Yep, it should be, as should a lot of what our fearless leaders are up to, from illegitimate wars to general economic and trade policy that actively pushes jobs overseas when there are no legitimate alternatives domestically to replace them.
Personally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I assume that you would be referring to Iraq and Afganistan by saying "illegitimate wars"? Saddam provided plenty of concern over WMDs going so far as to even gas his own people. Bush made the call to resolve that potential crisis before it got that far and some of the intelligence was suspect and apparently wrong. I give him the benefit of the doubt on going in there to stabilize a regime that appeared to have access to some seriously bad stuff. Similarly I don't fault him for going into Afganistan to get Bin Laden and his cronies. The Taliban was harboring him and so they were a perfectly legitimate target as far as I'm concerned.
I'll also give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does indeed love this country and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. The fact that he seems completely misguided in how he is trying to accomplish this is obviously a topic of much debate.
Quote:
Still don't think so. Intel is worried about the coming ARM laptop assault, not Apple specifically. They want all of the PC makers to have something as nice as the Air in order to keep a healthy market for their chips and prevent market movement to a competing CPU architecture. The PC clone makers aren't competent to do this design work, and Intel knows it, so it's in their interest to make it happen. (Apple is a much larger company than these other ones individually, and knows how to do actual work to make their products better, has margins that let it fund R&D, etc.)
As a second issue, Intel lending a hand with design is one piece, but these makers are pushing for chip price cuts to try to get themselves better margins on these machines using what they know are Intel's concerns over market share for extra pressure. That's business negotiating, but it's also a reflection of the fact that if THEY make these machines and they don't sell (and charging Apple prices for non-Apple machines may NOT sell well!), THEY sit on unsold inventory and eat the losses, not Intel.
So I just don't see this as equivalent to an auto maker or bank looking for a bailout or loan. These manufacturers aren't competent to do this work AND Intel has a huge vested interest in getting them to succeed - one that may be worth Intel cutting some of their margins to avoid a larger bleed.
I completely agree with what you have here. My guess is that Intel developed the design spec to ensure a ready market for their product in the event that Apple takes the Air to their own A series processors. This makes sense for Apple, so it likewise makes sense for Intel to try and support a healthy alternative to the Air.
I don't understand this kvetching. Just drop the optical drive and the legacy ports, make it slim, and ship it. Don't talk about it, do it.
A quick visit to NewEgg.com gets me all the components I need for relatively little money; the only things not available off the shelf are the enclosure and the motherboard to fit into it.
The problem is not the CPU. It's the form factor fabrication.
There's nothing stopping them from doing this right now except their own inability to execute.
Inept whingers. If I had access to the fabrication Dell has access to, I could solve this problem for them in a day.
You're grossly underestimating the complexity of what Apple has achieved. It was many years in the making and isn't likely to be matched just because someone at Dell or whatever decides to go all in.
Apple is literally subsidizing new production capacity in exchange for exclusivity for some set time period. Apple has endlessly iterated and refined the design of their products, shaving fractions of an ounce and millimeters by tweaking battery chemistry or taking the lead in things like unibody construction or sealed batts. They've identified technologies that support their vision and locked up the supply chain.
Most importantly, they've had their eye on the ball all this time. Thin, light, great battery life, excellent construction, great user experience. It's all they do.
Where are razor thin margin operating on a shoestring and a prayer PC assemblers going to get the cash to change up their entire business plan? Because that's what's needed, not just someone to greenlight dropping the optical drive. They have to invest in manufacturing and supply chains, invest in basic material R&D, invest in processes, and somehow coordinate all that so it doesn't cost more than Apple-- even though all they know how to do is try to get commodity parts assembled as cheaply as possible. No wonder they're crying to Intel.
There is one massive difference between the way Apple does business with Intel and the way every other PC manufacturer does. That is Intel Inside. You never see badly aligned stickers on Apple boxes, or ads chiming away or any reference to Intel. Apple can I am sure do deals that say we don't need your marketing dollars let's have your bottom price based on very large volumes on a small number of products. On the flip side Intel marketing wants Intel to be the deciding factor for customers where the OEM cares for the marketing dollars so this is a reason why Intel might use marketing dollars to subsidise price, therefore keeping the lowest price clauses intact.
