Huh? Is Apple running a fab in their backyard? What exactly do they own in terms of technology that others rely on?
Apple is like the USA to Samsung's China in this specific relationship in that the product (components in this case) pretty much goes one way, but both still rely on the relationship.
Samsung makes some of the components Apple needs, Apple buys those components. Apple needs Samsung for inexpensive chip fab, Samsung needs Apple for the revenue provided in return.
In this particular case though (Samsung/Apple) the overlapping interest is part of Apple's core, and just one of many Samsung divisions. It would not be (or at least it's not obvious that it would be) in Samsung's interest to poison the well of their component division just because it happens that their phone division competes with Apple. Ditching Apple may not, on its own, be an issue after a couple years, but it would put other component customers on edge. See the concern some Android phone manufacturers had when Google bought Motorola's mobile division for a similar issue but from the software side.
Nobody would seriously end this relationship from Samsungs end, at least if they had any brain cells.
And someone is going to take away the handset business - everyone in asia is basically waiting for Huawei and ZTE to eat Samsung's lunch. Samsung can't compete with either of them on cost, and eventually they won't be able to pump more pixels into 400+ppi screens to keep customers from buying cheaper smartphones. And without unique software to offer consumers (like Apple), Samsung is extremely vulnerable in the handset market.
And in the meantime, Samsung is amortizing a fortune's worth of chips fabs that were mostly built to supply components for iDevices.
Yes, Samsung needs Apple's business.
Samsung do have their own Software (Tizen, and Bada(?), and a third 'unknown' base). They are pushing for an Android compatible linux, with strong hardware integration. Huawei and ZTE won't be able to compete with that. They could fail completely on that strategy, but they are doing more than just increasing PPI.
This isn't a competitive edge against Huawei and ZTE because no one buys Samsung phones for their software.
Not sure how you can judge a whole companies software engineers, based on one project (Touchwiz).
No they don't. Android has the largest ecosystem. They're riding on Android's train - they don't have their own train. And they're on the Android train with Huawei. And if they're dumb enough to jump off the train, then they're in the bushes.
Samsung has a huge brand, they could easily make Tizen a competitor by deploying it on Galaxy Phone in the future. Consumers wouldn't know (or care)
No they couldn't. Brand doesn't count for anything if you're selling the same stuff your competitor is. Substitutability. The top phones from Apple, Samsung, and HTC offer more for more money than what Huawei can offer right now because there's room for mobile hardware innovation, and that's what they do best. Once they hit a ceiling - no more pixels to add to the screen, no more transistors on the CPU without exceeding a reasonable thermal envelope - then its all Huawei's game. The only one of those three that stands a chance is Apple because they have their own ecosystem.
Samsung has more brand recognition than Huawei. And it doesn't matter a whit. They'll still get steam-rolled once the ppi wars are over and we're buying based on price. This is the grim reality that Samsung shareholders have been realizing.
Not sure how you can judge a whole companies software engineers, based on one project (Touchwiz).
I've owned many Samsung products and have had no good experiences with their software or drivers. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but so far they seem to fit the stereotype of the hardware-company-that-doesn't-get-and-can't do-software.
"need" may not have been the be the best word to use there. I didn't mean to imply that either needs the other by the strictest sense of the word. I meant it more in the sense of "I need my morning coffee". I don't really need it, but I'd, you know, really, really like to have it.