or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple commits $3.9 billion to secret long term component contracts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple commits $3.9 billion to secret long term component contracts - Page 2

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Is it just me or do I not find the $3.9 million figure anywhere except the title of the article?

Reread the article and it's 3.9 billion not 3.9 million.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

uhm, question...

I thought carbon fiber was very unfriendly when it comes to recyclability, renewability, and carbon footprint...

I think all the carbon fiber patents are quite dated from the apple labs... perhaps something they were considering prior to adopting aluminum across the lineup...therefore probably shouldnt be taken into consideration..

Looks like carbon fiber is pretty recyclable.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo...edirected=true
I think it can crack though on high impact, not like metals that kinda bends, or liquid metal that kinda bounces/ absorbs.

However this investment I have a feeling is based on existing technology, as he was mentioning flash storage as an example. HD displays seems like a safe bet, since Apple needs this, and there'll be hot demand from the whole industry for these. Other parts tha are are specific to Apple, A4 processor and apple batteries and such are already safe.
The day when a new generation of batteries goes into production, like fuel cells and what not, then I expect Apple might consider prepaying for that as well.
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

It's just you. The number ($3.9 billion) is in the title and in the first sentence of the story. The number was spoken by CFO Peter Oppenheimer:

During the September and December quarters, we executed long-term supply agreements with three vendors through which we expect to spend a total of approximately $3.9 billion in inventory component prepayments and capital expenditures over a two-year period.

We made approximately $650 million in payments under these agreements in the December quarter, and anticipate making $1.05 billion in payments in the March quarter.

Thank you for posting this.

Please do not expect AI commenters to actually use their brains. Sadly, many of us apparently do not.
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Rare earth.

Hmmm! The earth I'm standing on is pretty rare. After all it's the only earth I'm standing on when I'm standing on it.
post #45 of 71
Rare Earth is a smart thought but something tells me its more complex than that...
post #46 of 71
"From our point of view on design side, we design components where we believe we can innovate beyond the market." Gives example of A4 - they helped design/tweak it, got someone else to manufacture it.

But seems the deal is more akin to their Flash deal: "we've historically entered into agreements with others to supply; largest one was with flash memory suppliers because flash would become increasingly import across product line and industry."

"In the past several quarters, we've identified another area and come to recent agreements."
Describes deal as "similar to flash agreement, focused in an area that we feel is very strategic,"

so - multi-vendor deal on a specific area. Doesn't that rule out deals for components created primarily from one provider (e.g. a Qualcomm dual band chip, or an A5 chip fabbed by Samsung?)

Seeing as Apple has been known to have penned deals recently with display manufacturers, seems to tally.

So help in manufacture levels of iPhone 5, iPad 2 with no real change to the screen tech (focus on say NFC for iPhone 5). Then double pixel density for iPad 3.
Sure would be nice if they could have it for iPad 2 though. Using retina display just lifts your expectations of screen quality and resolution.


Something I haven't seen anyone ask - what if iPad2 was current resolution, but could output at 2x resolution? That it could store, playback 1080p at 720p, but could output 1080p at 1080p?
WHy go to the hassle of having such a souped up A5 chip? 4x the speed, but it's only going to be incrementally used, so iPhone 4's can run iOS 5.x also?
post #47 of 71
First off not all the money is going to one place. A good portion is a long term investment though.

In what you ask. Easy, the next generation of ARM based SoC beyond the coming 32nm chips we should see in iPad 2. Some of you may have noticed the recent announcement by ARM and IBM that they will be working together to bring ARM products to new process nodes all the way down to 14nm. This after a successful move to 32nm.

Now I hear you saying yeah but Apple buys from Samsung. That is true but Samsung is part of the same alliance that ARM and IBM are in. My guess is that a billion or so will go to Samsung to build a next generation plant most likely targeting 22nm. This however is most likely two years down the road so we will be dealing with 32nm SoC for the next two years.

