Reality Check: Maybe there are a lot of 'Bob's Machine Shop'-type CNC businesses desperate for work -- but the logistics of coordinating hundreds of small shops to all produce identical unibodies would be a nightmare of scheduling and quality control.
You don't build thousands of identical cases using hundreds small contractors -- you find (or finance) big boys with a *lot* of machines on a shop floor. Kind of like Apple has done.
Good reality check. I think a number of people have watched orange county choppers and figure they have this whole cnc deal worked out. Mstone had a post that indicated to me he had a bit broader understanding.
There is no way it takes 3 hours in machine time to make a unibody frame. With anodizing and other finishing work, maybe it'll take 3 hours total. But machine time? 30 minutes tops. And that would be slow by todays standards.
But yes, Apple obviously controls supply, and that's affecting these other guys. Frankly I'm glad. My sides were hurting from all the laughing at Acer et. al's attempts to clone the MBA.
Your right - The Article ACTUALLY means that there is only enough SPARE Capacity left over - to produce 1 every 3 hours - After having done all of Apples orders?
With all these posts about CNC shops in the US ready to do business, it really is a shame that Apple doesn't steer some of its massive production line to them. While Apple already charges top dollar for their products, I can't imagine hiring American workers would be impossible. Maybe a little less profitable, but hey, Apple has something like hundreds of millions of dollars that Jobs was willing to spend on attorneys fees for the "thermonuclear war" with Android lawsuit. Hiring an American CNC shop: I think they can afford it.
It may be expensive for typical consumer computers with all-plastic housings and screens with rubbish color quality. A lot of business notebooks are in Apple's price range, have better chassis and screens.
I'm struggling to see how any notebook in Apple's price range can have a better monitor. They're pretty much the best in that price class. Chassis I can understand - Toshiba notebooks (for example) are surprisingly well built machines if you spend a bit of money on them. Same with Lenovo (although as time goes on, Lenovo is slowly turning cheap and crappy as well - sadly).
I can't say the same for HP, Dell, Asus, Sony and Acer. Dad's HP ProBook is shockingly bad for the money he paid - Yeah woo its sandy bridge powered but it shouldn't creak or be as tall as two MacBook Pros stacked atop each other when its lid is closed - screen is pretty poor as well. Two battery bays though! However they neglected to mention the second battery is sold separately and costs a bomb. Gee thanks, HP.
The sony Vaio my manager uses is by far the worst "expensive" computer I've seen. £999 for that puppy and its all plastic with the silver paint rubbing off after only a year of use and the screen, although 1080p, has shockingly bad... everything! (viewing angle, contrast, colour accuracy et al). Yet my 2004 PowerBook G4 still looks fresh as a daisy and has a monitor thats good enough for photoshop work. Funny that.
You may have done product development, but you clearly did not do it for Apple. It may be ridiculous, but it is exactly what Apple did. Jonathan Ive moved to China and lived there for months while he worked out every detail of the production process--from raw materials to distribution of finished product. This is why Apple can set the retail price of a MacBook Air below the production costs of its competitors and enjoy a 30%-40% margin.
I was looking for where this classic Ive story was published, in detail or otherwise. Did I read it in the Jobs biography?
Thanks for focusing on the main point of this story. Where are the imitators? If it's so easy to knock out unibody chassis using any of the idle CNC equipment scattered east and west, why aren't other companies doing it?
With all these posts about CNC shops in the US ready to do business, it really is a shame that Apple doesn't steer some of its massive production line to them. While Apple already charges top dollar for their products, I can't imagine hiring American workers would be impossible.
Regrettably, the mismatch between a US standard of living versus a Chinese standard of living keeps these kinds of jobs in China.
Consider this: Why don't people set up machine shops in downtown Manhattan? After all, a worker in NYC should be able to survive on the same hourly wage as a worker in Cincinnati, or Shenzhen, yes? There's a reason why real-estate and demographics vary widely around the globe, and it's not Apple's job to correct any disparities.
Quote:
Apple has something like hundreds of millions of dollars that Jobs was willing to spend on attorneys fees for the "thermonuclear war" with Android lawsuit.
I think that was the booze (painkillers) talking. I doubt Jobs would have followed through with that bluster, or been allowed to by the board and other executives.
Quote:
Hiring an American CNC shop: I think they can afford it.
Apple might, but could their customers? The same 'hundreds of millions' that you mentioned would have dried up overnight, and then the prices will have to rise to cover the difference.
Let's face it - the US's days of manufacturing supremacy are over. Gone because of unions and liability insurance and overpriced healthcare and intolerance for polluting. Meanwhile, the Chinese are willing to overlook all that just like we did a century ago (and the English a century before that) in the interest of running their economy full steam ahead, so to speak. Either we have to be willing to lower our standard of living, or else we have to concede certain types of industry to those who will.
. . . Let's face it - the US's days of manufacturing supremacy are over. Gone because of unions and liability insurance and overpriced healthcare and intolerance for polluting. Meanwhile, the Chinese are willing to overlook all that just like we did a century ago (and the English a century before that) in the interest of running their economy full steam ahead, so to speak. Either we have to be willing to lower our standard of living, or else we have to concede certain types of industry to those who will.
Good post. There's an interesting passage in the biography (p. 546 in the hardcover) where Jobs is talking to President Obama at the famous dinner:
Jobs went on to urge that a way be found to train more American engineers. Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, he said, and that was because it needed 30,000 engineers on-site to support those workers. "You can't find that many in America to hire," he said.
I love watching this bizarre act from Intel. We need to start asking why Intel is punishing Apple, just like how Intel punished Dell for breaking Intel's anticompetitive contracts in 2006 or 2007.
Personally, I think Intel is strong-arming Apple, because Apple started testing CPUs from Intel's only competitor, AMD, in 2010.
If you know anything about Intel, the most important thing to remember is that Intel loves to find creative ways to punish computer manufacturers for not complying with exclusionary, secret contracts.
Intel sux.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBean
There is no way it takes 3 hours in machine time to make a unibody frame. With anodizing and other finishing work, maybe it'll take 3 hours total. But machine time? 30 minutes tops. And that would be slow by todays standards.
But yes, Apple obviously controls supply, and that's affecting these other guys. Frankly I'm glad. My sides were hurting from all the laughing at Acer et. al's attempts to clone the MBA.
Don't weep for Apple. Mourn Intel's foolishness. Remember why Apple switched to Intel in the first place. Apple switched to Intel because IBM ignored Apple's needs. Unlike other Intel OEMs, Apple never plastered its cases with the "Intel Inside" stickers. Soon after the Intel transition, Apple bought PA Semiconductor. Apple now sells a substantial number of products based on its own A5 processor. There have been rumors of Apple processor-based MacBooks. I tend not to put much stock in rumors. However, I am convinced that the Intel transition was not Apple's last. Intel's behavior may speed the day. Intel will then find itself in the same position as IBM after Apple's last transition.
I'm struggling to see how any notebook in Apple's price range can have a better monitor. They're pretty much the best in that price class. Chassis I can understand - Toshiba notebooks (for example) are surprisingly well built machines if you spend a bit of money on them. Same with Lenovo (although as time goes on, Lenovo is slowly turning cheap and crappy as well - sadly).
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the business units had better chassis and displays than Apple - I meant better than the standard cut-price consumer PC units, often of the same brand. I've updated the post, sorry for the confusion.
I thought the HP ProBook (or whatever) was pretty nice, I knew someone that had one and I liked it. I didn't buy one though, but I did consider it.
Don't weep for Apple. Mourn Intel's foolishness. Remember why Apple switched to Intel in the first place. Apple switched to Intel because IBM ignored Apple's needs. Unlike other Intel OEMs, Apple never plastered its cases with the "Intel Inside" stickers. Soon after the Intel transition, Apple bought PA Semiconductor. Apple now sells a substantial number of products based on its own A5 processor. There have been rumors of Apple processor-based MacBooks. I tend not to put much stock in rumors. However, I am convinced that the Intel transition was not Apple's last. Intel's behavior may speed the day. Intel will then find itself in the same position as IBM after Apple's last transition.
Which behavior? They've been doing a lot of research to improve performance per watt. When you have ARM processors comparable to the intel offering, then you can see which consumes less power. Theoretical numbers of what could be mean very little until you have something ready to use.
I think Intel is attacking Apple for either testing or planning AMD processors
I still think it has more to do with Intel wanting to stay relevant in the post PC-centric era.
Apple is primarily using ARM. Google is also primarily focused on ARM (although Intel is trying to port Android to x86). Windows 8 will run on ARM as well as x86.
Which behavior? They've been doing a lot of research to improve performance per watt. When you have ARM processors comparable to the intel offering, then you can see which consumes less power. Theoretical numbers of what could be mean very little until you have something ready to use.
"Which behavior?" seriously?
It is Intel's idiotic choice to give $300,000,000 to Apple's competitors to help them take market share away from the Air. Google also tried to "departner" from Apple and look where it got them.
I think the long-term, mutually beneficial relationship between Apple and Intel is now doomed.
Comments
Reality Check: Maybe there are a lot of 'Bob's Machine Shop'-type CNC businesses desperate for work -- but the logistics of coordinating hundreds of small shops to all produce identical unibodies would be a nightmare of scheduling and quality control.
You don't build thousands of identical cases using hundreds small contractors -- you find (or finance) big boys with a *lot* of machines on a shop floor. Kind of like Apple has done.
Good reality check. I think a number of people have watched orange county choppers and figure they have this whole cnc deal worked out. Mstone had a post that indicated to me he had a bit broader understanding.
Edit: Sacto Joe had a good post too.
There is no way it takes 3 hours in machine time to make a unibody frame. With anodizing and other finishing work, maybe it'll take 3 hours total. But machine time? 30 minutes tops. And that would be slow by todays standards.
But yes, Apple obviously controls supply, and that's affecting these other guys. Frankly I'm glad. My sides were hurting from all the laughing at Acer et. al's attempts to clone the MBA.
Your right - The Article ACTUALLY means that there is only enough SPARE Capacity left over - to produce 1 every 3 hours - After having done all of Apples orders?
? Meaning not much left for anyones else?
