I disagree with what IDC wrote or the way he wrote his message: he seems to reduce the question to a money or a fanboy thing. Some people may just want to know, without any particular reason beyond the knowledge itself.
IDC is one of the pinacle posters on this forum. He has earned everyone's respect. You would do well to show him the respect he has earned on this forum, if you want anyone to respect your ideas.
he seems to reduce the question to a money or a fanboy thing.
You might very well be right and that's a pity :|I am only joking (kind of), but the people who actually want to know just for the pure "knowledge" aspect of it, are a dying breed.
+1. And "page long post" - does he read ATF in a 24 point font?WWYBYWB?
Is it a fanboy/psychological thing? Do we really have Samsung and TSMC fanboys nowadays?
Ever listen to people arguing over football? Seems like the same thing, but different context.
I disagree with what IDC wrote or the way he wrote his message: he seems to reduce the question to a money or a fanboy thing. Some people may just want to know, without any particular reason beyond the knowledge itself.
I disagree with what IDC wrote or the way he wrote his message: he seems to reduce the question to a money or a fanboy thing. Some people may just want to know, without any particular reason beyond the knowledge itself.
Sorry folks if my post seemed judgmental or conclusive
Honestly I was coming from the completely opposite perspective. My post contains a whole bunch of questions (at least I thought it did), and in no way was intended to impart upon the reader that I was in some way reducing "the question" to, well to anything. What I was really trying to do was open up the question, not reduce it.
In my post I was grasping at straws in a vacuum of (for me) having no better explanation entering my mind to explain the observable situation in threads that seem to involve (1) TSMC, (2) Samsung, and (3) Apple.
Call it a lack of intelligence or creative thinking if my straws are too narrow for one's liking, but there is a reason I was asking questions instead of dictating conclusions.
The questions were invoked to invite discussion from my fellow forum members in my own quest to elucidate the conundrum that I am having. The post was NOT intended to come across as conclusive or judgmental.
At no point did I think anyone would read into my post that I was calling into question their motivation for being interested or curious to know which supplier (TSMC or Samsung) is manufacturing the A9 or A9X or A10 (the thread's title already tells you this information, so what's left to discuss?).
Hell, I was curious to know as well, which is why I do happen to know which is the supplier. I took advantage of my connections, geopositioning, and so forth to answer the questions I had about it because I too am curious about these things.
But when I found out that the answer is "TSMC won the business" I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction of "BS, I don't like that answer, I care to see Samsung wins this business and that Samsung is fabbing the A10, so prove to me that TSMC won the business with publicly available links or else accept the fact that I'm going to call you a liar and a TSMC fanboy in my next post"...which is pretty much what I feel is the general observation to be made in many of these "did TSMC or Samsung get the contract?" type threads.
Personally I'm flummoxed by what seems to be vocal posters who are invested (be it financially, emotionally, or something else? I don't know, which is why I asked) in either Samsung or TSMC having the Apple contract. Distinctly different from just being curious to know which of them has the contract.
At any rate, for those who are curious, at the moment its all TSMC. Samsung was originally apportioned 80%, then 70% due to softening confidence in their yield ramp rate, and that was later on further reduced to 50%...but their yields are so low right now (compared to TSMC's) that practically all the A9's headed to market on the eve of the iphone 6S release were fabbed by TSMC. Should Samsung get their yields up, and same goes for GloFo for that matter, then they'll get to claw back their portion of the volume contracts for the A9 in the coming months and quarters.
And this is why Apple had to wait to release the iphone 6S versus releasing it months ago (when Samsung 14nm HVM was obviously available), as TSMC had practically no substantial 16FF+ capacity online until about 2 months ago. So the tradeoff was to wait for TSMC's high-yielding 16ff+ capacity to come online, or take Samsung's much lower yielding 14nm capacity and launch earlier in the year.
