Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Something Samsung should've done from the moment Apple started suing them, so they can pay for all the frivolous lawsuits.

View on HN

There is a significant risk to Samsung that Apple will abandon them as a supplier which would do horrible things to Samsung's bottom line.

According to the MarketWatch article, Apple tried and couldn't do so.

So it's very likely that Samsung did actually ask for the price hike as soon as they were sued, and Apple has spent the past few months looking for a new supplier.

The bridge between Apple and Samsung is on fire, but given that Apple set fire to it, they probably have an alternative in the pipeline.

Samsung are just adding fuel to the fire; they know Apple's going to drop them anyway, why wouldn't they make as much profit as they're contractually able to?

We already know Apple plans to move to TSMC in the near future, from several reports. Obviously, Samsung will know about this, too. And this is probably just a way for them to squeeze the most money out of Apple by the time that happens.

Do you want to be the one to report to your shareholders that you lost Apple as a customer and, as a result, quarterly profits are going to be absolutely destroyed?

Samsung profits very little from Apple, maybe they will profit more now, but as it stands, i would like to be the one to report shareholders that we lost the biggest customer, but we have record profits because of that, selling smartphones is way more profitable for Samsung (they are close to Apple profits) than selling chips to Apple will ever be.

Lets see the figures on this please.

Except that if was stated there more than once, division making chips is completely separate from division making phones then chips maker won't have much to brag about.

Samsung is a Chaebol and largely controlled by one family.

There interests are thus less subject to the quarterly forcasts of Wall Street analysts than those of Apple.

This left me wondering

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/corporategovernanc...

Seems that 'only' 15.29% is owned by the "family". I'm not an expert on this things.

That's typically enough to control a company. You don't have absolute control, but organizations with as little as 5% have an outsized influence. I'm not really sure why that is, but back when I was doing mutual funds the fund managers would say companies were "controlled by" as stockholder with a relatively small number of shares.

Sometimes it really is enough for absolute control, since not all shares are voting shares. The NYT is a good example of this.

Thanks

Profit or revenue? Reminds me of the company that stops selling to Walmart and their revenue drops significantly but their profit doesn't go down much at all.

I haven't followed the lawsuits at all, but thought Apple won some of them. Surely you can't win a frivolous lawsuit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com