How the categorization is done may drastically change the picture.
Do we look at 32 bit and 64 bits only? Or we are looking at the whole spectrum.
How do we define supplier? Does supplier require to be able to fabricate? Does supplier require to supply to another company other than itself?
Nonetheless, the trend may give us an insight that the age of x86 domination is fading.
That's a good question! When TSMC ramps up production of Apple processors we will need to look at what makes the most sense. Do you call Apple a "supplier" of MPUs (supplying to itself?) or do you put those sales under a pure-play foundry such as TSMC and list TSMC as an MPU supplier? One thing for certain, these Apple MPU sales will need to go to TSMC or Apple or they won't be counted at all, and that really isn't an option.
Hi Bill, Apple is designing their own MPU now for some time, how will you handle when they start using tsmc instead of samsung?
Similarly other folks like Nvidia who are starting to directly sell products (shield w/ tegra4), will these parts be calculated back to TSMC?
When TSMC and Samsung catch intel in terms of process technology, due in part to intel slowing, then it becomes a capacity and yield game (read: unit price).
Intel is building factories at amazing pace all of a sudden, and I can guess this is why. But I bet Samsung and TSMC can build bigger/ faster...and not upset their shareholders in the process.
and MPU market gets more interesting
My friend at Intel just passed on info that new
CEO did a major re-organization this week
Problem is 22nm Silver mount is very late and uncompetitive and has no meaningful Smartphone design wins.
14 technology is also very late and design will not ship on time and could be 1 year late
After toying with the idea of listing Apple separately, the bottom line is that Apple is not an MPU supplier, they are an end user. As you mention, all of the fabless suppliers re-sell their MPUs and are correctly included as suppliers.
The Samsung/Apple case is an example of why not all foundry sales should be excluded when attempting to create marketshare data. With most of Samsung's sales sold to Apple, since Apple does not re-sell these devices, counting these foundry sales as Samsung MPU sales does not introduce double counting.
It should be noted that of the $32 billion in 2012 pure-play foundry sales from TSMC, GF, UMC, etc., only $200 million was to system houses like Apple.
Althought I could argue for same reason, AMD should not be listed on this one, but also complicated since AMD doesn't manufacture (ie GF, TSMC), but also acts as reseller to customer other than themself.
My Mom the Radio Star Max MaxfieldPost a comment I've said it before and I'll say it again -- it's a funny old world when you come to think about it. Last Friday lunchtime, for example, I received an email from Tim Levell, the editor for ...
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole1 Comment Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...