4 ms·

Given that Samsung's process was powering the iPhone up until 2015, how are Samsung doing in 2021 on this front?

by nly 5y ago

simonh 5y ago
Samsung's big cash cow is it's memory business, it's responsible for only 20% of revenue but 50% of profits. They're doubling down on the logic chip business with massive investment in their 3nm gate-all-around architecture. One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. As a side note it is true TSMC deserves a lot of credit for the advantages of the Apple M-series CPUs. Without the 5nm TSMC process they wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive. However Apple has been working very closely with TSMC on it, and their long term financial commitments been a big factor in TSMC being able to move forward so decisively on developing the process and investing in future nodes and capacity. Apple ditching Samsung as a supplier has had a big influence on the shape of the CPU industry. The (currently) top comment by WithinReason highlights part of this dynamic.
- hocuspocus 5y ago
  > One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. I don't think what bothered Apple is relevant to other phone makers. Case in point, Qualcomm doesn't mind having Samsung fab their SoCs, and even their modems, a domain where Samsung has repeatedly tried to catch up! Anyway in the current Android smartphone landscape, everyone is using ARM reference CPU designs.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    There was also a point in Samsung’s past when they had been selling Nand chips to the market, then decided to hold all the capacity for themselves (or maybe Apple and themselves), then somewhat recently opened it back up again - but nand (and CPU) chips aren’t easily interchangeable - so a reliable partner is more important. Dram chips on the other hand are much more interchangeable.
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
      A lot of what I read about TSMC's current lead is that it's based on trust, including creating a complete ecosystem based on that. As you note Samsung is not so trustworthy a company for outside competitors, and I'd add reports it's not always honest about what it's accomplishing for its foundry customers, or would be ones.
  - simonh 5y ago
    It's depressing, it seems like the high end Android handset market has disappeared. What we have now are midrange and low end, and what passes for high end are really mid range phones dressed up with a few premium features or gimmicks.
    - RNCTX 5y ago
      > What we have now are midrange and low end, and what passes for high end are really mid range phones dressed up with a few premium features or gimmicks. Ultimately no one can shake their culture, it follows you like your shadow. Google's is cheap and low-end. They have become the Walmart of tech companies.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > As a side note it is true TSMC deserves a lot of credit for the advantages of the Apple M-series CPUs. Without the 5nm TSMC process they wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive. We're going to look back on this story as one of the craziest product launches of all time. I genuinely have no idea how Apple secured 5nm so early (and blocked other customers from getting a piece until 2022), I have to imagine that it was a last-minute decision they pushed out to TSCM, judging from their response. So many different parts of the M1 are pushing boundaries we've never hit before (for better and worse), so it will be deeply interesting to see how Apple scales a CPU that barely exists in it's current form. Some of my friends in the manufacturing biz were absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that Apple fit 64 gigs of memory on the M1 Max (the thing is surrounded by memory chips), which makes me extremely curious about their next pro hardware. Fun thought experiment, too: Would the M1 have still been such a knockout hit on TSCM 7nm? It certainly wouldn't be as good as it's current incarnation, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that a big.LITTLE ARM chip would have worked pretty well on last-gen silicon.
  - simonh 5y ago
    >I genuinely have no idea how Apple secured 5nm so early (and blocked other customers from getting a piece until 2022), I have to imagine that it was a last-minute decision they pushed out to TSCM, judging from their response. I would not be at all surprised if they laid the groundwork for this partnership back in 2015 or even earlier. The only reason Apple dual-sourced the A9 was because TSMC didn't have the capacity to deliver the full requirement, but Apple had already been trying to get off Samsung for years. Apple has a long track record of early, heavy capital investment in core technology manufacturing capacity and long term contracts with suppliers. This serves the dual strategic purposes of securing exclusive access to new tech, and driving down the long term costs of that tech. They did this with retina displays, in that case Apple literally owned the manufacturing equipment operated by Sharp. In order to build out fab capacity TSMC needed long term high volume guaranteed orders. Apple delivered that. There was nothing last minute about any of this, I think it's always been the plan.
  - hylaride 5y ago
    Ruthlessness. Apple did the same thing when the iPhone first came out with the higher end capacitive touch screens. When it was released, all the competitors raced to catch up but found that the supply was gobbled up by apple for years. If you compared any android touchscreens with apple ones for the first 3ish years the apple ones were night and day better. Apple is also willing to invest in technology in return for exclusivity for awhile.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  >One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. Commodore manufactured the 6502 with its MOS subsidiary, but I don't believe that Apple or Atari hesitated from using the 6502 in their computers.
  - sgtnoodle 5y ago
    It seems like the industry, players and technology involved have evolved and matured significantly since 6502 CPUs were relevant. Is Commodore or Atari even still around? If Samsung came out with a contemporary CPU with 2x the compute per watt of the M1, Apple would probably be interested in it. Notably, it seems like Intel had the capability and head start to have been able to develop such a CPU by now, but instead they held back progress to maximize their profits. It was apparently a bad long term strategy, as they've now lost their lead. The market moved on around them.
  - doctorshady 5y ago
    But other companies, like Rockwell Semiconductor, manufactured perfectly good 6502 clones. If MOS tightened the screws, Atari or Apple could've simply headed to any other number of suppliers. The same can't necessarily be said for a competitive processor today.

Given that Samsung's process was powering the iPhone up until 2015, how are Samsung doing in 2021 on this front?

by nly 5y ago

Given that Samsung's process was powering the iPhone up until 2015, how are Samsung doing in 2021 on this front?

