业界传言苹果(Apple)已经不再委托三星(Samsung)生产其处理器，而后者是否可能藉由限缩供应其 NAND闪存来要挟苹果？而苹果又该怎么面对这样的危机？
最近电子产业界又一次传言苹果已经解除与三星之间的处理器代工契约关系，转而与晶圆代工大厂台积电(TSMC)合作；而根据韩国当地媒体《Korea Times》引述供应链的匿名消息来源指出，这个状况其实已经发生好一段时间，台积电已经完成20纳米CMOS制程的苹果A7处理器投片(tape out)，预定在2014年初──甚至2013年之内就会量产。
这并非是突发事件，早在 2011年就有业界消息指出，苹果尝试采用台积电28纳米CMOS制程；看来该次“尝试”的过程是遇到了一些问题，才说服苹果与台积电将目标放到下一个制程节点。根据笔者听到的传言，问题是与A5与A6处理器所采用的三星外围IP有关──三星不愿意为了“变心”客户的方便，将那些IP移交给台积电。
此一情况意味着台积电的后闸极(gate-last) bulk CMOS逻辑制程技术，有凌驾于三星之后闸极优先(gate-last) 28纳米CMOS逻辑制程的趋势；三星的制程是源自于IBM主导的通用平台联盟(Common Platform Alliance)。而苹果转抱台积电的思路也很合理，毕竟苹果与三星之间的平板与智能手机专利侵权官司，在各国法庭缠讼多年。
facesmc
然而苹果与三星之间的关系，除了在智能手机与平板电脑市场的竞争以及处理器代工，还有在非挥发性内存方面的共同利益；而若苹果决定将台积电做为A7处理器的唯一供应来源，那是否会对其闪存供应来源造成任何影响？
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
第2页：有限的闪存供应来源
第3页：苹果的应对之道？
相关阅读：
• 苹果或推迟发布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 谁能突破三星苹果双寡头垄断下的市场？
• 苹果A7处理器有望3月在台积电投产facesmc
{pagination}
有限的闪存供应来源
苹果在 2011年成为全球最大的 NAND闪存采购买主，其闪存需求量并在 2012年进一步激增。而根据市场研究机构 IHS 的统计，在2012年，三星是全球最大的 NAND闪存供应商，市占率达38%。
其余 NAND闪存供应商包括全球市占率28%的东芝(Toshiba)、14%的美光(Micron)、12%的SK海力士(Hynix)以及8%的英特尔(Intel)；但其中东芝的大部分产能是供应给SanDisk，因此NAND闪存供应商的选择也不多。
在2012年之前几年，NAND闪存市场有供应过剩的现象，因此除了价格低、也能确保供应量；但时间来到 2013年，NAND闪存开始出现供应短缺，平均销售价格也上扬。
苹果现在是全球最大(或是接近最大)的NAND闪存买主，确实有采购影响力，但这也代表该公司对NAND闪存有很大的需求，若是 NAND闪存供应商祭出了“配给制度(allocation)”，苹果就可能面临难题。
三星自己是智能电视、PC、平板电脑、智能手机等产品的供应商，因此应该也是NAND闪存的重度使用者，无论是芯片型态或是固态硬盘型态，因此可以想象三星的闪存产能主要是供应自家产品。身为最大的NAND闪存制造商，三星可能会成为市场上非常少数几家不会遭遇非挥发性内存供应短缺问题的终端设备业者。
facesmc
有鉴于全球各地的反垄断法规，将处理器的销售与内存采购捆 绑在一起，可能是会引起争议的作法；不过如果三星告诉苹果，是因为他们自己需要很大量的NAND闪存供应自家平板与智能手机，所以无法供应太多闪存，将会是很微妙的事情。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
第3页：苹果的应对之道？
相关阅读：
• 苹果或推迟发布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 谁能突破三星苹果双寡头垄断下的市场？
• 苹果A7处理器有望3月在台积电投产facesmc
{pagination}
苹果的应对之道？
苹果其实一直以来都面临这样的状况，而且确实在过去五年来都能巧妙应对；但那些聪明的方法恐怕在2013年将不再奏效，一切都得看那些内存大厂的脸色。
回溯到2005年，苹果当时预付了12.5亿美元给5家NAND闪存供应商，以确保苹果可在2010年以前取得足够的内存供应量；这项为期五年的供应协议让苹果得以保有消费性移动设备供应龙头的优势。那5家内存供应商就是前面提过的那5家，至于苹果预付的费用是如何分配，当时并未公布。
当 时苹果也会告诉各家内存供应商每年的预估需求量，让厂商能依据其需求来提供足够产能；但问题是根据了解，苹果在供应协议的五年期间，总是过度预估其记忆体需求量，使得那些闪存制造商面临供应过剩，并因此无法提高产品价格。苹果操纵内存价格的传言在2009年于韩国市场广为流传。
现在已经过了好几年，看来苹果得订定另一个新的NAND闪存供应计划，而且这一次恐怕12.5亿的预付金无法了事，得付出的是数十亿美元。
不过有鉴于2009年的市场传言，三星与SK海力士的合作意愿就是个问题；如果没有订定供应计划，苹果的第一线产品生产量就可能会受限于其NAND闪存采购能力，并因此沦为被NAND闪存制造商控制，特别是三星。
若苹果准备好投资一个新的NAND闪存生产计划，问题则变成该公司是否能像上次那样，让整个闪存产业的主要厂商都愿意合作──或者是就选择一家合作对象，例如美光(Micon)，让那家供应商受到特别优待，甚至愿意对苹果死心塌地。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
编译：Judith Cheng
参考英文原文：London Calling: Where will Apple get flash memory now?，by Peter Clarke
相关阅读：
• 苹果或推迟发布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 谁能突破三星苹果双寡头垄断下的市场？
• 苹果A7处理器有望3月在台积电投产facesmc
{pagination}
London Calling: Where will Apple get flash memory now?
