If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Blogger.com)   Apple reportedly cutting Samsung's share of next iPhone chip production   (vbkid.blogspot.com) divider line 58
    More: Interesting, iPhone, Samsung  
•       •       •

6736 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 09:10:21 AM
iDont really care.
 
2013-09-30 09:11:21 AM
SUCK iT
 
2013-09-30 09:12:53 AM
iDONTCARE.
 
2013-09-30 09:17:10 AM
"My mega-conglomerate is superior to your mega-conglomerate."
 
2013-09-30 09:17:49 AM
Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.
 
2013-09-30 09:19:05 AM
www.thejump.net
 
2013-09-30 09:19:46 AM

Bowen: "My mega-conglomerate is superior to your mega-conglomerate."


One is way better at marketing and apple is a pilot fish.
 
2013-09-30 09:21:54 AM
For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.
 
2013-09-30 09:28:03 AM
Is this the innovation Apple is looking for?
 
2013-09-30 09:29:42 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Bowen: "My mega-conglomerate is superior to your mega-conglomerate."

One is way better at marketing and apple is a pilot fish.


100% don't care. I'm just here to watch a dummy war.
 
2013-09-30 09:36:12 AM
Why is this submitted from a crummy blog with a visitor counter on it instead of the source article, from which the copy was mostly lifted?

Also, aside from the cult of non-technical Apple apologists who don't understand the difference between an electronics manufacturer and a product development company, who the fark cares if Samsung makes chips for Apple's devices?
 
2013-09-30 09:38:17 AM

secularsage: Why is this submitted from a crummy blog with a visitor counter on it instead of the source article, from which the copy was mostly lifted?

Also, aside from the cult of non-technical Apple apologists who don't understand the difference between an electronics manufacturer and a product development company, who the fark cares if Samsung makes chips for Apple's devices?


I suppose Samsung does. A customer is a customer.
 
2013-09-30 09:41:51 AM
I'd say it's probably more to do with manufacturing costs .... Apple is more about maximizing profits, aren't they?
 
2013-09-30 09:44:20 AM

durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.


15 years ago, Apple fans would have shiat themselves at the though of Apple computers using Intel x86-compatible CPUs.
 
2013-09-30 09:50:35 AM

realmolo: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

15 years ago, Apple fans would have shiat themselves at the though of Apple computers using Intel x86-compatible CPUs.


I'm sure they'd both have gotten over it.
 
2013-09-30 09:55:53 AM
To be announced: Samsung cuts its production of cellphone chips, starts using what apple uses, but add a whole bunch of transistors no one will use.
 
2013-09-30 09:57:03 AM

durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.


If it wasn't for Apple using their screens, and chips, for the last 8 years or so, they would still be that off brand you mostly avoid when buying electronics.
 
2013-09-30 09:57:42 AM

s2s2s2: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

If it wasn't for Apple using their screens, and chips, for the last 8 years or so, they* would still be that off brand you mostly avoid when buying electronics.


*Samsung
 
2013-09-30 09:59:34 AM
how else is next year's iphone supposed to compete with the GS3 I bought last year?
 
2013-09-30 10:05:52 AM

durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.


The competition and chip making are from different Samsung companies, similar to how Motorola Mobility is separate from other Motorola companies.

It's still quite awkward, but Samsung makes some of the best mobile processors and they've used them for years. This means Apple has optimized iOS specifically for that CPU and will be a decent amount of work to change to another.
 
2013-09-30 10:10:12 AM
Think usual.
 
2013-09-30 10:15:12 AM

Maxor: For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.


1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.

For usability, *both* could do something about it, but then they risk alienating their core markets. But again, without both reliability and usability, most users could care less if MS or Linux came up with a better GUI.
 
2013-09-30 10:15:45 AM

realmolo: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

15 years ago, Apple fans would have shiat themselves at the though of Apple computers using Intel x86-compatible CPUs.


15 years ago they were pretending that Apple would have been just fine without Microsoft bailing them out to keep them afloat.
 