Samsung's big cash cow is it's memory business, it's responsible for only 20% of revenue but 50% of profits. They're doubling down on the logic chip business with massive investment in their 3nm gate-all-around architecture. One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. As a side note it is true TSMC deserves a lot of credit for the advantages of the Apple M-series CPUs. Without the 5nm TSMC process they wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive. However Apple has been working very closely with TSMC on it, and their long term financial commitments been a big factor in TSMC being able to move forward so decisively on developing the process and investing in future nodes and capacity. Apple ditching Samsung as a supplier has had a big influence on the shape of the CPU industry. The (currently) top comment by WithinReason highlights part of this dynamic.

hocuspocus 5y ago
> One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. I don't think what bothered Apple is relevant to other phone makers. Case in point, Qualcomm doesn't mind having Samsung fab their SoCs, and even their modems, a domain where Samsung has repeatedly tried to catch up! Anyway in the current Android smartphone landscape, everyone is using ARM reference CPU designs.
- dv_dt 5y ago
  There was also a point in Samsung’s past when they had been selling Nand chips to the market, then decided to hold all the capacity for themselves (or maybe Apple and themselves), then somewhat recently opened it back up again - but nand (and CPU) chips aren’t easily interchangeable - so a reliable partner is more important. Dram chips on the other hand are much more interchangeable.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    A lot of what I read about TSMC's current lead is that it's based on trust, including creating a complete ecosystem based on that. As you note Samsung is not so trustworthy a company for outside competitors, and I'd add reports it's not always honest about what it's accomplishing for its foundry customers, or would be ones.
- simonh 5y ago
  It's depressing, it seems like the high end Android handset market has disappeared. What we have now are midrange and low end, and what passes for high end are really mid range phones dressed up with a few premium features or gimmicks.
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    > What we have now are midrange and low end, and what passes for high end are really mid range phones dressed up with a few premium features or gimmicks. Ultimately no one can shake their culture, it follows you like your shadow. Google's is cheap and low-end. They have become the Walmart of tech companies.
smoldesu 5y ago
> As a side note it is true TSMC deserves a lot of credit for the advantages of the Apple M-series CPUs. Without the 5nm TSMC process they wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive. We're going to look back on this story as one of the craziest product launches of all time. I genuinely have no idea how Apple secured 5nm so early (and blocked other customers from getting a piece until 2022), I have to imagine that it was a last-minute decision they pushed out to TSCM, judging from their response. So many different parts of the M1 are pushing boundaries we've never hit before (for better and worse), so it will be deeply interesting to see how Apple scales a CPU that barely exists in it's current form. Some of my friends in the manufacturing biz were absolutely dumbfounded by the fact that Apple fit 64 gigs of memory on the M1 Max (the thing is surrounded by memory chips), which makes me extremely curious about their next pro hardware. Fun thought experiment, too: Would the M1 have still been such a knockout hit on TSCM 7nm? It certainly wouldn't be as good as it's current incarnation, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that a big.LITTLE ARM chip would have worked pretty well on last-gen silicon.
- simonh 5y ago
  >I genuinely have no idea how Apple secured 5nm so early (and blocked other customers from getting a piece until 2022), I have to imagine that it was a last-minute decision they pushed out to TSCM, judging from their response. I would not be at all surprised if they laid the groundwork for this partnership back in 2015 or even earlier. The only reason Apple dual-sourced the A9 was because TSMC didn't have the capacity to deliver the full requirement, but Apple had already been trying to get off Samsung for years. Apple has a long track record of early, heavy capital investment in core technology manufacturing capacity and long term contracts with suppliers. This serves the dual strategic purposes of securing exclusive access to new tech, and driving down the long term costs of that tech. They did this with retina displays, in that case Apple literally owned the manufacturing equipment operated by Sharp. In order to build out fab capacity TSMC needed long term high volume guaranteed orders. Apple delivered that. There was nothing last minute about any of this, I think it's always been the plan.
- hylaride 5y ago
  Ruthlessness. Apple did the same thing when the iPhone first came out with the higher end capacitive touch screens. When it was released, all the competitors raced to catch up but found that the supply was gobbled up by apple for years. If you compared any android touchscreens with apple ones for the first 3ish years the apple ones were night and day better. Apple is also willing to invest in technology in return for exclusivity for awhile.
TMWNN 5y ago
>One issue is there's a significant conflict of interest between their device and CPU businesses. Apple left them precisely because Samsung is a competitor in handsets, and other handset manufacturers are also wary of buying from them for the same reason. Commodore manufactured the 6502 with its MOS subsidiary, but I don't believe that Apple or Atari hesitated from using the 6502 in their computers.
- sgtnoodle 5y ago
  It seems like the industry, players and technology involved have evolved and matured significantly since 6502 CPUs were relevant. Is Commodore or Atari even still around? If Samsung came out with a contemporary CPU with 2x the compute per watt of the M1, Apple would probably be interested in it. Notably, it seems like Intel had the capability and head start to have been able to develop such a CPU by now, but instead they held back progress to maximize their profits. It was apparently a bad long term strategy, as they've now lost their lead. The market moved on around them.
- doctorshady 5y ago
  But other companies, like Rockwell Semiconductor, manufactured perfectly good 6502 clones. If MOS tightened the screws, Atari or Apple could've simply headed to any other number of suppliers. The same can't necessarily be said for a competitive processor today.