The Apple Execution Dazzle Thread

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by rpg.314, Oct 19, 2010.

  1. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Samsung had the foresight to not walk into a copyright claim. They may be sleazy, they're not idiots.

    Do you think Google was wrong to point out to Samsung that they were copying?

    This whole thing will play out in courts for years. Federal court overrule lower courts routinely.
     
    #161 silent_guy, Aug 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2012
  2. arjan de lumens

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    gjethus, Norway
    The damage awards in that decision were broken down by model. According to that jury, the Epic 4G phone was evidently similar enough to iphone to warrant a $130M damages award alone:

    [​IMG]

    Makes perfect sense ...?
     
  3. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,166
    Likes Received:
    1,836
    Location:
    Finland
    And the Galaxy S I linked image of apparently wasn't, only it's 4G model was, even though Apple only has one iPad with 4G/LTE support, and 0 iPhones with it, if I'm not mistaken :lol:
    (The Galaxy S & Galaxy S 4G aren't even same looking - the 4G model that DOES infringe something doesn't have the big "home button" that the basic Galaxy S has for example)
     
    #163 Kaotik, Aug 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2012
  4. rpg.314

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    /
    The question in front of jury obligated them to consider prior art. If prior art was significant, then damages should have been reduced. They apparently threw out prior art because it was bogging them down.

    The jury was explicitly instructed to not award punitive damages. They decided to send a signal.

    Samsung sure looks like they copied stuff. But there's a lot of stuff that looks like shouldn't have made past the patent examiner. Punishing for copying that portion when told not to sure looks like a bad job to me.

    IANAL. :???:
     
  5. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    908
    SemiAccurate claims Apple "Apple just bought into a fab, and not in a trivial way either": http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/

    The rest is behind a paywall, but there aren't very many possibilities.

    A) A big stake in TSMC, which would make sense in light of recent news about Apple moving its production there, though that would cost most of Apple's cash;
    B) GlobalFoundries, which is much more affordable;
    C) Some kind of partnership with IBM? I'm not sure IBM's technology is the sort of thing Apple is looking for. As I understand, Big Blue aims for maximum performance/power at the expense of yields, and can't handle very high volumes;
    D) Samsung, which, well, no.

    Option A) would present some serious anti-competitive concerns. Option C) seems implausible. Option B) would be interesting. The sort of capital expenditures Apple can handle might allow GloFo to catch up with Intel. I'm not sure what this would mean for AMD, though, as Apple might like to retain exclusive use of its newly acquired fabs.
     
    #165 Alexko, Jul 12, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2013
  6. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    He's changed the article from earlier, which basically ruled out GF and Intel leaving only TSMC.
     
  7. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    908
    It looks the same to me, or are you referring to something behind the paywall?
     
  8. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's changed from earlier today, it had commentary that basically ruled out Intel and GF if I recall correctly. Just the basic article, no idea about behind the paywall.
     
  9. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    908
    I see, thanks. I guess Charlie thought this gave away too much in the free version of the article.
     
  10. jimbo75

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes tbh I thought he did when I read it at first. Checking the forum post for the article is seems that others have noticed it was pulled at some point as well.
     
  11. spworley

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    190
    What about UMC? It's much smaller but still working with very modern process nodes.. it's now validating 14nm finFET.
     
  12. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    908
    I forgot about them (/confused them with Chartered). But you're not the only one thinking this: http://www.macrumors.com/2013/07/12...-a-chip-fab-looking-to-produce-its-own-chips/

    UMC wouldn't raise any anti-trust issues, and while it most likely couldn't handle all of Apple's volume right away, a gradual transition should be possible. Plus, it's cheap. This does seem to make some sense. But I'm not sure UMC's technology really is competitive with TSMC/GloFo's.

    Then again, with Apple's bank account behind them, they could catch up.
     
  13. Homeles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    An OS, almost all of the hardware, the software, and now a fab... Apple has almost achieved 100% vertical integration. What's next, Foxconn? Or perhaps an LCD manufacturer?

    Anand Shimpi speculated that Apple would have to commit to being a full blown fab company, or regress to their previous state. Looks like he was right.

    It's definitely a gamble, thanks to Intel's refocus on Atom. They're going up against the god of all semiconductor firms. This will be an interesting battle.

    With the kind of volume that Apple has, it probably wouldn't take long for them to break even on their fab venture. I'd better stock up on beer and popcorn.
     
  14. itsmydamnation

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    Australia
    No it wont, "consumers" don't care about what we care about. ARM doesn't have a market name or presence in the mobile space and neither does intel. Only Samsung, Apple, HTC, etc. The battle here is for Intel to be relevent in a market where they cant dictate because they aren't the key component.

    Its also why you wont see the big guys go with Atom, because then they are dictated by intels schedule and effectively just become like PC OEM's.
     
  15. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Actually we dont really have any idea of what is behind it... second article mention something completely right, going to product their own processors based on ARM will take them many many years and many money.
    Its a complete different things, to do the things from A to Z, from the simulator to the fab process and then to mass production.. Specially if you are dependant of a little fab..

    Personally im a bit worry for Apple about this move.
     
    #175 lanek, Jul 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2013
  16. Homeles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    What in the world do consumers have anything to do with what I stated?

    They already made the custom ARM move years ago, with the fruit of it fully ripened last year. If they're not going to create disruptive products, then they need to do everything they can to maximize their control over quality.
     
  17. itsmydamnation

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    395
    Location:
    Australia
    Consumers determine who wins the battle by what they purchase.
     
  18. Homeles

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    0
    The quality of the SoC inside the phone is going to make a huge difference to your average consumer. Higher power efficiency leads to thinner designs, lighter with better battery life. That's something anybody would enjoy.

    If Intel's got the better SoCs, those SoCs are inevitably make design wins and capture a good portion of the market. Just because consumers aren't directly buying Intel branded devices does not mean that SoC performance and cost are removed from the equation.
     
  19. Wynix

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    57
    Indeed, i believe that intel will appeal to the high end phone buyers once they get on their 14nm process.
     
  20. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    http://english.hankyung.com/news/apps/news.view?c1=&newscate=1&nkey=201307150718011

     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...