2013-09-30 10:19:24 AM

s2s2s2: s2s2s2: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

If it wasn't for Apple using their screens, and chips, for the last 8 years or so, they* would still be that off brand you mostly avoid when buying electronics.

*Samsung


ummm... what? Samsung laptops have the most single source OEM parts of any machines, meaning almost all the parts come from Samsung. The screens, HDs, MoBos, etc... pretty much everything but the Intel/AMD chips. Apple got sick of having to buy Samsung displays and apparently floated Sharp to keep them from going under so Apple could have them as an alternative. Pull up a list of OEM's making screens and with fabs, the short length of the list may surprise you. Drop the fabs to only those that can do sub-32nm and you are looking at a even shorter list.

Wiki list of fabs, note how TSMS has more plants but Samsung has smaller node sizes
In short Apple needs Samsung more then Samsung needs Apple because Apple is just an ODM while Samsung is both an ODM and OEM. Advantage Samsung
 
2013-09-30 10:20:02 AM
Mmmmm. Chips.
www.eatbydate.com
 
2013-09-30 10:21:01 AM

Gabrielmot: Maxor: For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.

1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter.


Price?
 
2013-09-30 10:24:13 AM

Gabrielmot: Maxor: For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.

1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.

For usability, *both* could do something about it, but then they risk alienating their core markets. But again, without both reliability and usability, most users could care less if MS or Linux came up with a better GUI.


Anymore the various linux flavors coming out, as well as the brand-specific operating systems like soon to be SteamOS, are accessible enough for anybody who isn't an absolute technophobe and isn't concerned with running a vast array of games. My 7 year old has ubuntu on his machine because I built the box from spare parts and didn't have an MS OS around. It runs his various school apps that are all Java based, and the few games he does play - Plants vs Zombies, Wizard101 - run just fine and are as point and click as Windows.

As for reliability, yeah, no. You make a good point that having control over what hardware they build their machines with gives them better control over driver development but that goes out the window with dual booting a Windows OS, which is 3 out of 4 solutions when it comes to questions like "When can we expect to see XYZ development for Mac." The other answer is usually just "Hopefully soon!" Otherwise the hardware failure is in line with competitors because it's the same hardware. Yeah if someone builds a cheap system with some crummy biostar board slapped in there it's not going to compare to a top line machine but that's not a good comparison. You compare it to a PC running the same or similar internals and what you end up with on the Apple side is a machine that costs 3x as much for the same hardware that runs 10% of the software.

There is no reason to buy a Mac anymore other than brand loyalty.
 
2013-09-30 10:24:29 AM

realmolo: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

15 years ago, Apple fans would have shiat themselves at the though of Apple computers using Intel x86-compatible CPUs.


I remember they used to put out graphics like this one

image12.spreadshirt.com

Or course now when it goes the other way, the iFans start whining about non Apple people picking on Apple and it's products
.
 
2013-09-30 10:28:56 AM

Gabrielmot: Maxor: For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.

1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.

For usability, *both* could do something about it, but then they risk alienating their core markets. But again, without both reliability and usability, most users could care less if MS or Linux came up with a better GUI.


1. BS, I've seen Macs fail in spectacular ways. The problem is marketing, people put up with crap from Apples because "it just works damn it!" When the same thing occurs on other brands they complain. I've seen CUPS crash on OSX, programs freeze, major hardware failures due to piss pour thermal management (form over function), and almost had a Macbook 85w adapter light me on fire. Don't get me started on the adapters you need

2. The number of clicks it takes to do things on Windows compared to Mac is insane, If you want to change your computer name you have to change it in 3 farking places. Printing issues? have to wipe CUPS and start ever, good luck explaining to Apple Care what CUPS is. Apple has some nice features, spotlight is great and profile migration is a breeze, but Windows 7 has surpassed both features.

If you compare a $500 Dell or Toshiba against the Apple, Apple wins. Compare two equal machines, like an Asus, who used to make the plastic MacBooks, against a MacBook and the Asus wins. Plus you don't need any special cables.

The only Apple systems I like are the minis since everyone else seems to have abandoned the HTPC. I built out the ones in the office to dual boot with rEFInd and kind of kiosk.
 