This is much like the arraingement with LG inked sometime ago. We are just now seeing the results of that deal. One of the reasons I think we might actually see a 2X increase in display resolution is do directly to this deal. The current iPad screen is nothing special, LG could of had something similar in stock if it wasn't for the aspect ratio. the meat and potatoes from this deal has yet to be served.

Any ways that is my take. The money will be sent in many directions with Samsung getting a good portion to get to 22nm real fast.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Securing them is the key. I'd bet it's the high res LCDs that the iP4 and the iPad2 use.

Maybe if they're really smart ...

Now let me see ... Highest rated tech company, $60bn in the bank, sales of $26bn, profits of $6bn

... you know, and I might be sticking my neck out here, but I think perhaps that they are really smart.
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

First off not all the money is going to one place. A good portion is a long term investment though.

In terms of not to one area, or not to one company?
Doesn't the phrasing suggest it's one specific area, but it'll be spread out between companies that can help with R&D then make what they want?
Wouldn't CPU / SoC deals already be in place and be multiyear - ie the deals for A4 design and fab probably also cover A5 at least. Screen fab is a rate limiting step for Apple it seems in producing iPhones, iPod Touchs (and probably also iPads).
Not to limit it just to 3.5/10 inch screens - display companies could also be brought in for iMac/ACD sized screens, esp if Apple wanted to make a big old Apple TV (as opposed to ATV box). Why stop at 27/30"? Surely currently they don't go bigger, due to fabrication issues - they absorbed a hell of a lot of cost for the iMac 27" screen display. Which might be a point towards favoring them doing the same for iPad 2/3 doubled resolution "retina display" level screen. Perhaps
post #50 of 71
That's what I'd put my money on.
The SSDs in the Airs are small due to cost I'd think. Securing a bulk load not only secures a number of drives but allows the price to be pushed down meaning larger capacity drives can be used without increasing the RRP of a final product, say the 2011 Macbook Pro for instance
post #51 of 71
I wonder if it could be solid state drives, ala the Macbook air?

People generally seem to be raving about how fast the macbook air is too boot and run the Air normally shows us where Apple are taking the mac.

E.g. using the aluminium body first debuted on the Air as did the lack of CD drive. Perhaps the next macs will also use SSD?

Just a guess but it could make sense considering how expensive SSD's currently are. By investing in a dedicated production line, they could bring down the cost and secure supply. Also, they way they use SSD in the Air is not the same as normal SSD's, which normally are encased in one unit.

We'll see...
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celco View Post

Rare Earth is a smart thought but something tells me its more complex than that...

Yes, rare earth metals are important, but Apple doesn't use them directly, unlike components like flash memory. Also, simply paying money for them, unless you stockpile them outside of China, doesn't help much when the Chinese government decides to cut the supply, again. Possible, but more likely it's some sort of strategic component, and maybe one we don't even think much about today.
post #53 of 71
Apple is buying component that the competition "needs" in order to stay competitive with Apple. Aluminum, liquid metal, carbon fiber and such aren't those components because the competition can easily find inexpensive substitutions that the buyer is not concerned with. Most buyers are really knowledgeable about the difference between regular plastic and carbon fiber, so the advantage that Apple may have in that area would not prevent the competition from building a cheaper product.
Now a battery that can provide 10+ hours of usage in a tablet, well that's hard for the competition to make, at any cost. THe new iPad2 may have even longer life and that is very important for commercial use. Currently, no one can compare with the current iPad, and Apple is not likely to let them catch up.
The LCD would be another good example. Having a high resolution, 2048x1536 10" display is something else the competition would not be able to copy at a competitive price. As we've seen, the competition is barely able to match Apple's price using a 7" display compared to Apple's 10". Surely, low resolution 10" screens will start showing up, but when the buyer looks at the difference, the Apple advantage will be obvious.
Lastly, as some of you have mentioned, having a world chip would provide a huge cost and marketing advantage. Not to mention if the chip was LTE as Apple is a forward thinking company.
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post

It's just you. The number ($3.9 billion) is in the title and in the first sentence of the story. The number was spoken by CFO Peter Oppenheimer:

During the September and December quarters, we executed long-term supply agreements with three vendors through which we expect to spend a total of approximately $3.9 billion in inventory component prepayments and capital expenditures over a two-year period.

