TSMC has started shipping mobile processors to Apple

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,303   +193
Staff member

tsmc apple samsung cpu chips

We've been hearing for a few years now that Apple has wanted to decrease its dependence on Samsung's manufacturing arm. The Cupertino-based company finally acted on those plans a year ago when it signed a chip deal with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and now, the shipments are flowing.

According to people familiar with the matter as reported by The Wall Street Journal, shipments of chips for smartphones and tablets started during the second quarter. What's more, the two companies have reportedly agreed to work together on advanced chip designs next year.

tsmc apple samsung cpu chips

When the deal was signed a year ago, some had doubts as to whether or not TSMC could deliver the intricate chip designs that Apple requires. It would now seem that those doubters have been silenced.

Analysts estimate Apple orders will now account for around 10 percent of TSMC's annual revenue this year. The company brought in just under $20 billion in revenue in 2013.

As with any business, it's rarely a good idea to have all of your eggs in one proverbial basket. By diversifying its supply chain, Apple is reducing risk (what if Samsung were suddenly unable to fill orders due to a plant strike, fire or natural disaster?).

Diversification will also allow Apple to negotiate better pricing for future chip deals with suppliers. Less money spent on component production means more can be put into other areas, returned to investors, etc. 

Permalink to story.

 
Apple and Samsung have been seen as the snake swallowing its own tail, seemingly unbreakable, with all the ongoing suits counteracted by signed contracts between the two, probably the craziest charade of law versus technology ever.

If they ever get to sign the divorce papers, that'll be a monumental relief for free competition at long last.
 
Last edited:
"Less money spent on component production means more can be put into other areas, returned to investors, etc."
But the savings will never passed on to the consumer who are obviously the ones who keeps those schmucks in business.
 
But the savings will never passed on to the consumer who are obviously the ones who keeps those schmucks in business.
Apple's operating systems for their computers are free now, they were not free in the past (outside of the one that shipped with the computer).
 
Apple's operating systems for their computers are free now, they were not free in the past (outside of the one that shipped with the computer).
I never knew that but that's not important, what is important does MS know and if they do I hope it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.(y)
 
Apple's operating systems for their computers are free now, they were not free in the past (outside of the one that shipped with the computer).
I never knew that but that's not important, what is important does MS know and if they do I hope it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.(y)
Won't happen since Apple makes their money on hardware so can afford to give software away, MS makes their money primarily on software so giving it away wouldn't work. Also MS charges for their full version upgrade with free service packs in between while Apple used to charge for, what amounted to, service packs which MS would give for free, they weren't completely comparable to begin with.
 
Won't happen since Apple makes their money on hardware so can afford to give software away, MS makes their money primarily on software so giving it away wouldn't work. Also MS charges for their full version upgrade with free service packs in between while Apple used to charge for, what amounted to, service packs which MS would give for free, they weren't completely comparable to begin with.
I don't really disagree with anything you said. But, you are creating a standard of OS releases based off MS's release cycle, and XP has an incredibly long one compared to any OS ever. So I think that is a disingenuous comparison. When Apple was charging for a point release there were still significant changes to the OS. So it wasn't like Apple was charging you for petty stuff while MS was giving away free updates. They are completely different operating systems and I think the comparison you made isn't valid.
 
I think we have come to an era where we don't need a new OS every two years. The fact that we have so many OS's is only proving to be distracting in the end.

This distraction is probably the number one downside to Linux.
 
Back