2013-09-30 10:30:53 AM

secularsage: Why is this submitted from a crummy blog with a visitor counter on it instead of the source article, from which the copy was mostly lifted?


Speaking of the visitor counter on that blog, I watched it for a while and it's amazing.  The page appears to be getting exactly one visitor every two seconds. Never two hits within a single 2-second span, and it never goes more than two seconds with no hits.  Exactly one page visit every two seconds.  Seriously, what are the odds of a page getting visited with exactly that sort of consistency?  Amazing!
 
2013-09-30 10:55:02 AM
I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further.
 
2013-09-30 11:05:50 AM

s2s2s2: durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.

If it wasn't for Apple using their screens, and chips, for the last 8 years or so, they would still be that off brand you mostly avoid when buying electronics.


Er....No.
 
2013-09-30 11:21:35 AM
My overpriced cell phone is better than your overpriced cell phone!
 
2013-09-30 11:24:21 AM
Ah, good old Apple.  America's favorite Chinese company!
 
2013-09-30 11:32:17 AM

Gabrielmot: 1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.


I guess that's why 90% of the market uses Macs. Oh wait!! It's the other way around.
 
2013-09-30 11:39:51 AM
Am I the only one that had to look twice at the headline, reading it as iFruit ? Been playing a bit to much gta5...
 
2013-09-30 12:05:08 PM
Why is this on the Main page
 
2013-09-30 12:27:21 PM

zedster: Gabrielmot: Maxor: For about the last 5 to 7 years apple has simply been a design studio brand and software company.  Your pc can run a mac os and the mac you have recently purchased has pc components and is capable of running any windows or linux os.  This is why hackintoshes are possible.  It is also a big part of why many people wonder why the brand carries so much of a price difference and cachet.  The days of apple (or any other computer maker) having proprietary hardware are mostly a thing of the past.

1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.

For usability, *both* could do something about it, but then they risk alienating their core markets. But again, without both reliability and usability, most users could care less if MS or Linux came up with a better GUI.

1. BS, I've seen Macs fail in spectacular ways. The problem is marketing, people put up with crap from Apples because "it just works damn it!" When the same thing occurs on other brands they complain. I've seen CUPS crash on OSX, programs freeze, major hardware failures due to piss pour thermal management (form over function), and almost had a Macbook 85w adapter light me on fire. Don't get me started on the adapters you need

2. The number of clicks it takes to do things on Windows compared to Mac is insane, If you want to change your computer name you have to change it in 3 farking places. Printing issues? have to wipe CUPS and start ever, good luck explaining to Apple Care what CUPS is. Apple has some nice features, spotlight is great and profile migration is a breeze, but Windows 7 has surpassed both features.

If you compare a $500 Dell or Toshiba against the Apple, Apple wins. Compare two equal machines, like an Asus, who used to make the plastic MacBooks, again ...


Intel started making some very small boxes.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/motherboards/desktop-motherbo ar ds/nuc.html
 
2013-09-30 12:28:51 PM

zedster: The only Apple systems I like are the minis since everyone else seems to have abandoned the HTPC.


There's better options for that as well.  We just outfitted a call center with some super-tiny Lenovo PCs.  If you need something with some more graphical muscle, ASRock's Vision line is nice, but they only sell them as barebones ("barebones" in this instance pretty much just means you supply your own Windows license, though; everything's pre-assembled).
 
2013-09-30 12:42:35 PM

durbnpoisn: Well, I for one, am a little surprised that Apple has been dependant on a chip that is made by their primary competitor.


Big business doesn't work like that (someone wants your product, you sell it to them).
 
2013-09-30 12:47:16 PM

HeartBurnKid: zedster: The only Apple systems I like are the minis since everyone else seems to have abandoned the HTPC.

There's better options for that as well.  We just outfitted a call center with some super-tiny Lenovo PCs.  If you need something with some more graphical muscle, ASRock's Vision line is nice, but they only sell them as barebones ("barebones" in this instance pretty much just means you supply your own Windows license, though; everything's pre-assembled).


