International Business Time: Robert W. Baird analyst Tristan Gerra believes there is an increasing potential for the iPhone 5 to use two image sensor suppliers.
"We downgrade OmniVision to 'neutral' based on our belief there is a higher likelihood the iPhone 5 could use two CMOS image sensor suppliers in order to address continued supply constraint concerns. While Omnivision remains well positioned as a leading supplier of CMOS image sensors, risk/reward ratio becomes less attractive under a dual-sourcing scenario," said Gerra.
The second likely iPhone 5 sensors supplier is Sony, which also supplies sensors to Nokia, according to the article.
The question is when the OV/SONY equiped Iphone 5 will coming. Do you believe it will come this summer ?
ReplyDeleteHistorically the iPhone has always been released in the summer:
ReplyDeleteiPhone Original - GSM model released Jun/29/2007
iPhone 3G - GSM model released Jul/11/2008
iPhone 3GS - GSM model released Jun/19/2010
iPhone 4 - GSM model released Jun/24/2010; CDMA model releasing Feb/10/2011
The real question will always be whether or not Foxxconn is able to deliver units fast enough to keep up with latent demand from customers. Last year the iPhone 4 demand was 10% higher than the iPhone 3GS and higher than anticipated, and there were shortages all across the supply chain. Will it be the same story for the iPhone 5? Let's not forget the iPhone 5 will be released in a more crowded handset atmosphere this summer.
we've been hearing for 10 months about this. first, ashok kumar came out and said apple was working with sony on a 8mp cam for the iphone 5. then, otr global came out a couple months ago and said that ovt might not get the 8mp biz since it's cam failed apple requirements probably having to do with sensitivity. the sensitivity of the ovt 8mp bsi-1 cam is less than that of the ovt 5mp bsi-1 part currently in the iphone 4 simply because the latter cam uses a 1.75um pixel and the former one uses a 1.4um pixel. now we have tristan commenting on the multisource issue. as far as i know, aptina is still doing the desktop and laptop cams. ovt is doing the vga for phones and pods and sony may be splitting or possibly have the whole of the 8mp cam supposedluy coming out in the iphone5. don't forget that sony just bought back a fab from toshiba, pumped over a half billion US dollars into expanding capacity, and quit making vga all in an effort to double capacity for higher resolution cmos image sensors. i also would not discount samsung from the equation but could also see some sort of package deal w/ apple on memory and cams.
ReplyDeleteI would discount Samsung from any near-term iPhones (6-10) since they have enough to deal with between Sony and OVT. Samsung's solutions have nothing to offer over the others and the modules aren't expensive enough for cost to be the major driver.
ReplyDeletesamsung's bsi solution does have something to offer over ovt, but not sony, because ziptronix is suing ovt for ip infringement involving the bonding method. also, samsung's bsi uses bulk and sony's uses soi. so samsung may be a contender. stop thinking like an engineer and try thinking like a businessman. it will become apparent to anyone if ziptronix adds apple as a defendant and asks the district court for an injunction prohibiting the import into, of sale of, any ovt bsi-1 cam, into the US. this may mean that apple would not want to use ovt's bsi parts until this litigation gets cleare up.
ReplyDeletewhat i think the problem is that many here are not aware of all the legal and business angles associated with the cmos image sensor space.
i would like to hear what eric fossum thinks about samsung doing business with apple. i know samsung just came out with a 5mp bsi part that chipworks has seen in the wild and reported on, but eric may not be able to comment because of a current or past relationship with samsung.
finally, an 8mp sensor, lens, module work etc.. and the second vga or 1mp cam for facetime, is expensive enough in terms of combined cost to be a major driver imho.
Sorry, I did hear something from the inside so I best not make any comment at all.
ReplyDeleteIt is safe to say Apple is considered a customer with high PR value.
@ Fossum, Please.
ReplyDelete@ Business man
Apple is not going to consider Samsung because of cost. This is not how Apple makes decisions on a component that requires quality. Think Apple business.
You bring up a good point about Ziptronix. Clearly this could cause damage to OVT. No reason to think that damage is a door for Samsung. With damage to OVT there will be a countersuit for sure. Not that the damage won't be done.
Also as a business man, you should consider the fact that the Apple business is small in comparison to the other sockets.
Samsung has huge potential outside of Apple. Unfortunately for Samsung, Sony has decided to reduce that potential.
samsung may have a cost advantage in using bulk bsi products since i believe sony's 8mp for phones uses soi which is four to five times as expensive as bulk silicon wafers. i know i saw that samsung has a 5mp bsi product at chipworks and i'm not sure if they even have a 8mp.
ReplyDeletebut you are right, sony is going after samsung's noncaptive business and they'll be competing on the basis of costs. good for the consumer.
and samsung potential, i recall reading a few years ago that samsung annual revenue was 15 percent of south korean GDP.
i also heard it has 4 separate parts and some will use samsung cams and other parts may use sony or another vendor
I think after this past year of tremendous sales and profit across many sectors, Samsung is closer to 20% of South Korea's GDP. I heard they will hire 25,000 new employees in 2011, for example.