We made approximately $650 million in payments under these agreements in the December quarter, and anticipate making $1.05 billion in payments in the March quarter.

Thanks for the post, that makes it much clearer.

It's probably flash memory, displays and batteries as they represent the main product differentiators apart from the processor and OS. That way they can buy cheaper 128Gb flash drives together with the latest displays and battery technology ahead of the competition.
post #55 of 71
LCD's, Flash Memory, Batteries, LiquidMetal, Dual mode GSM/CDMA chips, a controlling number of shares in MicroSoft, Unicorn Blood, Reality Distortion Fields, who knows... it's all speculation.
post #56 of 71
I think Apple is funding the next generation of technology and fabrication in the fields of; batteries, super capacitors, photovoltaic displays and microprocessors. Apple would also need to fund the enabling technologies and equipment to mass produce and commercialize LiquidMetal in its products.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielgomes View Post

I wonder if it could be solid state drives, ala the Macbook air?

People generally seem to be raving about how fast the macbook air is too boot and run the Air normally shows us where Apple are taking the mac.

E.g. using the aluminium body first debuted on the Air as did the lack of CD drive. Perhaps the next macs will also use SSD?

Just a guess but it could make sense considering how expensive SSD's currently are. By investing in a dedicated production line, they could bring down the cost and secure supply. Also, they way they use SSD in the Air is not the same as normal SSD's, which normally are encased in one unit.

We'll see...

I think you are right. SSD across all Macs, except for the Mac Pro. That could use a SSD for the OS + Apps, HDD for storage. I think the next revised product will be a MacMini with SSD. That, and the 'plastic' MacBook gets discontinued.

And welcome to the forum.

Cheers,
Phil
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mat0 View Post

"From our point of view on design side, we design components where we believe we can innovate beyond the market." Gives example of A4 - they helped design/tweak it, got someone else to manufacture it.

But seems the deal is more akin to their Flash deal: "we've historically entered into agreements with others to supply; largest one was with flash memory suppliers because flash would become increasingly import across product line and industry."

"In the past several quarters, we've identified another area and come to recent agreements."
Describes deal as "similar to flash agreement, focused in an area that we feel is very strategic,"

so - multi-vendor deal on a specific area. Doesn't that rule out deals for components created primarily from one provider (e.g. a Qualcomm dual band chip, or an A5 chip fabbed by Samsung?)

Seeing as Apple has been known to have penned deals recently with display manufacturers, seems to tally.

So help in manufacture levels of iPhone 5, iPad 2 with no real change to the screen tech (focus on say NFC for iPhone 5). Then double pixel density for iPad 3.
Sure would be nice if they could have it for iPad 2 though. Using retina display just lifts your expectations of screen quality and resolution.


Something I haven't seen anyone ask - what if iPad2 was current resolution, but could output at 2x resolution? That it could store, playback 1080p at 720p, but could output 1080p at 1080p?
WHy go to the hassle of having such a souped up A5 chip? 4x the speed, but it's only going to be incrementally used, so iPhone 4's can run iOS 5.x also?

Some good points.
post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Thanks for the post, that makes it much clearer.

It's probably flash memory, displays and batteries as they represent the main product differentiators apart from the processor and OS. That way they can buy cheaper 128Gb flash drives together with the latest displays and battery technology ahead of the competition.

This was my first thought, especially because of the capex inclusion. Apple wants not only the best pricing but also guaranteed supply which is best assured with dedicated production lines.

I also think there is money for further R&D included.

I think Apple may be doing even more of these deals, most likely with Qualcomm and probably others - the whole Liquid Metal thing would take some investment for further implementation.
post #60 of 71
Here's something of interest. Two articles from the EETimes, a site I highly recommend to all here.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...L_EETimesDaily

Notice the article says for both logic and foundry operations. in other words, memory and cpu's.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...L_EETimesDaily

Apple is investing, as Cook said in manufacturing lines for production of product(s) for them. Hmmm! Where could this be?