Intel currently supplies the CPUs used in Apple's MacBook Airs. How then, prey tell, can the author assert that Intel's CPU pricing disadvantages Apple's competitors? Such a claim makes no sense.
Intel currently supplies the CPUs used in Apple's MacBook Airs. How then, prey tell, can the author assert that Intel's CPU pricing disadvantages Apple's competitors? Such a claim makes no sense.
The author isn't asserting that, he's reporting that PC manufacturers are admitting that they can't compete with Apple head to head in the form factor that Intel would like them to, so they need special consideration from Intel.
Basically "You want us to build MacBook Air clones for under $1000? We can't do it unless you make us a deal." That doesn't have anything to do with what Apple pays for Intel chips but rather what Apple pays for everything else.
I would say the first part of your analogy is correct, but the second transaction looks more like "I will buy 1000 of these cars for my rental fleet if you take 15% off the total price. Moreover, I will commit to buying 10,000 of these cars over the next two years for my hugely successful chain of highly cost efficient rental locations for a fixed price I will negotiate now that may or may not reflect pricing changes that are advantageous to me."
Then, the car manufacturer sees that the rental business as operated by customer B is likely to be a source of lucrative sales, and, hoping to get more players involved, publishes a business plan for just such a highly efficient rental franchise. Then, customer A declares that they can't possibly offer car rentals at competitive prices and take advantage of this franchise scheme unless the car manufacturer offers them big discounts, despite the fact that they can't commit to any particular purchase volumes, now or in the future.
Let's put it this way, "One man's grovel is another's hard bargaining."
So, if Intel lowers the price of their chips, then the MacBook Air can go lower on price.
Ironically, they'd have more success against Apple if they asked Intel to increase the chip prices for everyone! Assuming everything else stayed the same, the percentage price difference between Apple and the rest would be less if they all paid higher prices for the chips.
As for lowering the price...sure, it would allow Apple to also lower the price...but would they?
If I had access to the fabrication Dell has access to, I could solve this problem for them in a day.
Well, apparently you are wrong. It seems like Apple has out-engineered them not only in the computer design but in the business/production design as well.
There have been other reports that Apple has created such an efficient supply chain, and invested in critical part capacity, etc, that these PC clone makers literally cannot build one of these - even a cheaper version - to sell at $1000.
As I understand it state of the art Intel chips cost around $100-$120 in quantity.
State of the art ARM chips cost $20-$25 in quantity.
Aside, for now, the differences in architecture, 64-bit, etc... Is an intel chip worth 5-6 times an ARM chip?
Why?
Could a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores, 8 GPUs) compete with a Intel i7 (8 cores and 1 GPU)?
Will the equation change dramatically when ARM goes 64-bit?
Great set of questions. Another aspect of this is going to be how Windows adapts to this new architecture. If developers are going to have to start coding for a second platform, which is more potentially profitable for them, a large and growing installed base of Mac users OR a new Windows platform that they might be more familiar with and involve fewer "growing pains"? My hope is that this might play in the direction of Apple and lead to more developers taking advantage of the ever growing Mac user base.
One way to look at it (and I'm certainly not the first to make this observation) is that Apple has designed their entire operation with exactly as much care as they design their devices. Constantly looking at every piece and process to see where they can improve quality and efficiency, eliminate unnecessary legacy bits, spend some capital to advance the state of the art, etc.
It didn't happen overnight and it won't be matched by enlisting a few aluminum milling machines.
As I understand it state of the art Intel chips cost around $100-$120 in quantity.
State of the art ARM chips cost $20-$25 in quantity.
Aside, for now, the differences in architecture, 64-bit, etc... Is an intel chip worth 5-6 times an ARM chip?
Why?
Could a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores, 8 GPUs) compete with a Intel i7 (8 cores and 1 GPU)?
Will the equation change dramatically when ARM goes 64-bit?
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
Like others have said, yes, in a way they do. They tell their component suppliers that we want the finest you can make and the best price you can do it for and we will pay for everything in advance. We will also pay or finance any expenditures that you may need to get the level of quality and quantity we need. And, you won't have to worry about making items that will be stockpiling in your warehouse because we discontiued our item 6 weeks after we introduce it.