ReplyDelete"what i think the problem is that many here are not aware of all the legal and business angles associated with the cmos image sensor space."
ReplyDeleteOne of the business angles might be generating buzz about a patent lawsuit by writing a series of mildly inflammatory blog comments aimed at getting the locals to weigh in, then selectively re-packaging their public comments as "business intelligence" to be sold for a premium to unsuspecting members of the investing public.
:D
Samsung truly is a powerhouse. But Samsung operates its business units separately. The CIS business is separate from the 20% of GDP. The CIS business may as well be a startup on the scale of the rest of Samsung. They will keep playing, but their size is not an indication of their future success. They may succeed at making the CIS business less attractive for others.
ReplyDelete@ CDM, you place too much weight on the impact of blog comments.
ReplyDeleteyes i agree that samsung may make the cis space less attractive to other vendors. i do think that samsung's revenues includes those from the division that houses the cis business, and i agree that cdm places too much emphasis on the impact of blog comments. but i will say i know when a blog comment from here states something profound as well.
ReplyDeleteOmnivision is a fabless company. There is a person here trying to fool others believing that Omnvision did something to infringe on ziptronix's patent of chip processing methods.
ReplyDeleteread the complaint. omnivision is accused of importing and selling goods that contain the alleged, infringed technology, they are not accused of making the goods. fabless has nothing to do with it. i believe i would know if any ovt or tsmc patents covered the bonding process that is being questioned. we would have heard about it by now. i am getting sick of hearing about ovt's superior bsi technology and first mover position. sony was the first mover into the dsc/camcorder space. sony worked its way from the high end down to phones recently. ovt was the second mover and it's trying to work its way up from the low end phone space to the high end is not having much luck in this backward strategy.
ReplyDeleteziptronix's patent is bonding with oxides. This is laughable. Because bonding through oxidation is simple chemistry. It looks like ziptronix fooled the patent office by writing the patent application to look like a great innovation.
ReplyDeleteif bonding through oxidation is simple chemistry, why did ovt and tsmc make such a big deal out of it in their press releases. does ovt enjoy making a mountian out of a mole hill?
ReplyDeleteare ovt's claims of being THE leader or having the MOST superior technology for real or are they just puffing? what ever happened to the laughable wavefront coding developed by CDM? cdm employees never got the final $10 million payment because ovt never sold enough of the technology by the appropriate date. i'd say ovt dropped the ball on EDoF. can you say cameracubes? lol
let's face it, the only thing ovt leads at is HYPE, and why did James He leave like he did.
and please, let's not imply that the people at the US Patent Office are fools.
this news is a PR campaign of either sony or ovt, as far as i know iphone5 have aptina sensors in it
ReplyDelete@ simple chemistry
ReplyDeleteThe simple chemistry is what makes for a good technology. Whether simple or complex says nothing about whether or not it is novel.
Concerning CDM's failures, you should really not hit OVT for that but rather the founders of CDM. The technology is rubbish, looks good in theory until you consider the noise and then practically there is so little benefit relative to the effort that is required to implement. Never knock a company because they try and fail at something innovative.
ovt bought the tech from cdm in 2005 and said they'd have the product on the shelves by mid-2006. and then ovt advertised it as turning 800 years of optics upside down. typical hype from ovt. it made it to market in mid 2008 and then got swept under the carpet as an embarrassment. then there's cameracube, another joke. bsi-1 is the only claim to any level of fame and if it turns out the bonding method was misappropriated from ziptronix...well...need i say more...
ReplyDeletefosterdick
forget the fosterdick, i don't know what that means or how it got there.
ReplyDeleteThose are CDM's claims. They are the ones that snowed OVT.I doubt that neither TSMC nor OVT had even heard of ziptronix.
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding about OVT being snowed by CDM? I think OVT had/has an obligation to its shareholders to perform technical due diligence. You surely aren't saying that OVT has no technical brains whatsoever? Also, CDM's technology was widely known for its plusses and minuses at the time of sale. There was no technological mystery. The only mystery was why OVT paid so much.
ReplyDeleteYes I am serious that CDM snowed OVT. They had an obligation to do technical and business diligence but wavefront coding is very difficult to understand, not intuitive. You can follow the math and look at a few demos. Then you are CDM and you claim how much better it can get. OVT with an innovative spirit decides to give it a try. They didn't pay that much. They spent more after than at the time of the sale. CDM is not composed of strong technical people. OVT has a lot of marketing people. They get the story from CDM and try to market it. Yes, it is embarrassing for OVT, but it is more embarrassing for the principals at CDM. I do not think anything less of OVT because of the wavefront coding failure. I think it is good that they gave it a try to see where it could go. You really have to be careful about tradeoffs. In general, you don't want to tradeoff noise for a feature.
ReplyDelete100% agree with this comment! "Giving a chance to innovation" is the key of success in long term.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has negotiated image sensors with the Apple iPhone group "Apple is not going to consider Samsung because of cost. This is not how Apple makes decisions on a component that requires quality. Think Apple business." is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteThis is especially true with any mulit-source strategy.