or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

If you had said "AppleTV", and if AppleTV used ARM, then I might be persuaded.
I think this is the best argument against a merger. Apple really does like to be in a position to play multiple suppliers off one another. And we all know that Intel is no slouch. Just because ARM has the better CPU design today, doesn't mean Intel won't be on top 5 years from now. And your idea that Apple might just make an investment also makes sense. But I still think this is a plausible rumor. Apple makes a lot more profit off of the sale of a single device than ARM...
Why would manufacturers of bluray players stop using ARM CPUs? Apple doesn't compete in that market.
How much profit does ARM make from the sale of a single CPU? How much profit does Apple make from the sale of a single iPhone? How much would denying competitors access to ARM designs boost Apple's share of the market for smart phones? Knowing the answers to these questions is all that we need to know in order to figure out what Apple's incentives are here. We can make ballpark estimates for the first two questions. Apple probably makes at least $100 in profit from each...
I think this merger would receive anti-trust scrutiny, but ultimately I don't think the anti-trust authorities could make a case stick. There are basically two markets involved here -- (1) the market for smart phones and (2) the market for the CPUs in smart phones. There's a little California company called Intel (maybe you've heard of them) that is trying to make inroads into the market for the CPUs in smart phones. An Apple takeover of ARM would actually help Intel gain...
The downside of doing this is that ARM will lose customers. That means that the value of ARM after Apple buys it will be lower than the value of ARM before Apple bought it. However, ARM-derived processors are clearly superior to other products on the market and will likely hold onto that superiority for some time. That means Apple will sell more iDevices than they would have otherwise. The profit to Apple on a single iDevice is equal to the profit to ARM on, what,...
I'm a little surprised Apple would bother getting into a public tit for tat on this, just because the whole question of "open" versus "proprietary" is not something that most consumers generally care about. I think this is really more of a developer issue. Consumers don't care if Flash or html5 are "open" or "proprietary" -- from their point of view, both are "free" to use. Apple should focus on making the argument that their solution results in a better experience for...
I think the only way AT&T could keep Apple from going to Verizon would be to come up with some innovative pricing as you are suggesting.
I totally agree with those saying that this is just the beginning. The number of addressable markets for this thing is huge. The funny thing is that Bill Gates called this ten years ago, and of course John Sculley called it 10 years before that, and so on, and so on, and so on. It's taken a generation of failed efforts to develop a truly useful Star Trek style tablet, but I think we're finally here, thanks to a combination of Moore's Law and Steve Jobs.
It's nice that Apple can sell a bunch of phones internationally. It takes some pressure off of them to get a deal with Verizon. But at some point, they will have to get the iPhone onto Verizon's network. They're doing Google and RIM a huge favor by staying off of Verizon. They can't just concede a market that big forever.
New Posts  All Forums: