecginques is definitely the sign of the Apple IIe being a clone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Apple is a Yellow-Bellied mucus swilling back-stabber
    Belligerent nonsense
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 4:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Apple is a Yellow-Bellied mucus swilling back-stabber
      The Samsung SPC-1000 is what he should be referring to when he mentions the Apple IIe. It's not even the same design or hardware configuration and was for a completely different market. Maybe you should check your history to AC, you might learn something.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Apple is a Yellow-Bellied mucus swilling back-stabber
        Stop being so condescending, especially when it's you who needs to learn something: english. You need to practice reading comprehension.
        
        He is saying that the Laser 128 was a licensed clone of the Apple IIe and that the Laser 128 outsold the Apple IIe by a factor of 4. And that's when Apple rescinded the license.
        
        It's a bit clumsily worded by Digger, but still perfectly comprehensible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:36pm

will Apple pick up that tab?

or will consumers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re:
  Apple's customers have been picking up an inflated tab for a long time and Apple's value is at a record-setting high - why would they believe that their customers would balk at paying a little bit more than they already do?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  Can't raise prices in this economy,... Nope,... I suspect that more Chinese laborers will be throwing themselves out of windows of dorm buildings as Apple leans on Foxconn to lower unit costs...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    When Foxconn or one of its suppliers goes bust, what does Apple do?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 4:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course not. People can rush out and buy immensly expensive phones. They can even throw out their perfectly sufficient and well working phones to buy an even pricier newer version that is only slightly better - but in this economy, you just can't afford to raise the prices on these phones... people just don't have ANY money!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChrisB (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Check Chinas national suicide rate. Working there actually prevents suicide.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChrisB (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Check Chinas national suicide rate. Working there actually prevents suicide.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Reality Check, 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re:
  Apple will have a choice, either bump the price up, or make less of a profit...
  
  The consumers that would be affected are those that choose to buy the Apple Product at it's offered price.
  
  Samsung products may look even better to some consumers should Apple prices go up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:37pm

Karma strikes again.

Ironic that Apple couldn't think a few steps ahead, considering Steve Jobs was a Buddhist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watchit (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:39pm

Ah man all these patent wars blowing up in Apple's face are just priceless :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevor (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:40pm

So now Apple is paying Apple for Samsung's "infringement" and Samsung gets to keep doing what it does. Seems like Apple is the loser here. Sure, on the books it looks like Samsung owes you, but they're just going to be handing back your money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re:
  Actually it's the consumer who will lose. Companies never ever absorb cost,they ALWAYS pass it on to the consumer!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cynyr (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 4:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not always, maybe the rest of the device will be value engineered to make up the difference. I'm sure most of the low hanging fruit is long been picked, but save a few pennies here and there and it'll add up some.
    
    Also Apples prices have never seemed to reflect any sort of consistent margin on the hardware, so it is possible that they like the devices pricing for some other reason and are willing to accept a smaller margin.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lose? I ain't losing. I'm laughing.
    
    Apple products are overpriced pieces of junk...
    
    Well OK, that isn't completely fair. They have arguably have the most consistent look and feel along with the best UI development.
    
    However their ability at multithreading, or any serious back end heavy lifting programming is subject of ridicule in college classes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  Reminds me of when the windows that were falling out of the John Hancock Tower in Boston. John Hancock sued the installer, who was professionally insured by...
  
  John Hancock
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas, 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: Trevor
  Not exactly. Apple wants no competition for devices. Their margin on their own devices is huge. They would rather pay Samsung double what they are now and have an iPhone monopoly than pay 1/2 and only have 1/2 the market share.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:52pm

Talk about LOL
Cheshire cat grin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buster, 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:55pm

Re:
It's beyond me why the 2 phone giants won't work on a project phone together. I know their OS's are totally opposite, but imagine if they worked together to create a device, then made one for the Apple OS and the other Android. They'd completely monopolize the market in one quick sweep. They're only competition would be Blackberry and basic old-fashion phones - you know, the phones with more than 3 physical buttons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anon, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re: Re:
  windows 8 phones are really going to surprise you when they are available to the masses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 6:15am
    
    Re: Re: Re:
    They are, and they haven't.
    
    There's windows phones available at multiple price points on every major carrier in the US and so far the answer has been: Decent but not phenomenal phones, Decent but not phenomenal OS, crappy app ecosystem, and no compelling reason to buy one over Apple or Android.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MattP, 13 Nov 2012 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re:
      And that won't change at all with Windows 8, the new Surface line up and XBox all going to the same model?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re: Re:
    windows 8 phones are really going to surprise you
    
    In that they work or are a bigger disappointment than expected?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kurata, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:16am
  
  Re: Re:
  Wouldn't that be risking an anti-trust litigation with other competitors? I mean, they're (I think) the current biggest of the market, so if the biggest of the market leagues together against the smaller fishes (though they're not necessarily that small), I think there would be a fear of monopoly here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 1:59pm

How will things go for Apple?
First some sources:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/samsung-hits-apple-with-20-price-hike-report-2012-11-11
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/12/samsung-raises-prices-to-apple-i-wonder-why/
h ttp://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/23/apple-vs-samsung-samsung-put-the-boot-in-hard/
http://www.busines sweek.com/news/2012-11-04/sharp-seen-seeking-government-bailout-after-record-loss-forecast

But you can easily Google for other sources of the facts in I'm saying next.

My overall take of the facts,:

* Samsung hikes Apple's price for microprocessors by 20%
* Probably could not hike it more without attracting scrutiny for predatory pricing
* Rumors Apple will switch to TSMC to fab its processors by 2014, but apparently TSMC cannot fab the volumes Apple needs. (But will it be a 20nm process?)
* Samsung will not be making Apple's displays next year (my guess: this is earliest that contract allows)
* Apple has been in process of switching to Sharp for production of displays
* Sharp says there is material possibility that it cannot remain in business -- losing billions per year
* Japanese government says no bailouts coming
* If Sharp is a source of Apple displays, Apple must keep Sharp afloat (it would seem to me, or they lose a supplier)
* Samsung has a customer lined up for that excess production capacity of displays: Samsung -- who just happens to manufacture phones and tablets.
* Samsung now has a display supplier at significantly cheaper cost than Apple. (Can you say Bill Of Materials cost?)
* Samsung owns various patents in fabrication process technology for displays
* Irrelevant to Apple except perhaps competitively, but Samsung also owns the patents for and the only manufacturing capacity of AMOLED displays found on Samsung devices. Once, Samsung briefly sold AMOLED displays to HTC, but now keeps entire production capacity to itself. All others must use LCD.
* Samsung owns about 10% of the patent pool for LTE (often called "4G" cell phone)
* Guess who is number one in both volume and quality for manufacturing Flash memory? (No one else is even close.)
* Apple buys Flash from Samsung by the acre.
* Nobody can supply Apple with the quality and quantity of Flash that Apple consumes -- not to mention at Samsung's (present) price.

I will refrain on speculating on what other announcements we might soon be reading.

I would appreciate any corrections to anything I may have misstated or that is factually wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Austin (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re: How will things go for Apple?
  Just wanted to say that 1) All of this is true.
  
  And 2) I HATE that it is true. Why? Because Samsung sucks.
  
  Not Android, mind you. Android is freaking awesome. But really, both Acer and ASUS tablets are vastly superior to anything Samsung (or Apple) makes, and not locking down the bootloaders helps that a LOT. On the phone side, HTC is still king. I mean, they're losing market share left and right, but they still make the best phones out there, period. And I know this from experience.
  
  In early August I got a T-Mobile Sidekick 4. It's made by Samsung, and at the time it was just over 3 months old. Yes, really. My previous phone was a G2, also T-Mobile branded, but produced by HTC. I used the sidekick for 2 weeks, and in those 14 short days, I almost totally bricked the damn thing 7 times, including 3 times JUST REBOOTING IT. Yes, it was such a cheap piece of crap simply rebooting the thing was enough to require that I USB it in and re-flash thee stock firmware. It's THAT bad. And it's not just that device. The dual-core Samsung phone with the 2GB of memory and the "big, beautiful screen" my mother briefly tried before running screaming back to her iPhone wasn't any better. Now I'm back on my 2-and-a-half-year-old HTC G2. It's old, it's slow, but yanno what? It's running ICS, it has a BACKLIT HARDWARE KEYBOARD, and it never, ever crashes. The 2 year newer Samsung can't do ANY of that, much less all of it.
  
  So yeah. As much as I hate Samsung, I hate Apple much more, so I'm happy to see this. But don't get me wrong - only because, as long as Samsung keeps pushing back, iOS doesn't take over the market, and that's a good thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re: How will things go for Apple?
    If you were shopping Samsung phones, why were you dicking around with the Sidekick? Just get the Galaxy S3 and be done with it!
    
    And the Galaxy from T-Mobile and AT&T have unencrypted bootloaders. As far as I know, only Verizon has locked down their bootloader.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alana (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 7:24pm
    
    Re: Re: How will things go for Apple?
    My galaxy S works fine.
    
    To each their own.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re: How will things go for Apple?
    I stopped reading at "Acer is vastly better".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RufusBoy, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:53pm
  
  Re: How will things go for Apple?
  It always amazes me how stories like this always descend into Apple is about to go out of business. If one keeps track of the clairvoyants around here:
  
  Apple will go bust because Samsung is the only one that can supply them with their raw components.
  