As it turned out, the accountants at Apple (and they do seem good at their jobs, Apples financials as testament) crunched the numbers and concluded it made sense to hold off on the iphone launch (actual ship date to customers) until such time that they had enough capacity coming from TSMC to field the desired number of initial launch volumes of the 6S.
And should Samsung get their yields up in time then they can get back their wafer start allocations from Apple at a future date. So for them the door is still open on the A9. But it is completely closed on the A9X and A10.
In conclusion, mea culpa if my post came across as being conclusive or pre-judgmental, I offered potential answers to my own questions merely because I talk to myself a lot and sometimes that inner-dialogue gets captured in my writing. My intention in posting was to engage my fellow forum members in a dialogue in hopes that someone (or someones) could clue me in to this development of the impassioned debate that seems to imbue threads involving TSMC, Samsung, and Apple.
I thought a number of you had very insightful and thought provoking responses to my questions. arandomguy's post stood out to me as he touched on some things that I had not considered before. But many others also posted their reasoning for being curious and I appreciate them taking the time and investing the effort to both read and respond to my questions.
Sorry folks if my post seemed judgmental or conclusive
Honestly I was coming from the completely opposite perspective. My post contains a whole bunch of questions (at least I thought it did), and in no way was intended to impart upon the reader that I was in some way reducing "the question" to, well to anything. What I was really trying to do was open up the question, not reduce it.
In my post I was grasping at straws in a vacuum of (for me) having no better explanation entering my mind to explain the observable situation in threads that seem to involve (1) TSMC, (2) Samsung, and (3) Apple.
Call it a lack of intelligence or creative thinking if my straws are too narrow for one's liking, but there is a reason I was asking questions instead of dictating conclusions.
The questions were invoked to invite discussion from my fellow forum members in my own quest to elucidate the conundrum that I am having. The post was NOT intended to come across as conclusive or judgmental.
At no point did I think anyone would read into my post that I was calling into question their motivation for being interested or curious to know which supplier (TSMC or Samsung) is manufacturing the A9 or A9X or A10 (the thread's title already tells you this information, so what's left to discuss?).
Hell, I was curious to know as well, which is why I do happen to know which is the supplier. I took advantage of my connections, geopositioning, and so forth to answer the questions I had about it because I too am curious about these things.
But when I found out that the answer is "TSMC won the business" I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction of "BS, I don't like that answer, I care to see Samsung wins this business and that Samsung is fabbing the A10, so prove to me that TSMC won the business with publicly available links or else accept the fact that I'm going to call you a liar and a TSMC fanboy in my next post"...which is pretty much what I feel is the general observation to be made in many of these "did TSMC or Samsung get the contract?" type threads.
Personally I'm flummoxed by what seems to be vocal posters who are invested (be it financially, emotionally, or something else? I don't know, which is why I asked) in either Samsung or TSMC having the Apple contract. Distinctly different from just being curious to know which of them has the contract.
At any rate, for those who are curious, at the moment its all TSMC. Samsung was originally apportioned 80%, then 70% due to softening confidence in their yield ramp rate, and that was later on further reduced to 50%...but their yields are so low right now (compared to TSMC's) that practically all the A9's headed to market on the eve of the iphone 6S release were fabbed by TSMC. Should Samsung get their yields up, and same goes for GloFo for that matter, then they'll get to claw back their portion of the volume contracts for the A9 in the coming months and quarters.
And this is why Apple had to wait to release the iphone 6S versus releasing it months ago (when Samsung 14nm HVM was obviously available), as TSMC had practically no substantial 16FF+ capacity online until about 2 months ago. So the tradeoff was to wait for TSMC's high-yielding 16ff+ capacity to come online, or take Samsung's much lower yielding 14nm capacity and launch earlier in the year.
As it turned out, the accountants at Apple (and they do seem good at their jobs, Apples financials as testament) crunched the numbers and concluded it made sense to hold off on the iphone launch (actual ship date to customers) until such time that they had enough capacity coming from TSMC to field the desired number of initial launch volumes of the 6S.
And should Samsung get their yields up in time then they can get back their wafer start allocations from Apple at a future date. So for them the door is still open on the A9. But it is completely closed on the A9X and A10.
In conclusion, mea culpa if my post came across as being conclusive or pre-judgmental, I offered potential answers to my own questions merely because I talk to myself a lot and sometimes that inner-dialogue gets captured in my writing. My intention in posting was to engage my fellow forum members in a dialogue in hopes that someone (or someones) could clue me in to this development of the impassioned debate that seems to imbue threads involving TSMC, Samsung, and Apple.
I thought a number of you had very insightful and thought provoking responses to my questions. arandomguy's post stood out to me as he touched on some things that I had not considered before. But many others also posted their reasoning for being curious and I appreciate them taking the time and investing the effort to both read and respond to my questions.
Hm. I thought it looked like Apple was spreading their bets, sending one chip to a maker, sending the next chip to another, etc. But now it seems like it was a matter of delivering the goods. Interesting -- it just shows how difficult making is, and puts Intel's travails into perspective.
Idontcare's posts are always interesting, insightful, and add significant value. That's why people listen to him.
BTW, kind of strange that somebody who just joined these forums in August and has a mere 13 posts under their belt speaks as though they've been here a while. What alias did you post under previously?
Oh look, a page long post by a newb.
IDC is one of the pinacle posters on this forum. He has earned everyone's respect. You would do well to show him the respect he has earned on this forum, if you want anyone to respect your ideas.
Because someone's postcount is a relevant metric?
Oh look, you joined recently let me use appeal to authority arguments.
I didn't think IDC's follow-up post was necessary. I think his original points were well made and I basically agreed with them and I don't see why some got butthurt by those comments.
But just because I agreed with them doesn't mean I think anyone is off-limits to criticism. And attacking others for their post count or whatever is just a terrible mentality.
That all being said, It's more than ironic to see people agree with IDC on the argument and then essentially turn themselves into fanboys of IDC. That's the mentality that leads to these kinds of shallow discussions about TSMC vs Samsung in the first place. Whether if it is a company or a person, you pick a side and can't accept that side being criticised(even if unfairly).
I think Nothingness reply was civil, even if I disagreed with it. No need for these shrill attacks on anyone who dares question another forum member. If someone disagrees with IDC, let them. Attacking them for their post count and talking about said forum member as a demi-god is cringe-worthy and, yes, it reeks of fanboyism. If you think someone's argument is bad, say why. Use substantive arguments.
Honest question, because I don't get it. I do, however, happen to live in Asia and work in the industry, and it is quite clear who has which contract and why. But who cares, and why?
Interesting, have any more quantitative information on yields (and how about Intel?), and why SS can't get A9X or A10?Sorry folks if my post seemed judgmental or conclusive
Honestly I was coming from the completely opposite perspective. My post contains a whole bunch of questions (at least I thought it did), and in no way was intended to impart upon the reader that I was in some way reducing "the question" to, well to anything. What I was really trying to do was open up the question, not reduce it.
In my post I was grasping at straws in a vacuum of (for me) having no better explanation entering my mind to explain the observable situation in threads that seem to involve (1) TSMC, (2) Samsung, and (3) Apple.
Call it a lack of intelligence or creative thinking if my straws are too narrow for one's liking, but there is a reason I was asking questions instead of dictating conclusions.
The questions were invoked to invite discussion from my fellow forum members in my own quest to elucidate the conundrum that I am having. The post was NOT intended to come across as conclusive or judgmental.
At no point did I think anyone would read into my post that I was calling into question their motivation for being interested or curious to know which supplier (TSMC or Samsung) is manufacturing the A9 or A9X or A10 (the thread's title already tells you this information, so what's left to discuss?).
Hell, I was curious to know as well, which is why I do happen to know which is the supplier. I took advantage of my connections, geopositioning, and so forth to answer the questions I had about it because I too am curious about these things.
But when I found out that the answer is "TSMC won the business" I didn't have a knee-jerk reaction of "BS, I don't like that answer, I care to see Samsung wins this business and that Samsung is fabbing the A10, so prove to me that TSMC won the business with publicly available links or else accept the fact that I'm going to call you a liar and a TSMC fanboy in my next post"...which is pretty much what I feel is the general observation to be made in many of these "did TSMC or Samsung get the contract?" type threads.
Personally I'm flummoxed by what seems to be vocal posters who are invested (be it financially, emotionally, or something else? I don't know, which is why I asked) in either Samsung or TSMC having the Apple contract. Distinctly different from just being curious to know which of them has the contract.
At any rate, for those who are curious, at the moment its all TSMC. Samsung was originally apportioned 80%, then 70% due to softening confidence in their yield ramp rate, and that was later on further reduced to 50%...but their yields are so low right now (compared to TSMC's) that practically all the A9's headed to market on the eve of the iphone 6S release were fabbed by TSMC. Should Samsung get their yields up, and same goes for GloFo for that matter, then they'll get to claw back their portion of the volume contracts for the A9 in the coming months and quarters.
And this is why Apple had to wait to release the iphone 6S versus releasing it months ago (when Samsung 14nm HVM was obviously available), as TSMC had practically no substantial 16FF+ capacity online until about 2 months ago. So the tradeoff was to wait for TSMC's high-yielding 16ff+ capacity to come online, or take Samsung's much lower yielding 14nm capacity and launch earlier in the year.
As it turned out, the accountants at Apple (and they do seem good at their jobs, Apples financials as testament) crunched the numbers and concluded it made sense to hold off on the iphone launch (actual ship date to customers) until such time that they had enough capacity coming from TSMC to field the desired number of initial launch volumes of the 6S.
And should Samsung get their yields up in time then they can get back their wafer start allocations from Apple at a future date. So for them the door is still open on the A9. But it is completely closed on the A9X and A10.
In conclusion, mea culpa if my post came across as being conclusive or pre-judgmental, I offered potential answers to my own questions merely because I talk to myself a lot and sometimes that inner-dialogue gets captured in my writing. My intention in posting was to engage my fellow forum members in a dialogue in hopes that someone (or someones) could clue me in to this development of the impassioned debate that seems to imbue threads involving TSMC, Samsung, and Apple.
I thought a number of you had very insightful and thought provoking responses to my questions. arandomguy's post stood out to me as he touched on some things that I had not considered before. But many others also posted their reasoning for being curious and I appreciate them taking the time and investing the effort to both read and respond to my questions.
September has been the normal launch date for iPhones, ever since the iPhone 4S in 2011. The 4S, 5, 5s, 6, and 6s have all been released in September.At any rate, for those who are curious, at the moment its all TSMC. Samsung was originally apportioned 80%, then 70% due to softening confidence in their yield ramp rate, and that was later on further reduced to 50%...but their yields are so low right now (compared to TSMC's) that practically all the A9's headed to market on the eve of the iphone 6S release were fabbed by TSMC. Should Samsung get their yields up, and same goes for GloFo for that matter, then they'll get to claw back their portion of the volume contracts for the A9 in the coming months and quarters.
And this is why Apple had to wait to release the iphone 6S versus releasing it months ago (when Samsung 14nm HVM was obviously available), as TSMC had practically no substantial 16FF+ capacity online until about 2 months ago. So the tradeoff was to wait for TSMC's high-yielding 16ff+ capacity to come online, or take Samsung's much lower yielding 14nm capacity and launch earlier in the year.
As it turned out, the accountants at Apple (and they do seem good at their jobs, Apples financials as testament) crunched the numbers and concluded it made sense to hold off on the iphone launch (actual ship date to customers) until such time that they had enough capacity coming from TSMC to field the desired number of initial launch volumes of the 6S.