Like others have said, yes, in a way they do. They tell their component suppliers that we want the finest you can make and the best price you can do it for and we will pay for everything in advance. We will also pay or finance any expenditures that you may need to get the level of quality and quantity we need. And, you won't have to worry about making items that will be stockpiling in your warehouse because we discontiued our item 6 weeks after we introduce it.
Which, to put it in the context of the original exchange, is vastly different from telling a supplier "We need a price break because we can't compete with that other guy."
right on, also, apple has a lock on the machines to make the case, others can't and use other materials, apple has them buffaloed
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Actually if you root around the internet a little you'll find a report saying that the companies that build the NC machines to perform the fine aluminum machining that ultra books require are all tapped out supplying Apple's requirements (i.e. Apple's contract mfrs who have committed their capacity to Apple) so there really is limited aluminum machining capacity out there to service Apple's competitors.
You're both wrong. I've been involved with a good bit of machining, including machining for aerospace parts for the last decade or so. I could find 50 shops within a 20 mile radius that can easily make cases like this. And the material is just aluminum plates - which are once again very readily available.
And there's no way that Apple has monopolized the production capacity for milled aluminum parts. Just do a search for 'milled aluminum' to get an idea of how many different products are made of milled aluminum. Apple's specs don't appear to be anything special compared to aerospace or automotive or hydraulic components.
AND, if they're not clever enough to find any of the thousands of places that can do this type of work, there's no reason they couldn't make them out of stamped metal, plastic, or walnut, if they wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons
But there is no car dealership Next door.
Really? All the AMD fans here like to brag about how much better AMD chips are than Intel chips for low power usage. Why can't the PC makers buy AMD chips - which are much less expensive than Intel?
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
That's all absolutely true. ARM isn't even in the same league.
HOWEVER, there's no reason that these vendors couldn't use AMD chips. All the AMD fans here love to brag about how much better and more power-efficient their chips are.
"He added that if Ultrabooks suffer from weak sales, while Apple continues to enjoy strong profit, the Wintel alliance will need to do something or else all the related IT player may be gone together," the report said.
That comment would be getting dangerously close to evidence of collusion -- all that would be needed to prove monopolistic behavior.
That's all absolutely true. ARM isn't even in the same league.
HOWEVER, there's no reason that these vendors couldn't use AMD chips. All the AMD fans here love to brag about how much better and more power-efficient their chips are.
LIke others have stated its not in the chip prices though. The other manufacturers have to understand that its in the other parts like the design process and the manufacturing. IF Apple can ake an air at $1000 with say intel chips at $100 each then other manufacturers should be able to do it also.
Intel should really stop caving to the other manufacturers.
I want to discuss your answers further -- you appear to have hardware expertise that I lack. I don't want to challenge your statements, rather to understand how they affect the computing world as I see it. My questions are interspersed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
I realize that 64-bit has little or no effect on hardware performance. But it can have a significant effect on OS and app performance (paging memory, video rendering, parallel operation, etc.). Based on the work being done by the user, 64-bit and additional RAM can affect the perceived power and speed of the "hardware".
Quote:
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
I think I knew the answer to that, before I asked it.
However, Apple has done a lot of work to make their OS(es) and apps (including apps by 3rd-party developers):
-- largely independent/abstracted from the underlying hardware
-- to use OpenCL and GCD wherever possible
-- to exploit parallelism using any available CPU and GPU cores
-- for lack of a better phrase distributed processing
If Apple has done its job well, I believe that a power computing solution, for the near future, would be a series of "compute boxes" daisy chained on a thunderbolt cable along with RAID Storage, peripheral docks, wireless stations, and Displays.
These "compute boxes" would consist of:
-- enough SSD to run a minimal OS
-- RAM
-- CPUs and GPUs
-- an internal power supply
-- a fan if needed
-- small packaging like the Mac Mini or AppleTV 2
The theory is that as your compute needs grow -- just add another "compute box" to the daisy chain
These "compute boxes" could contain whatever CPU and GPU architecture that provided the required price/performance.
Quote:
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Yes, I believe that the iPad supports that conclusion.
Quote:
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
The only problem I have with your last paragraph -- is that for ARM chips to be used in low-end, cheap computers and laptops.
As I understand Windows 8, in order to run legacy x86 apps the device will require an x86 CPU. This would appear to eliminate the use of ARM in low-end, cheap computers and laptops.
