Why do you think apple haven't dumped MOTO?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Given that the Mac line is now growing further behind its wintel competitors every day I simple ask this:



Steve Jobs and co cannot be stupid. They must see the massive problems. (At least I really hope I'm right about this)



So:



How come apple hasn't ditched MOTO? Or at least made a joint bid with IBm for MOTO's semiconductor division.



face it. If you were head of apple wouldn't you be spending night and day trying to find a way to make macs seriously kick *** ?



Please don't start with the "Actually a G4 outperforms . . . " If macs were as kick *** as mac users would like them to be we wouldn't have to compare benchmarks or argue about it. It would just be obvious fact.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 53
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>



    Steve Jobs and co cannot be stupid. They must see the massive problems.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sure Ken Lay saw the massive problems with his company.
  • Reply 2 of 53
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>Steve Jobs and co cannot be stupid. They must see the massive problems. (At least I really hope I'm right about this)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Maybe, they don't see it as a dire concern.

    Yes, the MHz gap is a problem from a marketing standpoint. (Then again there are many DP 1GHZ users who are happily productive).



    I'm not saying there isn't a perception problem that Apple products are overpriced and underpowered. And perhaps they are working on something.

    But consider how well Apple is doing these days. How many pro users are actually jumping ship?

    Do they really need to do anything drastic?
  • Reply 3 of 53
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    My DPgig is just fine with osx, itunes, iphoto, imovie, idvd, etc. Some more osx programs would be fine (MapPublisher actually and GRASS). I have a windows box and XP is uglier than os9. The thing I really need is faster HD, thinking of striping a couple of 100gig HD, to load in 600 mb tiff files.
  • Reply 4 of 53
    Apple really has no other choice.
  • Reply 5 of 53
    quaremquarem Posts: 254member
    johnsonfromwisconsin



    I have been wondering the same thing. Macs are by now means slow, but on a lot of tasks the PC has either caught up or surpassed the Mac. My only first hand-experience of this would be 3D gaming. Anybody can head on over to <a href="http://www.HARDOCP.com/"; target="_blank">HARD [OCP]</a> and see the benchmarks for Quake 3 in a pimped in Athlon system. The fps is commonly over 200 fps in Quake 3 for even the higher resolutions, with the latest video cards. While most high-end PowerMacs have just started to surpass the 100 fps barrier. I have also heard the PCs are better at 3D rendering then Macs, this makes sense considering the Quake 3 comparison, but I haven't compared them first hand so I don't know for sure. But it is obvious that at least one task, 3D games, is significantly faster on the PC then the Mac.



    When you consider that the average PC consumer, or at least most of my young adult friends, wants to upgrade their computers because they want to play the latest game, we can see that the Mac platform is not a viable option for them. Therefore at least one market segment is unaccessible to Apple, and I am sure there must be more.



    I am just hoping that Moto has something great to be released soon, or Apple has other plans, because the GHz gap between Macs and PCs is not decreasing its increasing. And when you take into account Intel's progress in increasing chip performance is accelerating, so I've heard, this really puts Apple into the corner when it comes to speed.



    I don't know what the solution is because I don't know everything that has gone on inside Apple, but from my point of view Apple has too convince IBM, or some other manufacturer, to start producing G4s and G5s, when they are released.
  • Reply 6 of 53
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    I have no doubt that Apple is aware of the problem, both with the market MHz perception and with the actual performance difference. It goes beyond simple MHz as well -- the lack of a faster memory interface, for example. Apple realizes that this performance "gap" is not a show stopper for them (they still sell plenty of machines), but its also not desirable. They could sell more machines if they were faster (and they could build enough of them). They could also sell the faster machines at a bigger margin, which would please them greatly I'm sure.



