or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

 A challenge with replacing Intel with an A# chip in Macs is that backwards compatibility with Intel programs will require emulation, and emulation speeds might not be that great. In the past when Apple has changed CPU architectures (680x0 to PPC; PPC to Intel), the architecture Apple was moving to was substantially more powerful than the one it was leaving, meaning that the emulation penalty felt by end-users wasn't too horrible. But if Apple moves from Intel to their own...
I totally understand the fund managers' perspective and might even do the same thing if I were in their shoes. Apple is a huge company, with big profit margins, and without any monopoly power (as its traditionally understood, anyway). Take away the name Apple, call it "company X", and 9 times out of 10, you'd expect to see stagnant profits *at best*. And more likely, declining profits as other firms compete with you and drive down your margins and/or take market...
 It could be that Imagination has long term licensing deals with Apple's competitors and that Apple would have to honor those deals. That might make buying Imagination seem less appealing to Apple.  Another strategy might be to do with Imagination IP what Apple does with ARM IP --- license key aspects of the IP, but then take that and build something far better than what other licensees are building. To accomplish that Apple just needs to patiently build up an internal GPU...
 This.  On the one hand, this buyout price is greatly exaggerated because it's mostly paid for with super inflated facebook shares (funny money). On the other hand, $4 billion in cash is still far more than this company is likely to ever be really worth.  The value that Apple gets for its acquisitions is pretty impressive compared to deals like this. Heck, I bet the inflation-adjusted cumulative price of every company Apple has ever bought is noticeably less than the price...
I agree -- there is no way that Nest was worth this much to Apple.  But maybe it is worth this much to Google. Google's strategy is to sell our info and eyeballs to advertisers. Nest products have prominent placement in people's homes, providing another way to insert ads in front of our eyeballs. Also, Nest products gather a lot of data about people, not least of which whether they are home or not.  Heck, between the ad placement and information value, I wouldn't be...
I'm so jealous of people for whom this is an appropriate computer. It is just totally wrong for my needs (I need lots of CPU power, not lots of GPU power), but man is it a beautiful and elegant design!    I know this will probably never happen, but if I'd love it if they sold a computer with a similar design, but with, say, 64 cyclone cores each running at 2 GHz, 64 GB of RAM, and a midrange GPU. 
Huh... I don't exactly trust the editorial page of the WSJ, but this situation does seem pretty odd. Ultimately this will not be resolved by editorials, but by a legal process. If this judge has broken the law or acted improperly, she made a big mistake doing it against Apple -- Apple has the resources to pursue this process as far as it needs to go. The real shame of our legal system is that it heavily favors those with the deepest pockets who can afford to fund endless...
 The original story hints at why Samsung would do this. IBM, Samsung, and GloFo apparently have a strategic alliance, part of which involves "synching" their fabs so that any one of their customers is assured of being able to draw on capacity from other members of the alliance. That implies that perhaps Apple has always had the option to draw on IBM or GloFo, and that Samsung is contractually on the hook to help support that. 
Hard to know what to make of all these rumors.    If it's true that Apple has gone with GloFo, I suspect it's because GloFo was willing to cede a level of ownership and control to Apple that companies like TSMC and Intel were not. I doubt it's because of any technological advantage from GloFo. But perhaps with Apple's business, GloFo can more quickly catch up with the competition. And perhaps because GloFo also builds x86 processors for AMD, Apple might have been able to...
 Not really -- in fact, not at all. There is no non-reitna version of the iPhone 5s, in fact there is no non-retina iPhone on sale now at all.  Regarding iPads, there is no non-retina equivalent of the iPad 4. The iPad 2 is inferior to the iPad 4 along several dimensions.  Regarding MBPs, the retina MBP has a better form factor and weight than the legacy MBP.  To do what I suggest, Apple would offer a non-retina version of current iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks that...
New Posts  All Forums: