[HN Gopher] Samsung and Apple is tech's "unhappiest marriage"
___________________________________________________________________
Samsung and Apple is tech's "unhappiest marriage"
Author : retskrad
Score : 61 points
Date : 2023-03-06 17:27 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5mac.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5mac.com)
| peoplearepeople wrote:
| At what point does Apple just buy Samsung?
| justanother wrote:
| Given the percentage of Korean GDP for which Samsung accounts,
| and the political influence they wield, they're effectively a
| state institution. We can assume they're not for sale, ever.
| tpmx wrote:
| Antitrust laws in US/EU make that unlikely. Maybe they could
| buy Samsung Display though, if Samsung the conglomerate got
| desperate enough?
| eklitzke wrote:
| Even if they could do this they'd probably be forced to stay
| in the same business as Samsung supplying displays to third
| parties (e.g. all of the Google Pixel phones have Samsung
| displays). It's really hard to imagine Apple would want to be
| in the business of doing display R&D and then selling the
| technology to competitors.
| tpmx wrote:
| True.
| cududa wrote:
| I highly doubt South Korean regulators would approve a sale
| of their largest single GDP contributor
| tpmx wrote:
| Yeah. I meant from an antitrust perspective.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| They maybe could, but I think it would be pretty unlikely. A
| lot of Asain companies strive to bring everything in house.
| Samsung Display is not just for making TVs, but also internal
| B2B as a supplier for Samsung phones, and such. This allows
| them to evade or not take as much of a hit by the value added
| tax I believe? If Samsung sold their display division, they
| would would then have to pay the 10% VAT on each display to
| make their phones. Right now, Samsung display can make the
| screens and they don't have to pay VAT.
|
| My understanding of S. Korean VAT could also be wrong.
| qilo wrote:
| Businesses always pay VAT on purchases, and collect VAT on
| sales, but can reclaim the paid VAT if purchase was done
| for business purposes. This basically means that the
| ultimate wholly VAT payer is always the end consumer
| (person, not business).
| tcmart14 wrote:
| So while costs are added on to the customer, it would
| result in a price raise resulting in lessening their
| competitive advantage. While they may not eat costs, it
| may cause them to loose out on potential customers, so
| they would still feel the VAT, just not directly then,
| correct?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Apple has 57.1% of the US Smartphone market, Samsung has 29.3%,
| the next competitor has less than 5%.
|
| I know antitrust regulators are _mostly_ asleep at the switch,
| but they might wake up for that.
|
| (And the US isn't the only jurisdiction and smartphones aren't
| the only market regulators might have concerns about.)
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Samsung is like what happens if Microsoft Office, Microsoft
| Windows, Microsoft Xbox, and all of these divisions were
| actually separate companies with a very loose federation
| underneath the name "Microsoft" even though the real
| "Microsoft" doesn't have much power over any of the individual
| members.
|
| As a result, you've got Samsung Display putting screens in
| iPhones and occasionally screwing over Samsung Electronics
| which is a completely separate company, that is still within
| the loose federation (and, due to the unusual legal structure
| and antitrust concerns, Samsung Display can't offer even the
| slightest of unfair deals to their own Samsung Electronics
| group, for example). And on the fringe ends you have Samsung
| Life Insurance, Samsung Skyscraper Construction, and Samsung
| Medical.
| zeusk wrote:
| A while ago I learnt that Samsung made artillery guns as
| well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder
|
| I wonder if it runs bixby.
| MikusR wrote:
| CPU is i486 and it runs DOS. Also Samsung subsidiary that
| made it was sold 9 years ago. So no Bixby.
| Miraste wrote:
| My favorite recent one is how the mobile division started
| refusing to use new Exynos chips from the semiconductor
| division. Imagine if Apple designed and built an A16 chip and
| then put Qualcomm SoCs in the iPhone.
| jseliger wrote:
| URL should be https://www.theinformation.com/articles/how-apples-
| need-for-...
| pseudostem wrote:
| Some of it is paywalled, seems interesting... Got another link
| perhaps?
| inconceivable wrote:
| before samsung it was adobe. a friend of mine who used to work
| for adobe described the marriage as "staying together for the
| benefit of the kids."
| tatrajim wrote:
| True or not, in the past there was a persistent rumor going
| around Seoul that every time Apple had scouted out a good
| location for its first store in Korea, Samsung would mysteriously
| learn of it and manage to block the transaction. Definitely a
| scorched earth competitive relationship.
| seatac76 wrote:
| If True that is really petty and goes to show the competition
| was at a different level all together.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Samsung and Apple were in court for 7 years over patent
| infringement claims. Apple won, but then they were in court for
| many more years trying to determine what the damages should be.
|
| They finally settled outside of court in an anti-climactic
| ending.
| jhickok wrote:
| Honestly the anecdotes seem like the sort of thing that happens
| all the time. I don't have access to the article cited but the
| two have brought so many products to market together that a bit
| of friction seems unavoidable.