  Microsoft is about to go bust because everyone will use cloud computing and no longer have a need for their top selling Office package.
  
  Microsoft is also about to go bust because everyone uses tablets and smartphones now.
  
  Microsoft is about to go bust because: (insert applicable latest OS: Chrome / Linux / MacOS) will wipe out their desktop market completely.
  
  Samsung is about to go bust because Apple sends Billions of dollars their way, and once they stop using them as a supplier their profits will plummet.
  
  Google is about to go bust because their rate of returns on their AdWords product - their primary source of income - has fallen due to poor economic conditions as well as people switching to different search providers, as well as more people using open source alternative to Google Maps.
  
  Facebook is about to go bust because with everyone accessing it on their tablets or smart phone they aren't using the web browser version anymore, so won't be viewing any of the paid advertising on the site.
  
  Canon is about to go bust because more an more people are using phones instead of stand alone hand held cameras.
  
  Nikon is about to go bust because Canon is taking away so much or their SLR business as well as smart phones (see above).
  
  HTC is about to go bust because they have only sold, like 5 units this year, worldwide!
  
  The whole tech industry is about to go bust, just because.
  
  If you don't like a companies products, then fine, don't buy them. No one cares what you buy / don't buy, but must we be constantly reminded that pretty much every tech company in the world is right on the verge of going bust?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re: How will things go for Apple?
    > It always amazes me how stories like this always
    > descend into Apple is about to go out of business.
    
    I hope this thread doesn't descend into that.
    
    I certainly did not say that.
    
    As for threads descending, there is a Jobs' Law that is similar to Godwin's law.
    
    Jobs' Law: any thread will eventually degenerate into an Apple flamewar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 9:56pm
  
  Re: How will things go for Apple?
  Ok, the problem with searching on Google nowadays is that they are under a very legitimate (not broght on by Apple) anti-trust investigation for putting Google sponsored results that favor their business over other competitors business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:48pm
    
    Re: Re: How will things go for Apple?
    OK, the problem with using Apple products for anything, is that they have already been found guilty of price fixing, infringing on multiple patents, and also have been forced top issue an apology and to pay Samsung's Court costs for making false statements to the press
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:01pm

Apple always complain about the charges they get from other companies, yet i read earlier where they are going to be getting between $6 and $8 per smart phone now from HTC. funny how it's ok when Apple are charging what they like. about time all companies stopped dealing with them altogether. after all, they get components from a supplier one minute, then sue that supplier so end up getting the components for free. gotta end some time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jollygreengiant (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:01pm

Not only, but also...
I believe Samsung also manufacture that lovely "retina" display that Apple use. How can anyone not understand that suing your own supplier will only increase your own costs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
res2 (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:03pm

Loser? There is no loser here:

- Apple and Samsung lawyers get to justify their existence
- Apple and Samsung both get to point to increased profits (one through litigation, one by a price increase)
- Consumers get a lower pric... um Consumers get more innovat..., um Consumers get screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nona, 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  No, Samsung keeps its display and flash in house, reducing its cost of materials. Consumers buy Samsung Android based phones at much lower cost that Apple iPhone. After all Apple just sued Samsung and won due to the fact that Samsung copied Apple's tech; therefore the Samsung phone 'must' be just as good.
  
  For the humor impaired: this is continuing the sarcasm/humor (not sure which *grin* ) of the above comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JJ, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:18pm

Why is the assumption that Apple formed a supply contract with Samsung with absolutely no price guarantee? No one does that. No one goes to order millions upon millions of chips and has with no control over the cost. Samsung isn't just allowed to say "well, we're only half way through shipping your chips, but the next half will cost you more!" Perhaps, if there even was a price increase, it was all built into the plan. Apple agreed that as production slowed, they would pay a higher price per chip because of the reduced ordering volume. The samsung chips are only on the previous generation of Apple products (and the new iPad Mini). The new iPad and iPhone use the A6 chips which are not even manufactured by Samsung, but instead, TSMC. I can't believe how out of control this story has gotten with only the shakiest of sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  Probably had a range that they could raise it, with triggers that if it were above a certain range, Apple could look elsewhere. Since in this case Samsung knows there is no "elsewhere", they went for the max and they are going to get it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bigpicture, 12 Nov 2012 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re: Contract with Samsung
  I can see you do not know a whole lot about contracts, and especially supply contracts. Prices are not fixed for the Term of the contract, the longest that I have ever seen is 6 months, and quarterly review more like it.
  