Peter Clarke
Could Samsung, reportedly the ousted manufacturer of processors for Apple, be able to control the Silicon Valley company by putting it on a rationed supply of NAND flash memory? How should Apple respond to the danger?
Observers of the electronics and computer industries are reporting again and again that Apple has thrown over its microprocessor manufacturing arrangement with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in favor of pure-play foundry supplier Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
There are few reliable sources for this, a comment in the Korea Times here, an unnamed supply chain source there, but the general opinion is that this move has been coming for a while and that TSMC has completed the tape out of Apple's A7 processor in 20-nm CMOS in time for volume production in early 2014 – or even in 2013.
This is not sudden. Back in 2011 Apple was reported to be trying to get on to TSMC's 28-nm CMOS manufacturing process but that move apparently hit problems that persuaded Apple and TSMC to aim at the next process generation. One rumor I heard at the time was that the problem may have been related to Samsung peripheral IP used within the A5 and A6 processors that Samsung was not about to hand over to TSMC for the sake of a departing customer's convenience.
It is the case that TSMC with its gate-last bulk CMOS logic process seems to be pulling out a technology lead over Samsung which has a gate-first 28-nm CMOS logic process that has origins in the IBM-inspired Common Platform Alliance. And the logic of Apple moving makes even more sense when one considers Apple and Samsung spent a couple of years in the world's law courts arguing about patents pertaining to tablet computers and smartphones.
However, Apple and Samsung are linked not just by competition in smartphones and tablets and by a supply arrangement in processors. They are linked by a common interest in non-volatile memory. So if Apple does go sole-source with TSMC for A7 processors, what would be the consequences for its memory supply, if any?
What about the memory?
In 2011 Apple became the biggest purchaser of NAND flash memory in the world and its use of NAND flash surged in 2012. And in 2012 Samsung was the biggest maker of NAND flash memory with 38 percent market share, according to market researcher IHS. The other suppliers were Toshiba with 28 percent, Micron with 14 percent, SK Hynix with 12 percent and Intel with 8 percent, according to IHS (see NAND flash market surged in Q4). As much Toshiba's output is for SanDisk Corp it can be seen that there are not many options for buying NAND flash memory.
In 2012 and previous years there was an oversupply of NAND flash memory which kept prices low and ensured plenty of supply. But it is looking likely that 2013 will see an undersupply of NAND flash and increased average selling prices. Now as Apple is the largest, or close to the largest, purchases of NAND flash memory it does have purchasing clout. But it also has the biggest need and could see problems if NAND flash memory suppliers start to mutter the dreaded "A" word; allocation.
And as Samsung is itself a major supplier of smart televisions, computers, tablet computers and smartphones, all of which are already, or are likely to become, major users of NAND flash memory either in discrete form or solid-state drives, one can imagine that more of Samsung's output will be reserved for its own needs. As the largest producer of NAND flash Samsung is likely to be one of very few electronic equipment makers that will not see a shortage of the non-volatile memory.
It is a questionable practice under anti-trust legislation around the world to tie the selling of processors to the purchase of memory. However, for Samsung to tell Apple it can't supply as much NAND flash memory as Apple would like because it needs the lion's share for its own tablets and smartphones would be a subtler matter.
Apple has been here before
Apple has been here before. And indeed finessed its way out of the situation quite neatly in the second half of the last decade. Although the clever way it played its cards then may yet have repurcussions in 2013. It could depend on length of executives' memories, pun intended.
Back in 2005 Apple pre-paid $1.25 billion to five NAND flash memory suppliers to ensure they would be able to supply Apple with memory through 2010. That was a five-year supply agreement (see Apple to pre-pay $1.25 billion for flash memory) that made sure Apple could continue its apparently inexorable rise as a mobile consumer electronics supplier. The five NAND flash memory suppliers were the same as those listed above although how the pre-payment was split between them was not revealed at the time.
Apple also then proceeded to give suppliers periodic indications of its estimated future needs so that the vendors could tailor their manufacturing to meet its needs. The only problem was that towards the end of the five-year agreement Apple was reportedly accused of consistently over-estimating the need and then buying less product thus causing the flash memory vendors to be always in an oversupply situation and unable to raise prices. These accusations circulated in South Korea during 2009 (see Apple accused of NAND price manipulation) although it remained unclear whether this was simply happenstance due to the general economic malaise of the time or a deliberate ploy by Apple.
Here we are several years on and it looks like Apple needs to formulate another NAND flash memory supply plan. However, this time Apple may need to put down several billion dollars rather than $1.25 billion.
But given what was reported to be going on in 2009 it is questionable how cooperative the likes of Samsung and SK Hynix would be. In the absence of a plan there is the possibility that Apple's top line production volumes will be limited by its ability to procure NAND flash memory and effectively fall under the control of NAND flash memory makers and Samsung in particular.
If Apple is prepared to fund a NAND flash memory production plan the question then becomes whether Apple can again spread that money around the industry to maintain multiple competing suppliers – or whether it must back one supplier, perhaps Micron Technology, and makes that one company its favored or even captive NAND flash memory supplier?
责编：Quentin
扫码分享到好友
