As one can see in the below charts, Samsung’s performance got stronger. The irony lies in that in a sense, Samsung’s rise may reflect a heap of increasing problems Korea has to tackle. As discussed, the challenges Korea is facing are multi-faceted and structural in nature, and the chaebol system is a part of them.
Samsung, a symbol of Korean conglomerates, transitioned from a homegrown chaebol to a platform company, operating globally. Despite its strong performance, they have continuously shifted its manufacturing overseas over the years. That’s why I have argued it has been a moral choice of Samsung to offshore jobs. Their profits are up, but jobs in Korea are gone. Large portions of Samsung products are being manufactured outside Korea.
As with Japan’s high-tech companies and the U.S. high-tech firms for that matter, Samsung would argue that they don’t have any other choice but to outsource and offshore to remain competitive on the global stage. And yet, profit maximization has been the name of the game. Again, it all boils down to social considerations and moral choices given all the favorable regulations and subsidies provided to Samsung. The necessity of globalization doesn’t outweigh moral considerations. History has repeatedly shown us that big business hasn’t stood for the general public.
Again, we are seeing what has happened to the U.S. after most of manufacturing jobs are gone. Apple is being made outside the U.S. Further, while Apply has been a brand of quality and innovation that gave customers what they wanted and revolutionalized the mobile device, it has been the biggest hedge fund hotel in the world.
Like Apple is a social reflection of the U.S., Samsung may well prove that its becoming more of MNCs mirrors the rise of fall of Korea’s productive capacity. As mentioned, Samsung has been the ultimate beneficiary of the Korean political economy as well as the global political economy dynamic. It has been the product of Korea’s mercantilist central planning. Samsung has also adopted the global corporate workplace model. Both models have significant flaws. At their extremes, both became extractive largely in the service of a small elite.
Another point to consider is the purpose of innovation/technology and its role in society at large. In the course of rapid industrialization, it had been pursued because the elites needed a means of production. It has served the political expediency well. As pointed out, if innovation and technology development is geared toward promoting the broader social interest (e.g., boosting living standards of the general public) by enhancing the long-term productive capacity, therein lies a significant flaw in Korea’s chaebol-centered innovation approach. Since the production base was rapidly built and the manufacturing jobs were created in the early decades of industrialization, people don’t seem to grasp the full picture. The case of Samsung may have to be viewed in this context. Samsung has been predatory and its success has impose costs on the Korean society (e.g., limiting opportunities for others). Samsung’s technological prowess doesn’t necessarily equal Korea’s competitiveness and the so-called trickle down innovation has hardly occurred.
From MarketWatch:
Samsung Electronics , the world's largest technology firm by revenue, raised the price of mobile processor supplied to Apple Inc. AAPL -0.25% by 20% recently, Chosun Ilbo reported Monday, citing a person familiar with negotiations between the two tech giants.
"Samsung Electronics recently asked Apple for a significant price raise in (the mobile processor known as) application processor," the person was quoted as saying in the report. "Apple first disapproved it, but finding no replacement supplier, it accepted the (increase.)"
The two firms have started to reflect the new supply price recently, the report added, citing the same person.
According to the report, Apple buys all APs used for production of iPhone and iPad from Samsung Electronics with the volume estimated to be 130 million units last year and more than 200 million units this year.
Samsung Electronics has a long-term contract to supply APs to Apple until 2014, the report added.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/samsung-hits-apple-with-20-price-hike-report-2012-11-11
조선일보로부터:
두뇌역할 AP 단가 20% 올려… 애플, 삼성 외에는 대안 없어 인상안 수용한 듯
삼성전자가 최근 애플의 아이폰·아이패드에 들어가는 최고 핵심 부품인 AP(두뇌 격의 반도체) 가격을 전격 인상한 것으로 11일 확인됐다. 인상 폭도 20% 가까이 되는 것으로 알려졌다.
삼성이 장기 고객인 애플에 대한 AP 납품 단가를 이렇게 파격적으로 올린 것은 처음 있는 일이다. 업계에서는 전 세계에서 치열한 특허 소송전을 벌이고 있는 두 회사 간 대립 구도가 이번 가격 인상으로 더 격화될 것으로 분석하고 있다.
두 회사의 협상에 정통한 전자 업계 고위 관계자는 11일 "최근 삼성이 애플에 큰 폭의 AP 가격 인상을 요구했다"며 "애플이 처음엔 난색을 표했으나 대체 발주처를 찾지 못해 결국 삼성 요구를 받아들였다"고 말했다. 이전보다 20% 정도 인상된 새로운 단가는 최근 두 회사 간 거래에 이미 반영되기 시작했다고 이 관계자는 전했다.
이번 가격 인상은 그동안 두 회사 간 납품 여부 등을 놓고 신경전을 벌였던 메모리반도체나 디스플레이(화면)와 달리, 애플이 삼성 외에는 구입할 곳이 없는 대안 부재(不在)의 제품이라는 점에서 양측 간 관계에도 상당한 파장을 낳을 전망이다. 현재 전 세계에서 애플의 요구 수준에 맞는 AP는 삼성전자만 만들고 있다.
애플은 아이폰·아이패드에 들어가는 AP를 전량 삼성에서 사가고 있으며, 그 수량이 지난해 1억3000만개를 넘어 올해는 2억개를 돌파할 것으로 예상된다. 삼성과 애플은 2014년까지 AP 장기 공급 계약을 맺어둔 상태로 일정 기간마다 형식적으로 가격 협상을 하기는 했으나, 특별한 원가 인상 요인이 없는 한 단가는 거의 그대로 유지해왔던 것으로 알려졌다.
업계에서는 삼성의 AP 가격 인상이 애플과의 소송 갈등 이외에, 애플이 삼성에 대한 AP 구입을 줄이려는 시도에 대한 반격의 성격도 담긴 것으로 보고 있다.
☞AP(Application Processor)스마트폰·태블릿PC에서 명령해석·연산·제어 등 사람의 두뇌 역할을 해주는 최고 핵심 부품(반도체).
http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/11/11/2012111101331.html
From Zero Hedge:
Since the crisis, Samsung has overwhelmed the largest 5 Japanese Tech firms...
It was not always this way...
And in context - here is AAPL...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-13/goodbye-japan-hello-korea
No comments:
Post a Comment