Further, developers might be discouraged from rewriting their x86 apps for Metro/ARM because of the disincentive of paying MS 30% for the privilege.
I have no problem with the curated Metro store or the 30%...
But I think it is a chicken/egg thing -- without a lot of Metro apps there won't be any Metro tablets (and low-end, cheap computers and laptops) -- and without the Metro tablets et al, there won't be any incentive to port x86 apps to Metro/ARM.
Finally, I don't know this, but based on past performance, I suspect it is true:
Say there is a breakthrough and a new computer architecture suddenly arrives on the scene. Apple is in a good position to migrate their OSes and apps, natively, to exploit that new platform. And through something like rosetta, existing iOS, OS X and Windows apps could run at normal speed in emulation. Third-party iOS and OS X could run native with a simple recompile.
Apple has bet the farm (and won) on this kind of revolutionary migration -- no other OS or hardware mfgr has.
The amazing thing is that someone on a forum and Newegg can say this without blinking. Do you really think there aren't people at Dell who are as good at assembling a computer as you are? It's harder than you think, and I don't pretend to know why, but if your conclusion doesn't add up, check your premises.
For example the idea that case production is tied up by Apple. Some of the equipment could very well be owned by Apple but it doesn't matter, CNC factories can be set up in matter of weeks. That is if you need to setup a factory at all. There are plenty of job shops to take on that work.
In the end this appears to be an issue of people not wanting to own the infrastructure and the risk that goes with it. In effect they are looking for Intel to make the machines risk free.
Not at all. You negotiate when you tell Intel I need this price or I may just go make my own CPUs. You whine when you say, Intel lower your price because I an make a small laptop for less then Apple's retail price.
Comments
Yep, it should be, as should a lot of what our fearless leaders are up to, from illegitimate wars to general economic and trade policy that actively pushes jobs overseas when there are no legitimate alternatives domestically to replace them.
Personally, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I assume that you would be referring to Iraq and Afganistan by saying "illegitimate wars"? Saddam provided plenty of concern over WMDs going so far as to even gas his own people. Bush made the call to resolve that potential crisis before it got that far and some of the intelligence was suspect and apparently wrong. I give him the benefit of the doubt on going in there to stabilize a regime that appeared to have access to some seriously bad stuff. Similarly I don't fault him for going into Afganistan to get Bin Laden and his cronies. The Taliban was harboring him and so they were a perfectly legitimate target as far as I'm concerned.
I'll also give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does indeed love this country and is doing what he thinks is best for the country. The fact that he seems completely misguided in how he is trying to accomplish this is obviously a topic of much debate.
Still don't think so. Intel is worried about the coming ARM laptop assault, not Apple specifically. They want all of the PC makers to have something as nice as the Air in order to keep a healthy market for their chips and prevent market movement to a competing CPU architecture. The PC clone makers aren't competent to do this design work, and Intel knows it, so it's in their interest to make it happen. (Apple is a much larger company than these other ones individually, and knows how to do actual work to make their products better, has margins that let it fund R&D, etc.)
As a second issue, Intel lending a hand with design is one piece, but these makers are pushing for chip price cuts to try to get themselves better margins on these machines using what they know are Intel's concerns over market share for extra pressure. That's business negotiating, but it's also a reflection of the fact that if THEY make these machines and they don't sell (and charging Apple prices for non-Apple machines may NOT sell well!), THEY sit on unsold inventory and eat the losses, not Intel.
So I just don't see this as equivalent to an auto maker or bank looking for a bailout or loan. These manufacturers aren't competent to do this work AND Intel has a huge vested interest in getting them to succeed - one that may be worth Intel cutting some of their margins to avoid a larger bleed.
I completely agree with what you have here. My guess is that Intel developed the design spec to ensure a ready market for their product in the event that Apple takes the Air to their own A series processors. This makes sense for Apple, so it likewise makes sense for Intel to try and support a healthy alternative to the Air.
+1
I don't understand this kvetching. Just drop the optical drive and the legacy ports, make it slim, and ship it. Don't talk about it, do it.
A quick visit to NewEgg.com gets me all the components I need for relatively little money; the only things not available off the shelf are the enclosure and the motherboard to fit into it.
The problem is not the CPU. It's the form factor fabrication.
There's nothing stopping them from doing this right now except their own inability to execute.
