業(yè)界傳言蘋果(Apple)已經(jīng)不再委托三星(Samsung)生產(chǎn)其處理器，而后者是否可能藉由限縮供應(yīng)其 NAND閃存來要挾蘋果？而蘋果又該怎么面對這樣的危機(jī)？ 最近電子產(chǎn)業(yè)界又一次傳言蘋果已經(jīng)解除與三星之間的處理器代工契約關(guān)系，轉(zhuǎn)而與晶圓代工大廠臺積電(TSMC)合作；而根據(jù)韓國當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w《Korea Times》引述供應(yīng)鏈的匿名消息來源指出，這個(gè)狀況其實(shí)已經(jīng)發(fā)生好一段時(shí)間，臺積電已經(jīng)完成20納米CMOS制程的蘋果A7處理器投片(tape out)，預(yù)定在2014年初──甚至2013年之內(nèi)就會量產(chǎn)。 這并非是突發(fā)事件，早在 2011年就有業(yè)界消息指出，蘋果嘗試采用臺積電28納米CMOS制程；看來該次“嘗試”的過程是遇到了一些問題，才說服蘋果與臺積電將目標(biāo)放到下一個(gè)制程節(jié)點(diǎn)。根據(jù)筆者聽到的傳言，問題是與A5與A6處理器所采用的三星外圍IP有關(guān)──三星不愿意為了“變心”客戶的方便，將那些IP移交給臺積電。 此一情況意味著臺積電的后閘極(gate-last) bulk CMOS邏輯制程技術(shù)，有凌駕于三星之后閘極優(yōu)先(gate-last) 28納米CMOS邏輯制程的趨勢；三星的制程是源自于IBM主導(dǎo)的通用平臺聯(lián)盟(Common Platform Alliance)。而蘋果轉(zhuǎn)抱臺積電的思路也很合理，畢竟蘋果與三星之間的平板與智能手機(jī)專利侵權(quán)官司，在各國法庭纏訟多年。

DJIesmc

然而蘋果與三星之間的關(guān)系，除了在智能手機(jī)與平板電腦市場的競爭以及處理器代工，還有在非揮發(fā)性內(nèi)存方面的共同利益；而若蘋果決定將臺積電做為A7處理器的唯一供應(yīng)來源，那是否會對其閃存供應(yīng)來源造成任何影響？ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 第2頁：有限的閃存供應(yīng)來源 第3頁：蘋果的應(yīng)對之道？

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果或推遲發(fā)布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 誰能突破三星蘋果雙寡頭壟斷下的市場？
• 蘋果A7處理器有望3月在臺積電投產(chǎn)DJIesmc

{pagination} 有限的閃存供應(yīng)來源 蘋果在 2011年成為全球最大的 NAND閃存采購買主，其閃存需求量并在 2012年進(jìn)一步激增。而根據(jù)市場研究機(jī)構(gòu) IHS 的統(tǒng)計(jì)，在2012年，三星是全球最大的 NAND閃存供應(yīng)商，市占率達(dá)38%。 其余 NAND閃存供應(yīng)商包括全球市占率28%的東芝(Toshiba)、14%的美光(Micron)、12%的SK海力士(Hynix)以及8%的英特爾(Intel)；但其中東芝的大部分產(chǎn)能是供應(yīng)給SanDisk，因此NAND閃存供應(yīng)商的選擇也不多。 在2012年之前幾年，NAND閃存市場有供應(yīng)過剩的現(xiàn)象，因此除了價(jià)格低、也能確保供應(yīng)量；但時(shí)間來到 2013年，NAND閃存開始出現(xiàn)供應(yīng)短缺，平均銷售價(jià)格也上揚(yáng)。 蘋果現(xiàn)在是全球最大(或是接近最大)的NAND閃存買主，確實(shí)有采購影響力，但這也代表該公司對NAND閃存有很大的需求，若是 NAND閃存供應(yīng)商祭出了“配給制度(allocation)”，蘋果就可能面臨難題。 三星自己是智能電視、PC、平板電腦、智能手機(jī)等產(chǎn)品的供應(yīng)商，因此應(yīng)該也是NAND閃存的重度使用者，無論是芯片型態(tài)或是固態(tài)硬盤型態(tài)，因此可以想象三星的閃存產(chǎn)能主要是供應(yīng)自家產(chǎn)品。身為最大的NAND閃存制造商，三星可能會成為市場上非常少數(shù)幾家不會遭遇非揮發(fā)性內(nèi)存供應(yīng)短缺問題的終端設(shè)備業(yè)者。