  Now in normal good business relations a price review does not necessarily imply an increase, sometimes it's a decrease. But under the current situation, if I were handling Samsung's contract, especially with the leverage it has, (Apple cannot walk away which is the BIG lever) I would jack the prices more than 20%. Why would Samsung worry about maintaining any sort of business relationship with Apple when Apple is so dam stupid. Just gouge them all you can, use the Apple motto. gouge,gouge, gouge.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 5:30am
    
    Re: Re: Contract with Samsung
    Samsung probably picked 20 % to avoid predatory pricing scrutiny.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- samoanbiscuit (profile), 17 Nov 2012 @ 9:31pm
  
  Re:
  A6 chips are made by Samsung, what are you talking about? They're made by Samsung in their factory in Texas to be more precise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Foxcrawl, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:38pm

it is amazing that Apple and Samsung co-operate and compete with one another at the same time. Apple should think at developing their own independent supply system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
karen wanza, 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:43pm

Samsung Raises prices of processers sold to Apple
It appears to me that the public's overwhelming support and identification with Apple's grievances is misguided at best. It is totally unrealistic to think that any company,no matter how enticing its products are,will act in a way that puts the consumer first (other than as a pocket waiting to be picked)therefore it should have been foreseen that the only winners of this lawsuit are the two companies,certainly not innovation. Of course Samsung would jack up its prices in response to Apple's win of a huge award for damages for what looks like,in light of this revelation about Apple's dependency on Samsung for supplies,adecision based more on Apple's popularity than on the law itself. Surely if Apple is forced to pay morefor the parts Samsung sells,the cost will be shifted to the consumer in the form of even higher prices for Apple products (as long as the market will bear this which seems to have been the case so far). So do consumers really have a reason to identify with either company? No. Does the next Steve Jobs have a chance to enter into fair competition with these giants? Hardly. Perhaps people should reserve their loyalty for things that truly have a possible good outcome for everyone such as fair labor practices both here and in the countries that are home to their factories such as China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Samsung Raises prices of processers sold to Apple
  the public's overwhelming support and identification with Apple's grievances
  
  The public identifies with and overwhelmingly supports Apple's grievances? What public?
  
  Ignoring hardcore Apple fans because they'll support Apple no matter what (and they're a pretty small minority), here's how it looks to me: the general public couldn't care less either way. Amongst techheads, most either don't care at all or are enjoying watching two overbearing titans duke it out with each other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 9:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Samsung Raises prices of processers sold to Apple
    Thank you John Fenderson...you were heavily missed!!! :-)
    
    I do have a message for Android fanboys though...and from a tech head perspective:
    By raising the price per chip manufactured by Samsung for Apple, Samsung has done absolutely nothing that would remotely raise the price of Apple's devices. It will create a shortage yes, but definitely not raise the cost as you had hoped.
    
    For Apple Fanboys:
    Apple can afford the increase...shut up. It won't raise the prices for your next device coming out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 10:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Samsung Raises prices of processers sold to Apple
      It's good to be back. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kelly (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 2:54pm

Well, what goes around comes around. Apple sues Samsung. Samsung raises its prices to pay for the litigation. In the end, the consumer gets the shaft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2012 @ 3:00pm

Could Samsung retaliate with Patents against Apple for CPUs?
There is a lot of talk about Apple changing its supplier for core chipsets (to TSMC?) -- but silicon is a place where Samsung has a lot of Patents (as opposed to software).

Given Apple's notion that anyone who is downwind of an infringing product is liable, it would be interesting if Samsung sued Apple for switching to non-Samsung chips -- even if those chips were 100% designed and fabbed-to-spec for Apple, they probably will require manufacturing processes that Samsung has a patent or two on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim D (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 5:11pm

To: Apple
From: Samsung

Dear Valued customer!

We regret to inform you that, due to unanticipated increases to our operating expense....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zem, 12 Nov 2012 @ 6:32pm

Look out, behind you!
To use a common observation form the world of motor racing.

When the 2 front runners are fighting it out, its slows both of them down. Letting who ever is coming third to catch up.

Not a smart move. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 12 Nov 2012 @ 11:34pm
  
  Re: Look out, behind you!
  The issue is that Samsung Technologies is, IIRC, the company to go to for microprocessors.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - zem, 13 Nov 2012 @ 3:24am
    
    Re: Re: Look out, behind you!
    I am thinking more about their smartphone and tablet business.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gregg, 13 Nov 2012 @ 8:25am

Ha Ha
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Stupid lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITWARZ, 13 Nov 2012 @ 8:28am

Justice...
� Galatians 6:7-8: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - ITWARZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 13 Nov 2012 @ 11:38am

Money
Consumer pays, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 13 Nov 2012 @ 12:36pm

Instant karma's gonna get you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2012 @ 1:10pm

How do you like them Apples now???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]