Inept whingers. If I had access to the fabrication Dell has access to, I could solve this problem for them in a day.
You're grossly underestimating the complexity of what Apple has achieved. It was many years in the making and isn't likely to be matched just because someone at Dell or whatever decides to go all in.
Apple is literally subsidizing new production capacity in exchange for exclusivity for some set time period. Apple has endlessly iterated and refined the design of their products, shaving fractions of an ounce and millimeters by tweaking battery chemistry or taking the lead in things like unibody construction or sealed batts. They've identified technologies that support their vision and locked up the supply chain.
Most importantly, they've had their eye on the ball all this time. Thin, light, great battery life, excellent construction, great user experience. It's all they do.
Where are razor thin margin operating on a shoestring and a prayer PC assemblers going to get the cash to change up their entire business plan? Because that's what's needed, not just someone to greenlight dropping the optical drive. They have to invest in manufacturing and supply chains, invest in basic material R&D, invest in processes, and somehow coordinate all that so it doesn't cost more than Apple-- even though all they know how to do is try to get commodity parts assembled as cheaply as possible. No wonder they're crying to Intel.
Intel currently supplies the CPUs used in Apple's MacBook Airs. How then, prey tell, can the author assert that Intel's CPU pricing disadvantages Apple's competitors? Such a claim makes no sense.
The author isn't asserting that, he's reporting that PC manufacturers are admitting that they can't compete with Apple head to head in the form factor that Intel would like them to, so they need special consideration from Intel.
Basically "You want us to build MacBook Air clones for under $1000? We can't do it unless you make us a deal." That doesn't have anything to do with what Apple pays for Intel chips but rather what Apple pays for everything else.
I would say the first part of your analogy is correct, but the second transaction looks more like "I will buy 1000 of these cars for my rental fleet if you take 15% off the total price. Moreover, I will commit to buying 10,000 of these cars over the next two years for my hugely successful chain of highly cost efficient rental locations for a fixed price I will negotiate now that may or may not reflect pricing changes that are advantageous to me."
Then, the car manufacturer sees that the rental business as operated by customer B is likely to be a source of lucrative sales, and, hoping to get more players involved, publishes a business plan for just such a highly efficient rental franchise. Then, customer A declares that they can't possibly offer car rentals at competitive prices and take advantage of this franchise scheme unless the car manufacturer offers them big discounts, despite the fact that they can't commit to any particular purchase volumes, now or in the future.
Let's put it this way, "One man's grovel is another's hard bargaining."
But the MacBook Air uses Intel chips!
So, if Intel lowers the price of their chips, then the MacBook Air can go lower on price.
Ironically, they'd have more success against Apple if they asked Intel to increase the chip prices for everyone! Assuming everything else stayed the same, the percentage price difference between Apple and the rest would be less if they all paid higher prices for the chips.
As for lowering the price...sure, it would allow Apple to also lower the price...but would they?
+1
I don't understand this kvetching. Just ...
If I had access to the fabrication Dell has access to, I could solve this problem for them in a day.
Well, apparently you are wrong. It seems like Apple has out-engineered them not only in the computer design but in the business/production design as well.
There have been other reports that Apple has created such an efficient supply chain, and invested in critical part capacity, etc, that these PC clone makers literally cannot build one of these - even a cheaper version - to sell at $1000.
This is the current reality.
Honest question:
As I understand it state of the art Intel chips cost around $100-$120 in quantity.
State of the art ARM chips cost $20-$25 in quantity.
Aside, for now, the differences in architecture, 64-bit, etc... Is an intel chip worth 5-6 times an ARM chip?
Why?
Could a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores, 8 GPUs) compete with a Intel i7 (8 cores and 1 GPU)?
Will the equation change dramatically when ARM goes 64-bit?
Great set of questions. Another aspect of this is going to be how Windows adapts to this new architecture. If developers are going to have to start coding for a second platform, which is more potentially profitable for them, a large and growing installed base of Mac users OR a new Windows platform that they might be more familiar with and involve fewer "growing pains"? My hope is that this might play in the direction of Apple and lead to more developers taking advantage of the ever growing Mac user base.
It didn't happen overnight and it won't be matched by enlisting a few aluminum milling machines.
Honest question:
As I understand it state of the art Intel chips cost around $100-$120 in quantity.
State of the art ARM chips cost $20-$25 in quantity.