The link to the site home:

http://www.eetimes.com/?cid=NL_EETimesDaily
post #61 of 71
This is where I believe Samsungs long term goals lay: http://www.edn.com/article/512298-AR...p_to_14_nm.php. That is 14nm hardware. Of course there will be nodes in between. The question for us is will Apple push hard to skip 32 nm to move to 22nm. The performance and power usage considerations are huge and for the near future would allow for some incredible hand held devices.

As a complete distraction one should look at all the job opening for engineers and technicians in up state NY. Either for Global Foundries or the ISDA.

As to Samsung here is Ana talking away: http://www10.edacafe.com/video/Samsu...185/media.html. She has obviously mastered the art of answering questions without saying much. To highlight just now much this is breaking news here is another tidbit: http://www.voicesatsamsungsemiconduc...gy-forum-2011/ In any event consider dinning at http://www.edacafe.com/ if your hunger for process tech is strong. As far as Samsung it appears to have 32/28 nm ready to roll, thus my strong suspicion that Apple will deliver a new SoC that will likely more than double performance in a very similar power profile. some of the numbers I've seen for shrinks to these nodes are very impressive.

Obviously considering Apples volume demands, it would not be uncommon for the companies to look at this transition as a partnership. Thus I would not be surprised at all to find out that Apple is throwing cash Samsungs way to secure capacity at this node and future nodes. I have a hard time believing that the entire 3.9 billion will go Samsungs way though. Previous release indicate that a few hundred million can take care of things like Flash and displays. In the end it is probably a safe way for Apple to secure production without building a fab itself.

As to Samsung specific processes here is info form the horses mouth: http://www.samsung.com/us/business/c...r/foundry.html. Note the following:
  1. The 32/28 nm processes are ready to go!!! Or exactly "Samsungs 32/28nm Processes for SoCs are Ready to Go". Note the obvious reference to SoCs.
  2. 20% Higher Performance
  3. 30% Lower Dynamic Power
  4. 50% Less Leakage Power


What is very notable is that no matter where you look there is never ever a mention of Apple anywhere on these sites never. Apples secrecy mentality has yet to soften. In any event these numbers lead me to believe that iPad2 could be running dual core with both the GPU and the CPU in the next rev with only a minor increase in power which at the same time can be offset in other ways. Things are looking good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Here's something of interest. Two articles from the EETimes, a site I highly recommend to all here.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...L_EETimesDaily

Notice the article says for both logic and foundry operations. in other words, memory and cpu's.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...L_EETimesDaily

Apple is investing, as Cook said in manufacturing lines for production of product(s) for them. Hmmm! Where could this be?

The link to the site home:

http://www.eetimes.com/?cid=NL_EETimesDaily
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Not a problem as no one wants a "gigantic" 10" screen. Everyone only requires 7" screen.

What are you, some kind of comedian?
post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This is where I believe Samsungs long term goals lay: http://www.edn.com/article/512298-AR...p_to_14_nm.php. That is 14nm hardware. Of course there will be nodes in between. The question for us is will Apple push hard to skip 32 nm to move to 22nm. The performance and power usage considerations are huge and for the near future would allow for some incredible hand held devices.

As a complete distraction one should look at all the job opening for engineers and technicians in up state NY. Either for Global Foundries or the ISDA.

As to Samsung here is Ana talking away: http://www10.edacafe.com/video/Samsu...185/media.html. She has obviously mastered the art of answering questions without saying much. To highlight just now much this is breaking news here is another tidbit: http://www.voicesatsamsungsemiconduc...gy-forum-2011/ In any event consider dinning at http://www.edacafe.com/ if your hunger for process tech is strong. As far as Samsung it appears to have 32/28 nm ready to roll, thus my strong suspicion that Apple will deliver a new SoC that will likely more than double performance in a very similar power profile. some of the numbers I've seen for shrinks to these nodes are very impressive.

