Tesla Signs $16.5 Billion Chip Deal with Samsung to Power Next-Gen AI Plans
The partnership marks a significant win for Samsung's struggling foundry business, which has trailed behind rivals like TSMC. Shares of Samsung rose nearly 7% on Monday following the announcement, as investors welcomed the long-awaited order. Despite the market optimism, analysts say the deal is unlikely to improve Tesla's short-term issues, such as falling EV sales or delays in its robotaxi rollout.
Musk stated that the AI6 chips are intended for Tesla's self-driving vehicles and humanoid robots, adding that they may also serve wider AI applications due to their advanced computing power. He emphasized the partnership's operational proximity: "The fab is conveniently located not far from my house," he posted on X.
Samsung currently supplies Tesla's AI4 chips used in Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems. TSMC is expected to produce the upcoming AI5 chips, set to begin by late 2026, suggesting AI6 chips may only be ready by 2027 or later.
While the timeline for AI6 production remains unclear, analysts believe the deal could reduce financial losses for Samsung's chip foundry division, estimated at over $3.6 billion in just the first half of 2025. A senior South Korean trade official denied the chip deal was directly linked to ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., despite the growing push for semiconductor collaboration.
Samsung holds only 8% of the global foundry market, compared to TSMC's 67%, according to Trendforce. Industry experts view the Tesla deal as a crucial step in Samsung Chairman Jay Y. Lee's long-term goal of becoming a top player in contract chip manufacturing.
(With inputs from agencies)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
International Business Times
an hour ago
- International Business Times
Tesla Ordered to Pay $200 Million Over Fatal Florida Crash Linked to Autopilot
Tesla has been ordered by a Miami federal jury to pay over $200 million in damages for a 2019 crash that killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon and seriously injured Dillon Angulo in Florida. The jury found Tesla's Autopilot system partly responsible for the collision. The court awarded $200 million in punitive damages and $43 million out of $129 million in compensatory damages. Tesla is now liable for nearly two-thirds of the total payout. The case marks a significant legal blow to Tesla's driver-assist technology. The crash occurred when driver George McGee ran a stop sign, flashing lights, and a T-intersection at 62 mph, slamming into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe. McGee admitted fault during the trial, stating he trusted the car to alert him and brake. "I trusted the technology too much," he testified. Tesla pushed back strongly, calling the ruling "wrong" and claiming it could slow progress in automotive safety. A spokesperson said the driver was distracted and speeding, which violated Tesla's safety instructions. The company also emphasized that drivers are told to stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel. Plaintiffs' attorney Brett Schreiber argued Tesla's branding, especially the use of the word "Autopilot," misled users. He said the company allowed the system to work on roads it wasn't designed for, and failed to disable it when drivers were distracted. Schreiber also accused Tesla of losing or hiding critical crash data. Tesla's defense insisted that McGee was solely at fault for dropping his phone and ignoring safety guidelines. They noted that he had driven through the intersection 30–40 times before without incident. Financial analyst Dan Ives commented that the ruling is a serious setback for Tesla and could impact the wider industry. Legal experts say the case could inspire more lawsuits against Tesla, as similar cases have often been settled or dismissed before trial. This ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of how Tesla markets its driver-assist features and raise pressure on the company as it moves forward with plans for fully autonomous vehicles.
Business Times
2 days ago
- Business Times
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay US$243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
[NEW YORK] A Florida jury on Friday (Aug 1) found Tesla liable to pay US$243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle (EV) company. The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8 per cent on Friday, and are down 25 per cent this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, US$129 million in compensatory damages plus US$200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 per cent of the compensatory damages, or US$42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67 per cent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,' Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said. 'Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries,' he added. Tesla said it will appeal. 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' the company said. The plaintiffs had sought US$345 million of damages. Their lawyers said that the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Impact on future cases Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said on Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. 'It's a big deal,' said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. 'This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology.' The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly US$1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. Driver's role The trial concerned an Apr 25, 2019, incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 100 kph through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23 metres to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. 'We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash,' said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. 'The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software,' he added. 'That's a big deal.' Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault. 'To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,' the company said. 'This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver, from day one, admitted and accepted responsibility.' REUTERS
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Musk's X must face part of lawsuit over child pornography video
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox FILE PHOTO: 'X' logo is seen on the top of the headquarters of the messaging platform X, formerly known as Twitter, in downtown San Francisco, California, U.S., July 30, 2023. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo A federal appeals court on Friday revived part of a lawsuit accusing Elon Musk's X of becoming a haven for child exploitation, though the court said the platform deserves broad immunity from claims over objectionable content. While rejecting some claims, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said X, formerly Twitter, must face a claim it was negligent by failing to promptly report a video containing explicit images of two underage boys to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The case predated Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. A trial judge had dismissed the case in December 2023. X's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk was not a defendant. One plaintiff, John Doe 1, said he was 13 when he and a friend, John Doe 2, were lured on SnapChat into providing nude photos of themselves to someone John Doe 1 thought was a 16-year-old girl at his school. The SnapChat user was actually a child pornography trafficker who blackmailed the plaintiffs into providing additional explicit photos. Those images were later compiled into a video that was posted on Twitter. According to court papers, Twitter took nine days after learning about the content to take it down and report it to NCMEC, following more than 167,000 views, court papers showed. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest said section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability over user content, didn't shield X from the negligence claim once it learned about the pornography. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump deploys nuclear submarines in row with Russia World 'Optimistic' Bessent says US has makings of a deal with China Asia Asia-Pacific economies welcome new US tariff rates, but concerns over extent of full impact remain Singapore Man in SAF custody after allegedly vaping on bus while in army uniform Asia 'Like me? Approach me directly, okay?': Inside a matchmaking event for China's wealthy Opinion America is tearing down another great public institution Opinion Quiet zones in public spaces can help people recharge in the city Tech Reporting suspected advanced cyber attacks will provide a defence framework: Shanmugam "The facts alleged here, coupled with the statutory 'actual knowledge' requirement, separates the duty to report child pornography to NCMEC from Twitter's role as a publisher," she wrote for a three-judge panel. X must also face a claim its infrastructure made it too difficult to report child pornography. It was found immune from claims it knowingly benefited from sex trafficking, and created search features that "amplify" child pornography posts. Dani Pinter, a lawyer at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement: "We look forward to discovery and ultimately trial against X to get justice and accountability." The case is Doe 1 et al v Twitter Inc et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-177. REUTERS