    The fact of the matter, however, is that it is not a simple task to make a high performance processor. It takes a lot of engineering time and talent, and then the resulting design has to be put into production on a cost-effective fab which gets sufficient yields to keep up with demand. If it makes sense for Apple to take on the burden of designing new desktop PPC chips, or for IBM to become Apple's biggest designer / supplier, or for some other strategy entirely.. then I'm sure Apple will do it. Its a mistake to think that you can second guess their decisions, however. We don't have access to all the information, project schedules, technical details, etc, etc. Chip design is a very complex business and there is a large group of people at Apple keeping track of it and guiding it. We all know how Steve Jobs likes to show his new toys smokin' WIntel systems in a head-to-head competition, and that alone ensures that they are trying real hard to keep up and get ahead. The sad truth is that the other guys are trying just as hard to stay ahead.



    Will we see Apple's machines catch up to the performance of contemporary WIntel machines? I don't know. Will we see faster machines from Apple? Yes, much faster. When? Its a continuous process, and they've pretty much told us that the next installment won't arrive much before MWNY.
  • Reply 7 of 53
    eric d.v.heric d.v.h Posts: 134member
    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>I have no doubt that Apple is aware of the problem, both with the market MHz perception and with the actual performance difference. It goes beyond simple MHz as well -- the lack of a faster memory interface, for example. Apple realizes that this performance "gap" is not a show stopper for them (they still sell plenty of machines), but its also not desirable. They could sell more machines if they were faster (and they could build enough of them). They could also sell the faster machines at a bigger margin, which would please them greatly I'm sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ditto especially the memory interface.



    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>The fact of the matter, however, is that it is not a simple task to make a high performance processor. It takes a lot of engineering time and talent, and then the resulting design has to be put into production on a cost-effective fab which gets sufficient yields to keep up with demand. If it makes sense for Apple to take on the burden of designing new desktop PPC chips, or for IBM to become Apple's biggest designer / supplier, or for some other strategy entirely.. then I'm sure Apple will do it. Its a mistake to think that you can second guess their decisions, however. We don't have access to all the information, project schedules, technical details, etc, etc. Chip design is a very complex business and there is a large group of people at Apple keeping track of it and guiding it. We all know how Steve Jobs likes to show his new toys smokin' WIntel systems in a head-to-head competition, and that alone ensures that they are trying real hard to keep up and get ahead. The sad truth is that the other guys are trying just as hard to stay ahead.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I pretty much agree. although dumping Motorola would be a _very_ bad idea. as they're the ones that thought of Altivec. but IBM has more manpower and fab plants. what Apple needs to do. is to get Motorola and IBM to cooperate. as you'll recall that this whole mess pretty much started back when the I and M in AIM parted ways.



    As for the low numbers. this has to do with Jobs' "Inventory on hand" fettish. if Apple want's to sell millions of Macs. it has to build them. too many's the time I've seen an eager new user's computer float in "Backordered" limbo for one week too long. and then the cancel. and order a wintel box that arrives in five days. Apple just needs to contract more fab plants(In addition to those owned by IBM and Motorola) so as to increase maximum manufacturing capacity and bulk discounts.



    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>Will we see Apple's machines catch up to the performance of contemporary WIntel machines? I don't know. Will we see faster machines from Apple? Yes, much faster. When? Its a continuous process, and they've pretty much told us that the next installment won't arrive much before MWNY.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ditto again.



    Eric,
  • Reply 8 of 53
    spiffyguycspiffyguyc Posts: 285member
    Who knows? MOTO's semiconductor business may be up for grabs soon - the rights to PowerPC developent will be this year. Apple could simply be waiting for either of these opportunities to purchase either of these and bring development in-house (they've been doing a good deal of this in conjunction with MOTO engineers recently, anyway). Or, they could give control to IBM, or even contract out to AMD/Intel/Transmeta to carry on development of the PowerPC or compatible architecture.



    An impending transition could also be the reason for the rather public statements made lately that Apple plans to stick with the G4 for a little while longer. They could be trying to stretch its life as long as possible, maybe onto a DDR motherboard this summer, until the next-generation chip can be determined/manufactured by the next party.



