Samsung Galaxy S25 Series Memory Supplier Showdown: Micron Beats Out Samsung's In-House Offering, Revealing Internal Competition and Strategic Shift

Samsung Galaxy S25 Series Memory Supplier Showdown: Micron Beats Out Samsung's In-House Offering, Revealing Internal Competition and Strategic ShiftOn January 2nd, Korean media outlets DealSite and Herald reported that Samsung Electronics' Mobile Communications (MX) division has chosen Micron as the primary supplier of LPDDR5x memory for its upcoming Galaxy S25 series, bypassing Samsung Electronics' own semiconductor division (DS) memory business. This news has sparked industry-wide attention, highlighting not only the competition between Samsung's internal departments but also a significant shift in Samsung's memory supply strategy

Samsung Galaxy S25 Series Memory Supplier Showdown: Micron Beats Out Samsung's In-House Offering, Revealing Internal Competition and Strategic Shift

On January 2nd, Korean media outlets DealSite and Herald reported that Samsung Electronics' Mobile Communications (MX) division has chosen Micron as the primary supplier of LPDDR5x memory for its upcoming Galaxy S25 series, bypassing Samsung Electronics' own semiconductor division (DS) memory business. This news has sparked industry-wide attention, highlighting not only the competition between Samsung's internal departments but also a significant shift in Samsung's memory supply strategy.

For years, Micron has been the secondary memory supplier for Samsung's flagship Galaxy smartphones. Becoming the primary supplier marks a significant victory for Micron in its competition with Samsung's DS division. Both Korean media outlets believe Samsung MX's decision indicates that DS's memory business has fallen short of expectations in both HBM and LPDDR memory, with its competitiveness surpassed by external rivals.

Sources revealed that Samsung DS's 1bnm LPDDR5x DRAM suffers from heat and yield issues, directly impacting product performance and reliability. After considering performance and price, MX ultimately chose Micron as the primary supplier. Reports from September 2024 already indicated that yield problems prevented DS from delivering the necessary LPDDR5x memory samples for Galaxy S25 development on time, exacerbating MX's dissatisfaction.

While Micron currently secures the majority of the LPDDR5x memory supply for the Galaxy S25 series, the industry generally anticipates that as Samsung DS improves its LPDDR5x process, Samsung MX may gradually increase orders from DS throughout the Galaxy S25's lifecycle. Ultimately, DS might still capture a larger share of the memory supply. However, Micron's success will undoubtedly significantly erode DS's market share, posing a challenge to its long-term development.

DealSite's report further reveals the deeper reasons behind the strained relationship between Samsung MX and DS. The report states that Samsung MX employees complained about DS's excessively high memory pricing, increasing cost pressure on MX. Simultaneously, the insufficient performance of the Exynos 2500 chip forced MX to completely adopt Qualcomm processors for the Galaxy S25 series. The high memory costs and processor switch squeezed MX's profit margins.

An anonymous Samsung employee stated that the relationship between Samsung MX and DS was extremely tense last year, even escalating to the point where MX head Tae-moon Roh personally protested to DS. Even if DS improves its memory yield and performance in the future, MX might maintain a high proportion of orders from Micron as a strategic bargaining chip in internal price negotiations.

Samsung MX's choice of Micron as the primary supplier is based on several factors. Firstly, Micron's LPDDR5x memory met MX's requirements for performance and yield. Secondly, Micron's pricing may be more competitive, helping MX reduce costs and improve profitability. Thirdly, choosing Micron provides MX with greater leverage in negotiations with DS.

This event also reflects Samsung's internal competition mechanisms. While DS is Samsung's semiconductor division with strong technological capabilities, it still faces challenges from external suppliers in the market. As Samsung's mobile communications division, MX prioritizes improving product competitiveness and profitability, hence prioritizing performance, price, and supply stability when selecting memory suppliers.

The selection of memory suppliers for the Samsung Galaxy S25 series is more than a simple business decision; it's a microcosm of Samsung's internal strategic adjustments and market competition. It reveals the complex interests and fierce competition between Samsung's internal departments, highlighting the challenges Samsung faces in responding to market changes and competitive pressures.

Micron's success not only validates its technological capabilities but also suggests that non-Samsung suppliers are gaining more influence in the high-end smartphone memory market. This will likely push Samsung DS to accelerate its technological research and development to enhance product competitiveness and solidify its leadership in the memory market. The future evolution of competition and cooperation between Samsung's internal departments, and how Samsung adjusts its memory supply strategy, will continue to be closely watched by the industry.

This internal "memory war" at Samsung also offers lessons for other companies. In complex business environments, competition and cooperation between internal departments are inevitable. Balancing internal competition and cooperation, and incentivizing departments to improve efficiency and innovation, are crucial considerations for corporate managers.

In conclusion, the adjustment of memory suppliers for the Samsung Galaxy S25 series reflects not only internal competition at Samsung but also foreshadows a profound shift in the competitive landscape of the smartphone memory market. Micron's success sets an example for other memory suppliers and pushes Samsung to further enhance its competitiveness. How Samsung addresses this challenge will be a key factor influencing its position in the mobile market. The long-term impact of this event and how Samsung adjusts its strategy remain to be seen. This "memory war" is far from over, and its subsequent developments warrant continued attention.