Aside, for now, the differences in architecture, 64-bit, etc... Is an intel chip worth 5-6 times an ARM chip?
Why?
Could a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores, 8 GPUs) compete with a Intel i7 (8 cores and 1 GPU)?
Will the equation change dramatically when ARM goes 64-bit?
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
Yeah! Right! Apple never pressures suppliers.
Like others have said, yes, in a way they do. They tell their component suppliers that we want the finest you can make and the best price you can do it for and we will pay for everything in advance. We will also pay or finance any expenditures that you may need to get the level of quality and quantity we need. And, you won't have to worry about making items that will be stockpiling in your warehouse because we discontiued our item 6 weeks after we introduce it.
Like others have said, yes, in a way they do. They tell their component suppliers that we want the finest you can make and the best price you can do it for and we will pay for everything in advance. We will also pay or finance any expenditures that you may need to get the level of quality and quantity we need. And, you won't have to worry about making items that will be stockpiling in your warehouse because we discontiued our item 6 weeks after we introduce it.
Which, to put it in the context of the original exchange, is vastly different from telling a supplier "We need a price break because we can't compete with that other guy."
right on, also, apple has a lock on the machines to make the case, others can't and use other materials, apple has them buffaloed
Actually if you root around the internet a little you'll find a report saying that the companies that build the NC machines to perform the fine aluminum machining that ultra books require are all tapped out supplying Apple's requirements (i.e. Apple's contract mfrs who have committed their capacity to Apple) so there really is limited aluminum machining capacity out there to service Apple's competitors.
You're both wrong. I've been involved with a good bit of machining, including machining for aerospace parts for the last decade or so. I could find 50 shops within a 20 mile radius that can easily make cases like this. And the material is just aluminum plates - which are once again very readily available.
And there's no way that Apple has monopolized the production capacity for milled aluminum parts. Just do a search for 'milled aluminum' to get an idea of how many different products are made of milled aluminum. Apple's specs don't appear to be anything special compared to aerospace or automotive or hydraulic components.
AND, if they're not clever enough to find any of the thousands of places that can do this type of work, there's no reason they couldn't make them out of stamped metal, plastic, or walnut, if they wish.
But there is no car dealership Next door.
Really? All the AMD fans here like to brag about how much better AMD chips are than Intel chips for low power usage. Why can't the PC makers buy AMD chips - which are much less expensive than Intel?
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
That's all absolutely true. ARM isn't even in the same league.
HOWEVER, there's no reason that these vendors couldn't use AMD chips. All the AMD fans here love to brag about how much better and more power-efficient their chips are.
"He added that if Ultrabooks suffer from weak sales, while Apple continues to enjoy strong profit, the Wintel alliance will need to do something or else all the related IT player may be gone together," the report said.
That comment would be getting dangerously close to evidence of collusion -- all that would be needed to prove monopolistic behavior.
That's all absolutely true. ARM isn't even in the same league.
HOWEVER, there's no reason that these vendors couldn't use AMD chips. All the AMD fans here love to brag about how much better and more power-efficient their chips are.
LIke others have stated its not in the chip prices though. The other manufacturers have to understand that its in the other parts like the design process and the manufacturing. IF Apple can ake an air at $1000 with say intel chips at $100 each then other manufacturers should be able to do it also.
Intel should really stop caving to the other manufacturers.
I would say yes: a midrange to high-end Intel chip could be considered worth 4-8 times compared to a midrange to high-end ARM chip, and no: a 4-ARM motherboard (8 cores) would not compare favourably even to a quad-core i7 setup. 64-bit is completely irrelevant to performance, but ARM will have to go there anyway to be able to support systems with 4GB+ of memory.
I realize that 64-bit has little or no effect on hardware performance. But it can have a significant effect on OS and app performance (paging memory, video rendering, parallel operation, etc.). Based on the work being done by the user, 64-bit and additional RAM can affect the perceived power and speed of the "hardware".
As much as I like ARM chips and the clean architectural design they are built on, they are simply no match to your typical desktop x86 chip. Not even nearly. Trying to make up for this by putting multiple ARM CPU's on the same motherboard does not help a lot, because many tasks don't scale very well using parallel execution. It would also kind of defeat the purpose of using ARM in the first place, as 4 dual core ARM CPU's in a single system would use more power than an Intel CPU anyway.