Obviously considering Apples volume demands, it would not be uncommon for the companies to look at this transition as a partnership. Thus I would not be surprised at all to find out that Apple is throwing cash Samsungs way to secure capacity at this node and future nodes. I have a hard time believing that the entire 3.9 billion will go Samsungs way though. Previous release indicate that a few hundred million can take care of things like Flash and displays. In the end it is probably a safe way for Apple to secure production without building a fab itself.

As to Samsung specific processes here is info form the horses mouth: http://www.samsung.com/us/business/c...r/foundry.html. Note the following:
  1. The 32/28 nm processes are ready to go!!! Or exactly "Samsungs 32/28nm Processes for SoCs are Ready to Go". Note the obvious reference to SoCs.
  2. 20% Higher Performance
  3. 30% Lower Dynamic Power
  4. 50% Less Leakage Power


What is very notable is that no matter where you look there is never ever a mention of Apple anywhere on these sites never. Apples secrecy mentality has yet to soften. In any event these numbers lead me to believe that iPad2 could be running dual core with both the GPU and the CPU in the next rev with only a minor increase in power which at the same time can be offset in other ways. Things are looking good.

If this is all true it would certainly lend credibility to the recent stories of dual core ipads with dual core gpus. 2048x1536 displays would still be a possibility if it's also true that the power expense comes from the backlight and not the pixel density, which is independent of the pixels.

It would seem that 14nm is a couple-few years off from being a mass market reality, at least there would seem to be a clear path for future hardware and room for it to grow. The innovation is clearly in the mobile space and not in the desktop space these days. It would appear that we will very shortly be running mobile OS's and hardware that rivals today's desktops and notebooks in just about every facet. Probably also within 3 years.

At the moment I'm of the opinion that the earlier rumors of the upcoming iPad 2 are true, and it really will be an across the board quadrupling of power (cpu, gpu, pixel density) with additional features that are expected and a few unexpected. The Fireball 'tamp down' counter-rumors are just trying to make sure that the iPad2 announcement, when it happens, will still be able to wow us.
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielgomes View Post

I wonder if it could be solid state drives, ala the Macbook air?

People generally seem to be raving about how fast the macbook air is too boot and run the Air normally shows us where Apple are taking the mac.

E.g. using the aluminium body first debuted on the Air as did the lack of CD drive. Perhaps the next macs will also use SSD?

Just a guess but it could make sense considering how expensive SSD's currently are. By investing in a dedicated production line, they could bring down the cost and secure supply. Also, they way they use SSD in the Air is not the same as normal SSD's, which normally are encased in one unit.

We'll see...

I'll go you one further... if Apple can get the cost on SSD down far enough, and also manage to convince people that disc drives are silly and antiquated (part way there, mac app store helps) then they can effectively eliminate the MBP line as we know it. I think if Apple has their way future MBP notebooks will look more like the MBA than how the MBP looks today.

They obviously can't do this while the MBA still has to make some compromises. Someday however they'll be able to make a high end MBA with 15 or 17" screen, 1TB SSD, no disc drive (because the demand will die off) and sufficient processing power, while having this new machine maintain a more MBA style weight and enclosure.

If they can do that sooner than later, then yes there's no reason they couldn't move the entire line over to SSD (except the minority of pro stuff that wants truly large storage). In fact we would all be using SSD, and wax poetic about the days of spinning disc hard drives and how silly and antiquated that technology was just like how we think of the floppy disk and how at one point those were so critical to our daily lives. Anything not solid state will be looked down on by Zoll as old, retarded stuff his dad used to use (you mean this has to 'spin up'?).
post #65 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

If this is all true it would certainly lend credibility to the recent stories of dual core ipads with dual core gpus. 2048x1536 displays would still be a possibility if it's also true that the power expense comes from the backlight and not the pixel density, which is independent of the pixels.

It would seem that 14nm is a couple-few years off from being a mass market reality, at least there would seem to be a clear path for future hardware and room for it to grow. The innovation is clearly in the mobile space and not in the desktop space these days. It would appear that we will very shortly be running mobile OS's and hardware that rivals today's desktops and notebooks in just about every facet. Probably also within 3 years.