    S
  • Reply 9 of 53
    Um, forgive me for asking what is probably a dense question, but why are there these constant calls for Apple/some consortium including Apple to "make a bid" for Motorola's SPS? What, Apple should spend upward of $7b to get their hands on a few hundred million dollars worth of PPC IP?
  • Reply 10 of 53
    catalystcatalyst Posts: 226member
    "MHz? Why needs MHz till we say so?"



  • Reply 11 of 53
    kedakeda Posts: 722member
    Apple is committed to the PPC. They have marketed the Velocity Engine and The Megahertz Myth for a while now. Switching to aother architecture would be a logistical and marketing nightmare. I think it would kill the company.



    But, what about IBM? Who knows, Big Blue might not share Apples vision, maybe its political, or maybe there are real technical reasons why Moto is still the main supplier...I dont know.



    As for performance, my main gripe is w/ FPU speed. I do 3D and use a Mac. It is not the best platform for this, but I am willing to accept the downsides...for now. The FPU speed is one of the big reasons 3D is slow.



    Apple seems like they want to be a player in 3D, but they are not approaching this market as agressively as I would like.
  • Reply 12 of 53
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by Keda:

    <strong>

    As for performance, my main gripe is w/ FPU speed. I do 3D and use a Mac. It is not the best platform for this, but I am willing to accept the downsides...for now. The FPU speed is one of the big reasons 3D is slow.



    Apple seems like they want to be a player in 3D, but they are not approaching this market as agressively as I would like.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    We should go out and have a beer together
  • Reply 13 of 53
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    The answer to your question is again an answer:

    Drop Moto in favor of WHO?



    Think very carefully before you rush to a conclusion and post it here.



    G-News
  • Reply 14 of 53
    spiffyguycspiffyguyc Posts: 285member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:

    <strong>Um, forgive me for asking what is probably a dense question, but why are there these constant calls for Apple/some consortium including Apple to "make a bid" for Motorola's SPS? What, Apple should spend upward of $7b to get their hands on a few hundred million dollars worth of PPC IP?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think the assumption when people suggest obtaining SPS over PPC IP is that at some point Motorla may be forced to sell SPS assets (which at that point would mainly be engineers, not phyiscal/manufacturing), and if the company gets that desparate, it won't be worth $7b anymore (assuming your figures are correct). So you get both the brains and the blueprints under a single roof where they have virtually unlimited encouragement in developing their product, not to mention being able to focus PPC development on Apple's machines rather than embedded/other markets.



    Not that I'm saying Apple should necessarily make this move, but that would be one rationale.



    S
  • Reply 15 of 53
    spiffyguycspiffyguyc Posts: 285member
    [quote]Originally posted by Keda:

    <strong>Apple is committed to the PPC. They have marketed the Velocity Engine and The Megahertz Myth for a while now. Switching to aother architecture would be a logistical and marketing nightmare. I think it would kill the company.</strong> <hr></blockquote>



    What if people said this about their operating system? "Apple can't go UNIX - they've invested in the current Mac OS since 1984 and have been touting its ease of use and stability for a decade and a half! Moving to Mac OS X will kill the company!!!!! etc."



    All that matters is speed, not how we get it. I could give two sh*ts if the engine is V6 or Inline, as long as it hauls. Apple's got the PC's close to matched in speed (faster in some cases) with the dual GHz...but don't you think it would be even better marketing if they beat PC's when comparing Apples to...well, Apples?



    Let's forget the "Mac OS on Intel" debate for a second and say that Apple went to Intel, switched to Pentium, and both included some kind of scheme so that the OS would only run on Apple-manufactured computers.



    Apple does a Photoshop bakeoff - 2GHz Pentium Mac vs. 2GHz Pentium PC and the Mac STILL kicks *** because the OS is inherently faster...that's a lot more impressive to consumers than reading through the MHz myth. At least in my opinion.