DJIesmc

有鑒于全球各地的反壟斷法規(guī)，將處理器的銷售與內(nèi)存采購捆 綁在一起，可能是會引起爭議的作法；不過如果三星告訴蘋果，是因?yàn)樗麄冏约盒枰艽罅康腘AND閃存供應(yīng)自家平板與智能手機(jī)，所以無法供應(yīng)太多閃存，將會是很微妙的事情。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 第3頁：蘋果的應(yīng)對之道？

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果或推遲發(fā)布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 誰能突破三星蘋果雙寡頭壟斷下的市場？
• 蘋果A7處理器有望3月在臺積電投產(chǎn)DJIesmc

{pagination} 蘋果的應(yīng)對之道？ 蘋果其實(shí)一直以來都面臨這樣的狀況，而且確實(shí)在過去五年來都能巧妙應(yīng)對；但那些聰明的方法恐怕在2013年將不再奏效，一切都得看那些內(nèi)存大廠的臉色。 回溯到2005年，蘋果當(dāng)時(shí)預(yù)付了12.5億美元給5家NAND閃存供應(yīng)商，以確保蘋果可在2010年以前取得足夠的內(nèi)存供應(yīng)量；這項(xiàng)為期五年的供應(yīng)協(xié)議讓蘋果得以保有消費(fèi)性移動設(shè)備供應(yīng)龍頭的優(yōu)勢。那5家內(nèi)存供應(yīng)商就是前面提過的那5家，至于蘋果預(yù)付的費(fèi)用是如何分配，當(dāng)時(shí)并未公布。 當(dāng) 時(shí)蘋果也會告訴各家內(nèi)存供應(yīng)商每年的預(yù)估需求量，讓廠商能依據(jù)其需求來提供足夠產(chǎn)能；但問題是根據(jù)了解，蘋果在供應(yīng)協(xié)議的五年期間，總是過度預(yù)估其記憶體需求量，使得那些閃存制造商面臨供應(yīng)過剩，并因此無法提高產(chǎn)品價(jià)格。蘋果操縱內(nèi)存價(jià)格的傳言在2009年于韓國市場廣為流傳。 現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)過了好幾年，看來蘋果得訂定另一個(gè)新的NAND閃存供應(yīng)計(jì)劃，而且這一次恐怕12.5億的預(yù)付金無法了事，得付出的是數(shù)十億美元。 不過有鑒于2009年的市場傳言，三星與SK海力士的合作意愿就是個(gè)問題；如果沒有訂定供應(yīng)計(jì)劃，蘋果的第一線產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)量就可能會受限于其NAND閃存采購能力，并因此淪為被NAND閃存制造商控制，特別是三星。 若蘋果準(zhǔn)備好投資一個(gè)新的NAND閃存生產(chǎn)計(jì)劃，問題則變成該公司是否能像上次那樣，讓整個(gè)閃存產(chǎn)業(yè)的主要廠商都愿意合作──或者是就選擇一家合作對象，例如美光(Micon)，讓那家供應(yīng)商受到特別優(yōu)待，甚至愿意對蘋果死心塌地。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Judith Cheng 參考英文原文：London Calling: Where will Apple get flash memory now?，by Peter Clarke

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果或推遲發(fā)布iPhone 5S和iPad mini 2
• 誰能突破三星蘋果雙寡頭壟斷下的市場？
• 蘋果A7處理器有望3月在臺積電投產(chǎn)DJIesmc

{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?