At the moment I'm of the opinion that the earlier rumors of the upcoming iPad 2 are true, and it really will be an across the board quadrupling of power (cpu, gpu, pixel density) with additional features that are expected and a few unexpected. The Fireball 'tamp down' counter-rumors are just trying to make sure that the iPad2 announcement, when it happens, will still be able to wow us.

It looks as though 14-16nm will be here, assuming there are no problems at that process, which is very possible, in three years. Intel is starting production in 22 nm in early 2012. They've got samples out now. Samsung will likely be around that time as well. Of course, Intel has been at 32nm for some time now.

TSMc, which is at the 40nm level, and makes chips for Nvidia and ATI (a brand name about to die), has just had a fire at a wafer plant.
post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

I'll go you one further... if Apple can get the cost on SSD down far enough, and also manage to convince people that disc drives are silly and antiquated (part way there, mac app store helps) then they can effectively eliminate the MBP line as we know it. I think if Apple has their way future MBP notebooks will look more like the MBA than how the MBP looks today.

Let's say my guess that 2 billion goes to Samsung for processors and development work is correct or at least plausible for this discussion. That leave almost 2 billion to go after other components so maybe the throw 0.5 billion each at displays and flash, like they have in the past. That still leaves close to a billion to spread around. These numbers are huge and represents incredible leverage for Apple.
Quote:
They obviously can't do this while the MBA still has to make some compromises. Someday however they'll be able to make a high end MBA with 15 or 17" screen, 1TB SSD, no disc drive (because the demand will die off) and sufficient processing power, while having this new machine maintain a more MBA style weight and enclosure.

They can do that today if they really wanted to. However a 15" inch AIR would never be a power users machine. Since the current MBPs are marketed towards power users Apple will need to offer up performance machines.

Having two 15" machines is no more of a problem than having two 13" machines. The MBP 15" machine would simply use the extra space to implement higher performance chips (bigger heat sinks and fans), larger batteries and a better selection of ports.
Quote:
If they can do that sooner than later, then yes there's no reason they couldn't move the entire line over to SSD (except the minority of pro stuff that wants truly large storage).

This I consider twisted because my pro storage needs are rather simple. However I'd love massive amounts of storage for media. So yeah skinny SSDs do have their negatives. Pro class machines though would be able to easily support hybrid systems. AIRs can't really do that well due to the thin design and limited space. For me though a 15" AIR that didn't have to support my Media collection would work well, given that they can up performance past my early 2008.

AIR as a concept is great because it allows them to serve more markets. That doesn't mean that the markets for the MBPs or the Mac Books go away.
Quote:
In fact we would all be using SSD, and wax poetic about the days of spinning disc hard drives and how silly and antiquated that technology was just like how we think of the floppy disk and how at one point those were so critical to our daily lives. Anything not solid state will be looked down on by Zoll as old, retarded stuff his dad used to use (you mean this has to 'spin up'?).

Well if not this year it isn't far off at all. The really big question though is how long will flash be the SolidState process of choice. I have a feeling flash memory will not be in the spotlight as long as magnetic drives have been. The thing is other SolidState tech would seem to be a better fit in the long run, especially for boot drives.

In any event I have to agree with the idea that rapid changes are coming.
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This I consider twisted because my pro storage needs are rather simple. However I'd love massive amounts of storage for media. So yeah skinny SSDs do have their negatives. Pro class machines though would be able to easily support hybrid systems.

I need at least a 240GB startup drive for my Mac Pro. But as I'm retired, I no longer want to spend really big bucks for large SSD's. I bought a 60GB from OWC to play with as that was only $134 on sale. So I installed 10.6.6, CS5 and some other apps and large files.

It really is fast. Apps such as Safari and Mail open almost as fast as I raise my finger from the key. Photoshop takes longer, but about a quarter the time it usually does. Startup times are very fast, but it's not a fair test, as I have a lot of startup files and apps normally that aren't present on this.