I think I knew the answer to that, before I asked it.
However, Apple has done a lot of work to make their OS(es) and apps (including apps by 3rd-party developers):
-- largely independent/abstracted from the underlying hardware
-- to use OpenCL and GCD wherever possible
-- to exploit parallelism using any available CPU and GPU cores
-- for lack of a better phrase distributed processing
If Apple has done its job well, I believe that a power computing solution, for the near future, would be a series of "compute boxes" daisy chained on a thunderbolt cable along with RAID Storage, peripheral docks, wireless stations, and Displays.
These "compute boxes" would consist of:
-- enough SSD to run a minimal OS
-- RAM
-- CPUs and GPUs
-- an internal power supply
-- a fan if needed
-- small packaging like the Mac Mini or AppleTV 2
The theory is that as your compute needs grow -- just add another "compute box" to the daisy chain
These "compute boxes" could contain whatever CPU and GPU architecture that provided the required price/performance.
Anyway, the question you should ask yourself is not whether ARM chips can rival Intel chips in performance, but whether they even have to, to be successful: we've reached a level of computational capabilities sufficient for nearly everything the typical user needs long ago. For many use-cases, a fast dual or quad-core ARM CPU would be more than fast enough.
Yes, I believe that the iPad supports that conclusion.
Take the Intel Atom for example: compared to current dual-core Cortex-A9 ARM chips, it offers about the same level of performance, at somewhat higher power consumption. Many netbooks and low-end PC's have been sold running Atoms, and everyone has accepted them as 'fast enough', mainly because of the brilliant marketing Intel pulled off, selling years-old, repackaged technology as if it were something new, slapping a fancy, modern-sounding name onto it. Sure you are not going to do any gaming on an Atom, or transcode videos, but for basic home/office use, browsing the web, that kind of stuff, it's more than sufficient. That said, compared to a Sandy Bridge i3/i5/i7 or even to a 5-year old Core 2 Duo, the performance you get from an Atom is abysmal, laughable even.
Personally I don't think ARM will ever rival Intel/AMD for serious computing, but I can see ARM chips ending up in low-end/cheap computers and laptops in the future. If Intel is worried about anything, it is not worried about losing their lead in high-end or even mid-range, but about losing the low-end, and not succeeding in gaining a share of the mobile market.
The only problem I have with your last paragraph -- is that for ARM chips to be used in low-end, cheap computers and laptops.
As I understand Windows 8, in order to run legacy x86 apps the device will require an x86 CPU. This would appear to eliminate the use of ARM in low-end, cheap computers and laptops.
Further, developers might be discouraged from rewriting their x86 apps for Metro/ARM because of the disincentive of paying MS 30% for the privilege.
I have no problem with the curated Metro store or the 30%...
But I think it is a chicken/egg thing -- without a lot of Metro apps there won't be any Metro tablets (and low-end, cheap computers and laptops) -- and without the Metro tablets et al, there won't be any incentive to port x86 apps to Metro/ARM.
Finally, I don't know this, but based on past performance, I suspect it is true:
Say there is a breakthrough and a new computer architecture suddenly arrives on the scene. Apple is in a good position to migrate their OSes and apps, natively, to exploit that new platform. And through something like rosetta, existing iOS, OS X and Windows apps could run at normal speed in emulation. Third-party iOS and OS X could run native with a simple recompile.
Apple has bet the farm (and won) on this kind of revolutionary migration -- no other OS or hardware mfgr has.
The amazing thing is that someone on a forum and Newegg can say this without blinking. Do you really think there aren't people at Dell who are as good at assembling a computer as you are? It's harder than you think, and I don't pretend to know why, but if your conclusion doesn't add up, check your premises.
For example the idea that case production is tied up by Apple. Some of the equipment could very well be owned by Apple but it doesn't matter, CNC factories can be set up in matter of weeks. That is if you need to setup a factory at all. There are plenty of job shops to take on that work.
In the end this appears to be an issue of people not wanting to own the infrastructure and the risk that goes with it. In effect they are looking for Intel to make the machines risk free.
Now you are just playing with words.
Not at all. You negotiate when you tell Intel I need this price or I may just go make my own CPUs. You whine when you say, Intel lower your price because I an make a small laptop for less then Apple's retail price.