|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
The downside is simple, would you as a supplier, who might
also become a competitor, be willing to sign a contract with
a serial litigator like Apple. At the very least in
negotiating the contract I would insist on language that
would dissolve the contract with penalties if such
litigation was instituted. These conditions might make it
hard for Apple to obtain the contracts they need going
forward.
It isn't where you are now, but where you want to be when
these contracts expire.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MadTom1999 on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
That is assuming Samsung dont hold some patent necessary for the construction of
retina displays...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kenryan on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
You normally can't just take your chipset design from one fab house (foundry)
and stick it on another, at least for any reasonably modern fab process. The
layout design rules are tied very closely to the precise manufacturing process.
I can especially envision it in this case, where one of the Apple processor's
strong suits is extremely low power.
At the very least Apple would need to be willing to invest in a new layout,
design verification, qualification and test process. Assuming Samsung was
chosen in the first place because their process gave Apple some advantages,
going to another factory may well end up also trading performance or power
consumption.
---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