I just wish Dell had succeed with the Zinos, great idea poor execution. I will look into what you mentioned, are those the Lenovos that come with the T-bone keyboards?

change1211: Intel started making some very small boxes.


aren't those basically whiteboxes or spec devices?

Intel is going to be lunching a big push into the set top box/HTPC market soon should be intresting to see if they can give Pace and Arris a run for their money. With Cisco pretty much running Scientific Atlantic into the ground Pace and Arris seem the only big player left after Arris bought Motorola's division from Google.
 
2013-09-30 12:50:20 PM

Gabrielmot: most users could care less if MS or Linux came up with a better GUI.


"Couldn't care less" is what you want there. If they could care less, it implies they care.
 
2013-09-30 12:53:52 PM
weighttailors.org

Chips on the side.
 
2013-09-30 01:03:35 PM

rocky_howard: Gabrielmot: 1. Reliability (sorry MS)
2. Usability (sorry Linux)

For your average users (90+% of the market), these are the only two factors that matter. Since MS and Linux have little to no control over what craptastic hardware is thrown at their OSes, reliability will always be an issue.

I guess that's why 90% of the market uses Macs. Oh wait!! It's the other way around.


Rocky, I'm going to respond to Gabrielmot first:

Gabrielmot, Reliability and Usability are not what your average users (+90% of the market) consider as the only two factors that matter.   I have been in the computer industry (as I assume you are as well) approaching two decades, I host a 1-hour radio talk show focused on technology and I have done a *lot* of research on this very topic.

Also for total disclosure, I own a Macbook, Macbook Air, an Asus netbook (windows 7), a Lenovo ThinkPad (Linux Mint), and a Toshiba Satellite (Win 8).  I am not an OS Fanboi, and view the Mac/Windows/Linux debate like the silly Ford/Chevy/Dodge debate.  It is just an Operating System running on the same Intel-based hardware.  They all allow me to get my work done.  That's all I care about, but I'm not indicative of the rest of society.

What I have learned, however, are the real top three factors that the average user/consumer say that they consider when buying a computer are:

1)  Cost/Price:   From articles online and offline, as well as those calling into my show, the nearly universal  #1 factor is said to be the price of the computer.  Many people budget what they are willing to spend on a computer and those who bought a PC over a Mac but had no preference between the operating systems said they would be willing to use/buy a Mac, but the prices were not worth the change to them.   An average person with a budget of $500 can walk into nearly any box store that sells PCs or go online and find many new Windows laptops and new desktops they can purchase (and might even be able to walk home with change).   The average person would need to have $100 more in their budget to even purchase a new Mac-Mini.   They wouldn't be able to find a brand-new Macbook for $500 or less.

2) Familiarity:  (Not the same as Usability) The second factor that, again, was nearly universally stated, was what OS was running on the hardware.  People who used Windows all their lives or people were trained to use Mac when in school said they would more likely to buy a computer with an OS they already were familiar with over having to learning to use a new operating system. Surprisingly, Mac users said they were more likely to switch to a Windows computer than Windows users were to switch to Mac OS.  When asked, many Mac users said they had to use Windows computers at their workplace and were familiar with Windows so if they had budget issues (see #1) they would consider buying a PC over a Mac if they needed a new computer.

3) Software:   People who have a software package they just can't live without will stick to the OS that runs that Software, regardless of #1.  When asked if they would be willing to change to Mac or Windows if that OS was able to run same software, they responded that they didn't want to re-purchase their software.  If they didn't have to re-purchase their software, then the cost/price of the computer (#1) became the issue as well as learning how to use the 'new' operating system (#2).


Believe me, don't believe me, I don't really care.  Before I started asking my listeners, doing some research and asking people around me, my thought was like your's.  Based on my own view of the world.  However, the average person doesn't see computers in the same light we do.  Just like how a non-Mechanic or non-Sales Person would view a car.  It's a car.  It gets me from point A to point B.  It has X for gas milage.  It is in my price range.  That's how most people see the average consumer cars.  They don't care about branding.

