4 Comments

Summary:

It can sometimes be easy to forget that Apple’s primary purpose as a company is to make money, not to continually wow the industry and the public with fresh designs and technical innovation, which is all actually just a means to the end of profitability. Occasionally, […]

chip

It can sometimes be easy to forget that Apple’s primary purpose as a company is to make money, not to continually wow the industry and the public with fresh designs and technical innovation, which is all actually just a means to the end of profitability. Occasionally, though, we are reminded of this fact by things like a new report in The Korea Times about Apple’s use of bully tactics with flash memory makers.

According to the newspaper, complaints are mounting among NAND flash producers that Apple is using its position as one of the biggest buyers on the block to artificially drive down prices with ethically questionable business practices. And suppliers can’t do anything about it, since that would mean risking a very lucrative arrangement.

Apple’s apparent plan is shrewd from a business perspective, but ethically questionable, though not, apparently, illegal or in violation of any industry regulations. A senior industry official, who wished to remain anonymous, described the process as follows:

Apple has asked Korean semiconductor makers to produce a certain amount of chips for its digital products, only to actually purchase a smaller volume eventually. The company doesn’t make immediate purchases, but waits until chip prices to fall to the level the company has internally targeted.

Samsung and Hynix are the major Korean players in the NAND flash game. Both refused to officially comment regarding the supposed bully tactics, as did Apple’s Korean office. An unidentified industry source claims that the practice is common knowledge among all involved, though.

No one believes the practices are tenable in the long term, since they erode good-faith relationships with key suppliers, who might conceivably refuse to play along if Apple continues to press too hard for too long. Rather, industry watchers believe the tactics to be a short term strategy aimed at temporarily reducing the costs of high capacity NAND flash chips. The lowered price would allow them to build iPhones with much higher capacities quickly and cheaply, which some see as a good strategy for staying ahead of competition by Android and others.

Apple could also be preparing for a time when it isn’t in a position to command the prices from suppliers it currently does. For a long time, it was one of the few companies that actually built significant storage into its cellphone handset, but many other companies are now following suit. Apple’s share will dwindle, percentage-wise, even if its user base continues to grow worldwide. This could be an anticipatory attempt to lay hands on as much hardware as possible, as cheaply as possible, before the industry becomes more competitive and demand far outpaces supply.

  1. The article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think there is sour grapes because Apple is the only major buyer on the block and they are not able to gouge as a result. I don’t believe that Apple CONTRACTED for a quantity and bought less (though they could easily have forecasted higher than they bought). Any manufacturer who treats a forecast as an order is a fool.

    Nor do I think that Apple would play games with bumpy supply – securing a continuous supply at a ‘predictable’ price is far more important than messing around a critical component supplier.

    The manufacturers have too large a capacity than the market has a demand hence the lowering of price. Without Apple they’d be f3kd entirely.

    Share
  2. I agree with Gerard. Apple has simply contracted for a continuous supply of flash memory, which is standard business practice.

    With regards to referencing The Korea Times, I live in Seoul and everyone here knows this newspaper is akin to the National Enquirer. Shoddy, biased reporting with a lack of facts.

    Share
  3. ANd this is different than WHAT Company? Every major player out there does this. WalMart basically says what they are going to pay their suppliers. No sympathy here, if you dont want the contract, dont take it.

    Share
  4. Are we supposed to be experiencing the heartbreak of tough business negotiations?

    Grow up, dude. Maybe a portion of the Web is reserved for vegan ethics. The biz world is mostly carnivores.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post