|
| As an aside, I am excited to see what Apple can do when they
| start making displays in-house.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Apple has tried and failed many times over the years to ditch
| Samsung. One such attempt occurred when Apple had hoped to use
| microLED display technology instead of OLED in the iPhone X
|
| This sounds a _bit_ far-fetched? It's really, really, hard to
| imagine a phone-scale MicroLED being practical at _any_ price
| _now_, never mind when the iPhone X came out or at a price anyone
| could afford.
| toast0 wrote:
| That depends on if it's a microLED backlit LCD or microLED
| direct emissive. For a backlight, it seems possible, for direct
| emission, all I've heard about those so far have rather large
| pixels, so it wouldn't work for a phone.
| ladberg wrote:
| > This sounds a _bit_ far-fetched? It's really, really, hard to
| imagine a phone-scale MicroLED being practical at _any_ price
| _now_, never mind when the iPhone X came out or at a price
| anyone could afford.
|
| This sounds a _bit_ far-fetched? It's really, really, hard to
| imagine a phone-scale LiDAR being practical at _any_ price
| _now_, never mind when the iPhone 12 Pro came out or at a price
| anyone could afford.
|
| (For reference, LiDAR cost tens of thousands of dollars and
| took a ton of space before being miniaturized in iPhones)
| cronix wrote:
| > (For reference, LiDAR cost tens of thousands of dollars and
| took a ton of space before being miniaturized in iPhones)
|
| Samsung, LG and Huawei all used lidar in phones before Apple.
| I don't believe any of them still do due to lack of adoption.
| Basically not many used it to justify the cost.
| ladberg wrote:
| Not trying to argue, but do you have a source for that? I
| can't find any examples of handheld consumer LiDAR before
| Apple.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This seems to be a misunderstanding. Samsung had some
| time-of-flight camera technology it used on a few models,
| but not LIDAR. I've seen some tech articles blur the
| distinction enough that people think Samsung was
| including LIDAR on smartphones like the S20.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| What is it that makes Apple so reliant on Samsung displays?
|
| It uses TMSC to make chips which is a "neutral" company.
|
| Is there no "neutral" equivalent of display manufacturing?
|
| Is Samsung just so advanced in displays that nobody else can
| catch up?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Korea simply ate Taiwan's lunch when it came to displays.
| Samsung got a big boost from Sony and LG from Philips and
| quickly grew to massive scales with the mobile boom. Samsung
| invested heavily in OLED and gathered a huge war-chest of
| patents / near complete market dominance, then managed to
| escape the worst of the political fallout from the LCD price-
| fixing scandal [0]. Their Japanese and Taiwanese competitors
| didn't invest as early or heavily, so they fell far behind.
| Apple spent millions propping up Sony's mobile display division
| in particular as a second sourcing option (as well as buying
| their production equipment), but Samsung was simply too far
| ahead and reinvesting too much to compete. LG is a strong
| competitor today and chinese competitors are really starting to
| narrow the gap though.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT-
| LCD_(Flat_Panel)_Antitrust...
| tagyro wrote:
| Just one data point:
|
| I bought a Samsung Odyssey G9 Neo - a 1600+ euro monitor - in
| April last year. It's been more than 3 months that I try to get
| it fixed because of multiple issues:
|
| - random "ticking" sounds
|
| - screen corruption when using it via DP (random glitches)
|
| - when using picture-by-picture, via the 2 HDMI connections, it
| randomly switches left and right inputs, when waking the
| computer from sleep
|
| - 2 dead/stuck pixels (which Samsung support said doesn't
| qualify for a repair/replacement - it must be more than x pixel
| in a certain y area!?)
|
| (yes, I've changed the DP/HDMI cables, tested on
| Windows/macOS/Linux, updated to the latest firmware).
|
| Is Apple a shitty customer? Most probably. Are Samsung displays
| good? Abso-f**ing-lutely no!
|
| I know it's just one data point, but I will never purchase
| another Samsung product (willingly/knowingly).
| Miraste wrote:
| Yes, at least in smartphone displays. I believe the closest
| competitor is LG, and their displays are noticeably, visibly
| worse.
| samtho wrote:
| LG seems to have focused in the appliance business (TV
| screens, domestic consumer electronics, etc) and they white
| label 99% of the OLED panels coming off of their assembly
| line, with some making their way into Samsung TVs. While
| Samsung has a superior panel for small displays, LG's focus
| consumer electronics has given it a small lead in the larger
| display race. They have better SDK/HDKs, more power efficient
| screens, and an array of tiers of displays to sell to their
| customers. If you bought a Sony, Vizio, or Sharp branded TV
| in the last 5 years, it for sure has an LG display in it.
| Other brands use LG as well but those three have an exclusive
| contract.
|
| The dynamics of this business is fascinating.