Now for some facts (and to back up Rocky_howard's claim):  Mac OS X has ~7% of the market share in the U.S.  If "the average user (90+% of the market)" felt thatReliability and Usability were   the only two factors that mattered, then more people would be buying Macs.  That isn't the case.  Please note, this graphic comes from a Mac-centric website.
cdn.cultofmac.com

http://www.cultofmac.com/243465/windows-8-finally-passes-os-x-in-mar ke t-share/ 


But I know the next argument is going to be "you need to factor in iOS as well!"  Again, please note that this is a Mac-centric website I am sourcing from.

9to5mac.files.wordpress.com
http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/24/apples-total-device-market-share-to-gr ow -from-10-to-14-new-forecast/ 

With iOS included with Mac OS X, Apple still only has ~10% market share (with a projection of 14% by 2014) in the US. The article even states that people like to buy cheaper devices, though they say this is why the iPad mini sales are beating iPad sales...I don't think it is completely price related though.  I think it is a combination of Price, Size and newness.

Anyway, I digress, the point I am making is that the average user considers the hit they are going to take in the wallet/purse, if they are going to be comfortable using their new computer (or have to learn how to use it), and if they have software they need to run/don't want to re-purchase.  This is reflected in the number of Macs being sold in the US and around the world.  

This is not a personal attack, just pointing out the facts as I know them.  Have a great day, fellow tech lover.
 
2013-09-30 01:09:34 PM

zedster: I just wish Dell had succeed with the Zinos, great idea poor execution. I will look into what you mentioned, are those the Lenovos that come with the T-bone keyboards?


The ones we purchased were these. But looking at the site, I see they do have a system targeted specifically at HTPC chores, which does have the T-bone keyboard you're thinking of; that'd probably be a better choice.
 
2013-09-30 01:12:16 PM
Please excuse the grammatical, spelling and formatting errors in my last post.  I typed it up on my Galaxy Tab 2 between answering phone calls and responding to emails.  The auto-correct on Android sucks...I prefer my iPhone's auto-correct/auto-suggestion, though in all honestly the iPhone's auto-correct/auto-suggestion can get a little aggravating at times.
 
2013-09-30 01:14:30 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: Why is this on the Main page


Because this is an international emergency that impacts Farkers everywhere.

/or maybe because its Not News (tm)
 
2013-09-30 01:14:31 PM

Bschott007: Please excuse the grammatical, spelling and formatting errors in my last post.  I typed it up on my Galaxy Tab 2 between answering phone calls and responding to emails.  The auto-correct on Android sucks...I prefer my iPhone's auto-correct/auto-suggestion, though in all honestly the iPhone's auto-correct/auto-suggestion can get a little aggravating at times.


Have you tried the Google Keyboard?  I find most of the OEM keyboards to be pretty shiatty, but Google Keyboard does pretty well.  And you can download it for free from the Play Store now.

Of course, if you don't mind spending a couple of bucks, SwiftKey is so much better than any other option.
 
2013-09-30 01:21:03 PM

Latinwolf: I remember they used to put out graphics like this one

Or course now when it goes the other way, the iFans start whining about non Apple people picking on Apple and it's products


Well yeah, back then Intel's chips were inferior to the PowerPC in many ways. Things changed, IBM was stuck on making PPC a server platform and not making smaller better ones for laptops, so Apple adapted and grew.
 
2013-09-30 01:42:29 PM

THX 1138: secularsage: Why is this submitted from a crummy blog with a visitor counter on it instead of the source article, from which the copy was mostly lifted?

Speaking of the visitor counter on that blog, I watched it for a while and it's amazing.  The page appears to be getting exactly one visitor every two seconds. Never two hits within a single 2-second span, and it never goes more than two seconds with no hits.  Exactly one page visit every two seconds.  Seriously, what are the odds of a page getting visited with exactly that sort of consistency?  Amazing!


Yep. It's a counter widget and I timed it at 5 seconds for each tick. A crap blog with a bogus counter lifting a story from some other source or, as we like to call it around here; Monday.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report