在蘋果(Apple Inc.)與三星兩家公司的專利戰(zhàn)終于告一段落后，據(jù)報(bào)導(dǎo)，蘋果公司日前削減向三星購買內(nèi)存芯片的訂單。有鑒于兩家消費(fèi)巨擘之間積怨已深，這個(gè)消息并不會(huì)令人感到意外。 乍看之下，三星似乎將成為這項(xiàng)決定的受害者。由于蘋果 iPhone 和 iPad 出貨迅速，就算對(duì)于利潤低的內(nèi)存業(yè)務(wù)來說，能量產(chǎn)多少算多少。蘋果公司采取縮減組件訂單的決定將對(duì)于三星造成負(fù)面影響。只要內(nèi)存市場持續(xù)價(jià)格低，蘋果就有多處可購買內(nèi)存芯片的其它選擇。 但我認(rèn)為，蘋果公司和分析師只著眼于蘋果與三星之間的嫌隙，而缺少大局觀。任何一家公司──即使是蘋果──又能遠(yuǎn)離其主要供應(yīng)商多久？多深遠(yuǎn)呢？ 除了內(nèi)存芯片以外，三星也是蘋果主要的顯示器供應(yīng)商。雖然最近的報(bào)告顯示，蘋果正逐漸鞏固與LG Display之間的關(guān)系，但三星畢竟是全球最大的顯示器制造商。就像內(nèi)存一樣，某些類型的顯示器已供給過剩： AMLCD 的價(jià)格持續(xù)下滑，顯示器制造商正競相削價(jià)求售顯示器，以賺取利潤。 同時(shí)，三星也是有機(jī)發(fā)光二極管(OLED) 顯示器的主要開發(fā)廠商，這種OLED技術(shù)一旦在價(jià)格降低后，將徹底改變顯示器市場。 OLED比傳統(tǒng)顯示器耗電低；可在像紙一樣輕薄的基板上進(jìn)行制造；而且可用于開發(fā)可撓性屏幕。OLED TV有一天還能像大型海報(bào)一樣貼在墻壁上，不會(huì)占用任何空間。因此，比較合理的想法應(yīng)該是三星毫不在乎地對(duì)蘋果說再見嗎？ 事實(shí) 上，截至目前為止，還沒有任何跡象顯示蘋果也將減少給三星的顯示器訂單。如果真是這樣的話，它將會(huì)對(duì)于供貨商帶來另一波沖擊──至少在短期內(nèi)。因此，除了LG Display以外，蘋果已經(jīng)與夏普電子(Sharp Electronics)建立穩(wěn)定的合作關(guān)系。對(duì)于蘋果而言，顯示器供貨商出現(xiàn)的任何問題都是暫時(shí)的。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：任何一家公司都不想失去蘋果這家大客戶

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 面板供應(yīng)鏈如何應(yīng)對(duì)蘋果“雙刃劍”？
• TrendForce：三星踩雷，蘋果重塑供應(yīng)鏈
• 蘋果去三星化，開始減少內(nèi)存訂單41Iesmc

{pagination} 因此，蘋果可說是掌握了所有的好牌。它不僅在美國法院中打贏了三星，同時(shí)，它還很可能是三星最大的客戶之一?；谶@樣的邏輯與自保原則，就很可能讓三星只得忍氣吞聲而不作任何抗議。 難道蘋果最終目的是要讓三星做不了生意嗎？三星是一個(gè)龐大的企業(yè)集團(tuán)，本身就是一家主要的消費(fèi)電子OEM，2011年的年?duì)I收達(dá)到了2,475億美元。 但電子產(chǎn)品市場具有高度的周期性。目前的顯示器市場看起來差不就像先前的DRAM市場。其特點(diǎn)是產(chǎn)品的供應(yīng)和需求間存在重大落差、隨之而來的價(jià)格波動(dòng)，以及可說是幾乎所有的電子設(shè)備的重要組成組件──這是我看到蘋果公司目前可能面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 顯示器已經(jīng)成為許多消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品中一項(xiàng)最重要的組成部份了。他們不只是讓產(chǎn)品外型看起來更美，觸控式屏幕還提供設(shè)備開關(guān)以及鼠標(biāo)與鍵盤等功能。這是大多數(shù)電子設(shè)備的最重要接口。但如果由于某種原因而使顯示器供應(yīng)中斷，什么樣的客戶能得到較好的安排呢？當(dāng)然是最大客戶了。但如果最大客戶正起訴你呢？你會(huì)怎么做就不免讓人感到好奇了。 最終，我想這都會(huì)回到一種商業(yè)的考量與決定，至少對(duì)于三星來說如此。如果失去了蘋果這家客戶將危及公司業(yè)務(wù)的話，那么就如同其它公司一樣，三星也會(huì)考慮到投資人的權(quán)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蘋果這家大客戶。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Susan Hong 參考英文原文：Apple-Samsung: How Far Is Too Far?，by Barbara Jorgensen, EBN Community Editor

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 面板供應(yīng)鏈如何應(yīng)對(duì)蘋果“雙刃劍”？
• TrendForce：三星踩雷，蘋果重塑供應(yīng)鏈
• 蘋果去三星化，開始減少內(nèi)存訂單41Iesmc

{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.