there are many discussions around with ideas similar to what is discussed in the thread "Could this be the future? Oh, I wish.."
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001827" target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001827</a>
what topics like this fail to take into account is the business sence in making such a move. i appreciate though the fact that the author of this thread went out of his way to spell out the business advantages (and engineering as well) of apple making such a purchase as sgi unlike most threads which spell out a wish list while disregarding other factors.
despite that, this thread goes to show how much many people (here and elsewhere, especially analysts) still do not realise the "almost perfect" way in which apple management is (AND HAS TO) running the company.
despite the ammount of cash they have in the bank, there is still a little bit of vulnerability (although it lessens everyday -witness the almost complete overhaul of the os in upcoming jagwire, xserve, etc.) thus everything has to be done just right with almost perfect execution.
by this i mean everything - profit margins, product releases, tech/corp. aquisitions, discounts/sales.
e.g. it is well known that there are dozens of prototypes (in some cases complete) at apple that have not been released for various reasons, most of which can ultimately be linked to what i have mentioned above (company performance).
other reasons include not sufficient performance/featureset lead over comptitors e.g. camera. apple already has (had) working models ready for market since last year that were better than anything that is currently out there but the difference was such that competitors could respond within a few months. case in point, look at how long it has taken competitors to respond to ipod - 6 months and still counting.
now a more direct rebutal to the sgi post and other similar ones - what i am trying to say with all the blabbering above is all moves that apple is making are highly strategic, they have to be for it to move out of the positions it is in right now (i.e. industry/public perception, market share, etc.). when they make a purchase, there are tangible advantges and strategic gains in that purchase.
many people are making the mistake of using a ms mindset to explain the advantages that apple gains. for example, this explains all the discussion about how apple is being like ms in its recent aquisitions, dropping ms future dev and making it mac only for competitive reasons.
this is far from the truth. what apple wants mostly from its recent aquistions is intellectual capital - both in the form of experienced developers and working products/code/algorithms. JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR OS X (went with unix == stable/mature/1000's of experienced developers, etc.).
while buying these companies and tecnology just to deprive windows for competitive purposes could have been the reason and is a legit (with a certain ammount of legal maneuvering), this is not the reason.
the second and most important factor is that when they make one of these purchases, it is because they have realised that no third party could produce the solutions they are seeking due to any one of many reasons:
=> too slow for apple timeframe for product realeses to market
=>apple is the master of empowerment through simplification i.e. no-one else can do it as well as they can
=>they are a key part of the vision that apple have of the future ("digital hub") thus apple needs control of these resources so that they can be used when and where they want
now if you look at the second reasons (plus any more you can come up with), you will realise that the purchase of sgi, while advantageous, is not really strategic enough to warrant a purchase. i come to this conclusion after looking at the product offerings (microprocessors) from ibm and amd, nvdia and ati.
just in case moto is not up to standard apple could go with any of these to produce the type of hardware that is mentioned in the other thread, the most probable being ibm. note, i have included the graphics chip companies because according to the ceo/founder of nvidia (and i kinda side with him on this one) in the not too distant future the graphics/multimedia chip will become the dominant chip in computer with the regular cpu doing tasks such as AI, pattern recognition, etc.
...... gotta go, will be back with the 2 companies that i think would offer the most strategic advantage to apple and make it an immediate threat to ms.....
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001827" target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001827</a>
what topics like this fail to take into account is the business sence in making such a move. i appreciate though the fact that the author of this thread went out of his way to spell out the business advantages (and engineering as well) of apple making such a purchase as sgi unlike most threads which spell out a wish list while disregarding other factors.
despite that, this thread goes to show how much many people (here and elsewhere, especially analysts) still do not realise the "almost perfect" way in which apple management is (AND HAS TO) running the company.
despite the ammount of cash they have in the bank, there is still a little bit of vulnerability (although it lessens everyday -witness the almost complete overhaul of the os in upcoming jagwire, xserve, etc.) thus everything has to be done just right with almost perfect execution.
by this i mean everything - profit margins, product releases, tech/corp. aquisitions, discounts/sales.
e.g. it is well known that there are dozens of prototypes (in some cases complete) at apple that have not been released for various reasons, most of which can ultimately be linked to what i have mentioned above (company performance).
other reasons include not sufficient performance/featureset lead over comptitors e.g. camera. apple already has (had) working models ready for market since last year that were better than anything that is currently out there but the difference was such that competitors could respond within a few months. case in point, look at how long it has taken competitors to respond to ipod - 6 months and still counting.
now a more direct rebutal to the sgi post and other similar ones - what i am trying to say with all the blabbering above is all moves that apple is making are highly strategic, they have to be for it to move out of the positions it is in right now (i.e. industry/public perception, market share, etc.). when they make a purchase, there are tangible advantges and strategic gains in that purchase.
many people are making the mistake of using a ms mindset to explain the advantages that apple gains. for example, this explains all the discussion about how apple is being like ms in its recent aquisitions, dropping ms future dev and making it mac only for competitive reasons.
this is far from the truth. what apple wants mostly from its recent aquistions is intellectual capital - both in the form of experienced developers and working products/code/algorithms. JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR OS X (went with unix == stable/mature/1000's of experienced developers, etc.).
while buying these companies and tecnology just to deprive windows for competitive purposes could have been the reason and is a legit (with a certain ammount of legal maneuvering), this is not the reason.
the second and most important factor is that when they make one of these purchases, it is because they have realised that no third party could produce the solutions they are seeking due to any one of many reasons:
=> too slow for apple timeframe for product realeses to market
=>apple is the master of empowerment through simplification i.e. no-one else can do it as well as they can
=>they are a key part of the vision that apple have of the future ("digital hub") thus apple needs control of these resources so that they can be used when and where they want
now if you look at the second reasons (plus any more you can come up with), you will realise that the purchase of sgi, while advantageous, is not really strategic enough to warrant a purchase. i come to this conclusion after looking at the product offerings (microprocessors) from ibm and amd, nvdia and ati.
just in case moto is not up to standard apple could go with any of these to produce the type of hardware that is mentioned in the other thread, the most probable being ibm. note, i have included the graphics chip companies because according to the ceo/founder of nvidia (and i kinda side with him on this one) in the not too distant future the graphics/multimedia chip will become the dominant chip in computer with the regular cpu doing tasks such as AI, pattern recognition, etc.
...... gotta go, will be back with the 2 companies that i think would offer the most strategic advantage to apple and make it an immediate threat to ms.....