| MikusR wrote:
| No Samsung tv has LG Oled panel. Last year Samsung released
| their first Oled tv since 2013 with their own panel. Also
| top of the line Sony TVs started using Samsung QD-Oled last
| year.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Apple also used BOE OLEDs (12th and 13th I think?) and the
| iPhone 12 OLED displays have just some of the worst viewing
| angles I've ever seen out of _any_ display, including cheap
| TN panels like those IBM and Lenovo liked to put into
| Thinkpads. Though apparently there is quite some sample
| variation to that... also tons of purple /green fringing but
| apparently that's considered normal for phone OLEDs.
| MikusR wrote:
| That purple/green thing is also on LG tvs and samsung
| amoled phone/tablet screens.
| Miraste wrote:
| Yes, it's not because of the OLED tech but due to the
| weird pixel arrangements many of them use.
| deafpolygon wrote:
| Disagree. More like symbiotic parasitic relationship. They
| wouldn't exist without each other, at this point.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| South Korea's government would surely prop up Samsung.
| sangnoir wrote:
| The Obama administration vetoed an ITC ruling that would have
| blocked the importation of some iPhones and iPads after
| Samsung won a patent case against Apple.
|
| Governments thumb the scales for hometown heroes.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Lol apples relationship with the world is like being with an
| abusive partner. They want to control everything you do, control
| who you interact with, control how you spend your money. Apples
| toxic af and the red flags have been flying for years.
| znpy wrote:
| Clownish from apple people to complain about other companies
| protecting their engineering secrets.
| webaholic wrote:
| Absolutely the right thing to do given what Apple did to previous
| collaborators like Imagination Technologies for GPUs and what
| they tried to do to Qualcomm for modems.
|
| https://mashable.com/article/apple-imagination-takeaway
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673631
|
| https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-office-near-imagi...
| nerdjon wrote:
| It kinda feels like the situations mentioned here may be
| attention grabbing, but also not really all that surprising?
|
| I mean "marriages" like this don't really seem all that uncommon
| in tech today.
|
| For example, Sony makes laptops that sell Windows which really
| just further cements Microsofts stake in gaming while also
| putting the playstation up against xbox (also they signed an
| agreement in the Cloud for gaming).
|
| Apple has the relationship with Google for search and at one
| point maps.
|
| AWS is adding more and more ties to other cloud systems like
| Azure.
|
| I am sure there are plenty of other examples of companies using
| other companies products even though somewhere else they are
| competing. And then when they need to share information they are
| very careful or borderline hostile.
|
| But these companies have such a large portfolio that you can't
| shoot yourself in the foot (put out a poor product) at the cost
| of not doing business with someone who may have a conflict of
| interest.
| SSLy wrote:
| > _Sony makes laptops that sell Windows_
|
| Not the case for ... (checks notes) 9 years.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| it looks like 9 years or so ago they spun off but own
| branding and other parts?
|
| https://us.vaio.com/
| MikusR wrote:
| They sold Vaio and spun off Bravia.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Huh... you are right.
|
| Well my bad, I have never been in the market for a non gaming
| windows computer so didn't think to check. I just assumed
| that was still part of their business.
| kurthr wrote:
| To be fair, the "second unhappiest marriage" is between SEC (the
| parent OEM Samsung) and their associated Samsung display and IC
| companies (SDC and SLSI). Samsung is run a different way (hyper
| competitive - search for their annual VP promotion/firing -
| battle royale) and sees it's suppliers and customers as
| competitors. It's like Amazon from an earlier era on steroids.
| Every possible source of margin is theirs to take.
|
| For clarity, you really have to distinguish the OEM from the
| display manufacturer. They compete internally for margin. Also,
| it's not just Apple that is excluded from display fabs... that's
| like everyone unless you're invited by a VP. Even then expect
| them to take away every device (including pencil and paper) you
| have in addition to your passport. It's not surprising Apple
| engineers would work from their hotel rooms.
|
| Expert advice: If they take your passport and won't return it,
| call the US embassy and say you are being held against your will.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I recall Apple being a very "aggressive" customer during my time
| at Samsung's semiconductor manufacturing lines in ATX.
|
| Lots of ridiculous lot priority schemes were foisted upon us. I
| suspect due to Apple iterating their LSI designs like they owned
| the place.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Care to share more details.
|
| Would make for a fascinating read.
| asciii wrote:
| +1 for more details in a blog
| bastardoperator wrote:
| Apple is aggressive with all their vendors. If you're taking
| money from Apple they want to call all the shots and they don't
| have any problems holding your feet to the fire or acting
| borderline unprofessional when it comes to demands.
| [deleted]
| tpmx wrote:
| _In general, Apple suppliers have to take the "financial risk of
| storing and absorbing the cost of unneeded parts," but that's not
| the case for Samsung._
|
| Good job standing up to a bully, Samsung! I imagine TSMC is the
| one other supplier that manages to do that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-06 23:03 UTC)