    [quote] <strong> But, what about IBM? Who knows, Big Blue might not share Apples vision, maybe its political, or maybe there are real technical reasons why Moto is still the main supplier...I dont know. <hr></blockquote> </strong>



    The reason is legal, not technical. Under the current agreement, Apple may only use IBM as a main supplier for a limited amount of time in the event of an extreme shortage from MOT. If this were not the case, IBM might be the main supplier, and they may become the main supplier in the future. They are, in my opinion, much better at design, execution, and delivery, and the company is far healthier than MOT. What's more, IBM's PowerPC roadmap includes chips that provide Altivec-like acceleration without requiring Altivec code in the program (it applies to everything, on its own). I think they are a completely viable solution to the Motorola slowdown if Apple wishes to stick with the PPC.



    <strong> [quote] As for performance, my main gripe is w/ FPU speed. I do 3D and use a Mac. It is not the best platform for this, but I am willing to accept the downsides...for now. The FPU speed is one of the big reasons 3D is slow. </strong> <hr></blockquote>



    Hear, hear! No argument from me!



    -S
  • Reply 16 of 53
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    I'm glad Apple has stuck with the PPC. Check out the following link...



    <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/063/business/IBM_to_make_new_chips_at_Vt_plant+.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/063/business/IBM_to_make_new_chips_at_Vt_plant+.shtml</a>;



    This is the last section of the article from the link above.



    [That means that IBM can build the chips on the same production line as its other silicon products, like thePowerPC chips used in Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh line. The only major difference is an extra step in which germanium vapor is deposited onto the silicon. Myerson said his firm's chips will not only be faster than those made with exotic materials, but also cheaper to make.



    ''The dinosaur just ran over the rabbit,'' he boasted.]
  • Reply 17 of 53
    Am I the only one who sees IBM and Moto sort of like the CIA and the FBI? They work toward the same goal, do similar things, but at the same time, seem to have some sort of contempt for the other and a refusal to work with one another.
  • Reply 18 of 53
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    I know its a bit off the subject, but why is the G5 not a contender for altivec?? I heard that when it comes out it won't be incorparated.



    Now is this just co-incidence, but doesn't IBM not like to use altivec?? BTW I know they used it in the Gekko chip in the Gamecube.
  • Reply 19 of 53
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by mattyj:

    <strong>I know its a bit off the subject, but why is the G5 not a contender for altivec?? I heard that when it comes out it won't be incorparated.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    "The G5" is a completely amorphous thing. Some chips in the "G5" line (the 85xx series) will not have AltiVec onboard, but that means nothing. The Book E specification that Motorola is designing the chip around allows execution units to be added on in a modular fashion, so it's (relatively) easy to bolt AltiVec onto an 85xx series processor if Apple wants one. Apple will want one.



    [quote]<strong>Now is this just co-incidence, but doesn't IBM not like to use altivec?? BTW I know they used it in the Gekko chip in the Gamecube.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    IBM held out against including a DSP (digital signal processor, aka vector processor, of which AltiVec is one implementation) on board their CPUs because they, as the inventors of the RISC paradigm, are rather heavily invested in the idea, and they didn't want to clutter their processors up with specialized execution units that brought a lot of extra instructions with them. Their stance has been that if you need specialized processors, you add them to the motherboard.



    They appear to be softening their stance somewhat, at least with respect to the PowerPC. Book E's modular architecture allows them to do that. They did include a vector processor in the CPU they built for Nintendo, although it was apparently a custom design rather than an AltiVec clone. They've also made noises about a G3 with vector-processing features, and again they haven't said whether it's compatible with AltiVec or not.
  • Reply 20 of 53
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>

    IBM held out against including a DSP (digital signal processor, aka vector processor, of which AltiVec is one implementation) on board their CPUs

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Note that "DSP" and "vector processor" are not synonymous - in fact, most DSPs out there do not have vector ops.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
Sign In or Register to comment.