Opening a 100MB photo takes vey little time, as does saving it.

I'm waiting for the $525 to come down to about $300 later this year before I pop for a 240. The problem is that due to high density Flash prices, the 480 costs $1,500 right now. There was a time when I wouldn't have cared what it costs, but not now. We're too used to low prices for things.

In addition, the new Sandforce 2000 controller will be out soon, and tests have shown that speeds are close to double the present record of 285MB/s which the OWc models do with the Sandforce 1220. We'll need SATA 3 with 6GB/s to really see those speeds though. I've got a 6GB/s card, so I hope to get one of those.
post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I need at least a 240GB startup drive for my Mac Pro. But as I'm retired, I no longer want to spend really big bucks for large SSD's. I bought a 60GB from OWC to play with as that was only $134 on sale. So I installed 10.6.6, CS5 and some other apps and large files.

I was actually thinking of up dating me early 2008 MBP with a SSD. As you note the price ballon pretty quick and one does have a minimal size need. They other thing is that the old MBPs are a bear to disassemble.
Quote:
It really is fast. Apps such as Safari and Mail open almost as fast as I raise my finger from the key. Photoshop takes longer, but about a quarter the time it usually does. Startup times are very fast, but it's not a fair test, as I have a lot of startup files and apps normally that aren't present on this.

I get far more beach balling on my MBP than I'd like. I blame a lot of it on slow disk drives, both internal and external. I suspect a SSD would help a lot here. My concern is early wear out due to running software builds which read and write files in ways the average user doesn't.
Quote:
Opening a 100MB photo takes vey little time, as does saving it.

I'm waiting for the $525 to come down to about $300 later this year before I pop for a 240. The problem is that due to high density Flash prices, the 480 costs $1,500 right now. There was a time when I wouldn't have cared what it costs, but not now. We're too used to low prices for things.

I'm actually hoping Apple can speed up the price drops. I still work for a living, but even so find that buying personal use hardware to be in conflict with many other things that interest me. Flash prices will be under pressure from both old and new technology so maybe their is hope. I'm also concerned about the reliability of the latest generation of flash chips.
Quote:
In addition, the new Sandforce 2000 controller will be out soon, and tests have shown that speeds are close to double the present record of 285MB/s which the OWc models do with the Sandforce 1220. We'll need SATA 3 with 6GB/s to really see those speeds though. I've got a 6GB/s card, so I hope to get one of those.

That would be nice, faster is generally good. What I don't understand is why the industry is taking so long to abandon legacy SATA. It would seem to me that PCI-Express should be a no brainer.
post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I was actually thinking of up dating me early 2008 MBP with a SSD. As you note the price ballon pretty quick and one does have a minimal size need. They other thing is that the old MBPs are a bear to disassemble.

I get far more beach balling on my MBP than I'd like. I blame a lot of it on slow disk drives, both internal and external. I suspect a SSD would help a lot here. My concern is early wear out due to running software builds which read and write files in ways the average user doesn't.

Got one of those half-terrabyte momentus hybrid SSD drives, very good price and power. Installed in a 2007 15" MBP, did wonders for it.

http://www.google.com/products/catal...d=0CCoQ8wIwAQ#
post #70 of 71
Pretty sure it does NOT involve batteries... the tech there is actually moving a bit after stagnating for many years. My "guess" would be in displays and SSDs. AND I would not be surprised if part of that also involves memory.

AND I also would NOT be surprised if this is also partially a very m$ kind of move, lock up component pricing as a subtle way to put the screws on others... if everyone else HAS to price their stuff high, Apple's very high pricing actually looks reasonable (take a guess how they have amassed almost 60 BILLION in cash in such a short time... wasn't too long ago their overall GM was approaching 45%...).
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Nah, they bought the liquid metal company outright several months ago. They own it lock, stock, and barrel.



Apple didn't buy liquid metal, they only bought the rights to the intellectual property for consumer electronics worldwide. I personally hope they do decide to buy the company in the future as I own some shares..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple commits $3.9 billion to secret long term component contracts