苹果削藩：三星能失去这个大客户吗？

在苹果(Apple Inc.)与三星两家公司的专利战终于告一段落后，据报导，苹果公司日前削减向三星购买内存芯片的订单。有鉴于两家消费巨擘之间积怨已深，这个消息并不会令人感到意外。 乍看之下，三星似乎将成为这项决定的受害者。由于苹果 iPhone 和 iPad 出货迅速，就算对于利润低的内存业务来说，能量产多少算多少。苹果公司采取缩减组件订单的决定将对于三星造成负面影响。只要内存市场持续价格低，苹果就有多处可购买内存芯片的其它选择。 但我认为，苹果公司和分析师只着眼于苹果与三星之间的嫌隙，而缺少大局观。任何一家公司──即使是苹果──又能远离其主要供应商多久？多深远呢？ 除了内存芯片以外，三星也是苹果主要的显示器供应商。虽然最近的报告显示，苹果正逐渐巩固与LG Display之间的关系，但三星毕竟是全球最大的显示器制造商。就像内存一样，某些类型的显示器已供给过剩： AMLCD 的价格持续下滑，显示器制造商正竞相削价求售显示器，以赚取利润。 同时，三星也是有机发光二极管(OLED) 显示器的主要开发厂商，这种OLED技术一旦在价格降低后，将彻底改变显示器市场。 OLED比传统显示器耗电低；可在像纸一样轻薄的基板上进行制造；而且可用于开发可挠性屏幕。OLED TV有一天还能像大型海报一样贴在墙壁上，不会占用任何空间。因此，比较合理的想法应该是三星毫不在乎地对苹果说再见吗？ 事实 上，截至目前为止，还没有任何迹象显示苹果也将减少给三星的显示器订单。如果真是这样的话，它将会对于供货商带来另一波冲击──至少在短期内。因此，除了LG Display以外，苹果已经与夏普电子(Sharp Electronics)建立稳定的合作关系。对于苹果而言，显示器供货商出现的任何问题都是暂时的。 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 本文下一页：任何一家公司都不想失去苹果这家大客户

相关阅读：
• 面板供应链如何应对苹果“双刃剑”？
• TrendForce：三星踩雷，苹果重塑供应链
• 苹果去三星化，开始减少内存订单Qiyesmc

{pagination} 因此，苹果可说是掌握了所有的好牌。它不仅在美国法院中打赢了三星，同时，它还很可能是三星最大的客户之一。基于这样的逻辑与自保原则，就很可能让三星只得忍气吞声而不作任何抗议。 难道苹果最终目的是要让三星做不了生意吗？三星是一个庞大的企业集团，本身就是一家主要的消费电子OEM，2011年的年营收达到了2,475亿美元。 但电子产品市场具有高度的周期性。目前的显示器市场看起来差不就像先前的DRAM市场。其特点是产品的供应和需求间存在重大落差、随之而来的价格波动，以及可说是几乎所有的电子设备的重要组成组件──这是我看到苹果公司目前可能面临的风险。 显示器已经成为许多消费产品中一项最重要的组成部份了。他们不只是让产品外型看起来更美，触控式屏幕还提供设备开关以及鼠标与键盘等功能。这是大多数电子设备的最重要接口。但如果由于某种原因而使显示器供应中断，什么样的客户能得到较好的安排呢？当然是最大客户了。但如果最大客户正起诉你呢？你会怎么做就不免让人感到好奇了。 最终，我想这都会回到一种商业的考量与决定，至少对于三星来说如此。如果失去了苹果这家客户将危及公司业务的话，那么就如同其它公司一样，三星也会考虑到投资人的权益。但我想就算是三星或任何一家公司，都不太可能禁得起失去苹果这家大客户。 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Susan Hong 参考英文原文：Apple-Samsung: How Far Is Too Far?，by Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor

相关阅读：
• 面板供应链如何应对苹果“双刃剑”？
• TrendForce：三星踩雷，苹果重塑供应链
• 苹果去三星化，开始减少内存订单Qiyesmc

{pagination} Apple-Samsung: How Far Is Too Far? Barbara Jorgensen Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) is reportedly cutting back on its purchases of Samsung Corp. memory chips in the wake of an ongoing patent battle between the two companies. This isn’t a big surprise, given the rancor between the consumer electronics giants. At first glance, it looks as if Samsung will be the victim in this move. Apple is shipping iPhones and iPads as quickly as they can be built, and even in the low-margin memory business, volume is volume. Any cutback on Apple’s part will have a negative impact on Samsung. As long as memory is flush and prices are low, Apple has plenty of places to shop for memory chips. But I think Apple and analysts watching the Apple-Samsung feud are missing the bigger picture. How far can any company -- even Apple -- go before alienating its suppliers? In addition to memory chips, Samsung is the leading supplier of displays to Apple. Although recent reports suggest Apple is cementing its ties with LG Display, Samsung is the world’s biggest manufacturer of displays. Like memory, certain types of displays are in oversupply: active matrix LCD (AMLCD) prices have been in steady decline and display makers are scrambling to make a buck in display sales. But Samsung is also a leader in the development of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, a technology that will revolutionize the display market once prices come down. OLED uses less power than conventional displays; can be manufactured on paper-thin substrates; and can be used to make flexible screens. OLED TVs someday could take up no more space on a wall than a large poster. Is it feasible, by any stretch of the imagination, that Samsung would tell Apple to take a hike? So far, there’s no indication that Apple is cutting back its display orders from Samsung. If it does, it will be another blow to the supplier -- at least for the short term. In addition to LG, Apple has a solid relationship with Sharp Electronics, a display maker now with close ties to Foxconn, Apple’s leading EMS provider. Any hiccup in display supplies to Apple will be short-lived. So Apple is holding all the cards. Not only has it “beat” Samsung in the US courts, but it is likely one of Samsung’s biggest customers. Logic and self-preservation would dictate that Samsung take its lumps without protest. There is also little chance that Apple will ultimately drive Samsung out of business. Samsung is a huge conglomerate, a major consumer electronics OEM in its own right, with $247.5 billion (in 2011) in revenue. But the electronics market, as we have seen again and again, is highly cyclical. The DRAM market is the worst offender. Although DRAM has been flush, it seems, for years now, when demand spikes there is always a scramble for memory chips. Prices skyrocket and small customers -- even if they are “strategic” -- go to the end of the line when shortages strike. The display market is beginning to look a lot like the DRAM market did not long ago. It is marked by wide spikes in supply and demand; corresponding swings in pricing; and is a key component in just about every electronics device. And that’s where I see a risk for Apple. Displays have become the single most important component in many consumer goods. They aren't just nice to look at: touchscreens are a device's on/off switch and mouse and keyboard. It is the primary interface for most electronics devices. If, for some reason, display supply is disrupted to the extent HDDs were last year, what customers would get preferential treatment? The biggest customers, certainly. But the biggest customers that are also suing you? I have to wonder about that. Ultimately, however, I think it will come down to a business decision, at least for Samsung. If losing Apple harms the business, Samsung, like any corporation, will consider its shareholders. It is highly unlikely any company, even Samsung, can afford to tell Apple to take a hike.