With all these posts about CNC shops in the US ready to do business, it really is a shame that Apple doesn't steer some of its massive production line to them. While Apple already charges top dollar for their products, I can't imagine hiring American workers would be impossible. Maybe a little less profitable, but hey, Apple has something like hundreds of millions of dollars that Jobs was willing to spend on attorneys fees for the "thermonuclear war" with Android lawsuit. Hiring an American CNC shop: I think they can afford it.
See other posts in the thread!
It may be expensive for typical consumer computers with all-plastic housings and screens with rubbish color quality. A lot of business notebooks are in Apple's price range, have better chassis and screens.
I'm struggling to see how any notebook in Apple's price range can have a better monitor. They're pretty much the best in that price class. Chassis I can understand - Toshiba notebooks (for example) are surprisingly well built machines if you spend a bit of money on them. Same with Lenovo (although as time goes on, Lenovo is slowly turning cheap and crappy as well - sadly).
I can't say the same for HP, Dell, Asus, Sony and Acer. Dad's HP ProBook is shockingly bad for the money he paid - Yeah woo its sandy bridge powered but it shouldn't creak or be as tall as two MacBook Pros stacked atop each other when its lid is closed - screen is pretty poor as well. Two battery bays though! However they neglected to mention the second battery is sold separately and costs a bomb. Gee thanks, HP.
The sony Vaio my manager uses is by far the worst "expensive" computer I've seen. £999 for that puppy and its all plastic with the silver paint rubbing off after only a year of use and the screen, although 1080p, has shockingly bad... everything! (viewing angle, contrast, colour accuracy et al). Yet my 2004 PowerBook G4 still looks fresh as a daisy and has a monitor thats good enough for photoshop work. Funny that.
You may have done product development, but you clearly did not do it for Apple. It may be ridiculous, but it is exactly what Apple did. Jonathan Ive moved to China and lived there for months while he worked out every detail of the production process--from raw materials to distribution of finished product. This is why Apple can set the retail price of a MacBook Air below the production costs of its competitors and enjoy a 30%-40% margin.
I was looking for where this classic Ive story was published, in detail or otherwise. Did I read it in the Jobs biography?
Thanks for focusing on the main point of this story. Where are the imitators? If it's so easy to knock out unibody chassis using any of the idle CNC equipment scattered east and west, why aren't other companies doing it?
With all these posts about CNC shops in the US ready to do business, it really is a shame that Apple doesn't steer some of its massive production line to them. While Apple already charges top dollar for their products, I can't imagine hiring American workers would be impossible.
Regrettably, the mismatch between a US standard of living versus a Chinese standard of living keeps these kinds of jobs in China.
Consider this: Why don't people set up machine shops in downtown Manhattan? After all, a worker in NYC should be able to survive on the same hourly wage as a worker in Cincinnati, or Shenzhen, yes? There's a reason why real-estate and demographics vary widely around the globe, and it's not Apple's job to correct any disparities.
Apple has something like hundreds of millions of dollars that Jobs was willing to spend on attorneys fees for the "thermonuclear war" with Android lawsuit.
I think that was the booze (painkillers) talking. I doubt Jobs would have followed through with that bluster, or been allowed to by the board and other executives.
Hiring an American CNC shop: I think they can afford it.
Apple might, but could their customers? The same 'hundreds of millions' that you mentioned would have dried up overnight, and then the prices will have to rise to cover the difference.
Let's face it - the US's days of manufacturing supremacy are over. Gone because of unions and liability insurance and overpriced healthcare and intolerance for polluting. Meanwhile, the Chinese are willing to overlook all that just like we did a century ago (and the English a century before that) in the interest of running their economy full steam ahead, so to speak. Either we have to be willing to lower our standard of living, or else we have to concede certain types of industry to those who will.
. . . Let's face it - the US's days of manufacturing supremacy are over. Gone because of unions and liability insurance and overpriced healthcare and intolerance for polluting. Meanwhile, the Chinese are willing to overlook all that just like we did a century ago (and the English a century before that) in the interest of running their economy full steam ahead, so to speak. Either we have to be willing to lower our standard of living, or else we have to concede certain types of industry to those who will.
Good post. There's an interesting passage in the biography (p. 546 in the hardcover) where Jobs is talking to President Obama at the famous dinner:
Jobs went on to urge that a way be found to train more American engineers. Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, he said, and that was because it needed 30,000 engineers on-site to support those workers. "You can't find that many in America to hire," he said.
700,000! Is that figure for real, I wonder?
Personally, I think Intel is strong-arming Apple, because Apple started testing CPUs from Intel's only competitor, AMD, in 2010.
If you know anything about Intel, the most important thing to remember is that Intel loves to find creative ways to punish computer manufacturers for not complying with exclusionary, secret contracts.
Intel sux.
There is no way it takes 3 hours in machine time to make a unibody frame. With anodizing and other finishing work, maybe it'll take 3 hours total. But machine time? 30 minutes tops. And that would be slow by todays standards.
But yes, Apple obviously controls supply, and that's affecting these other guys. Frankly I'm glad. My sides were hurting from all the laughing at Acer et. al's attempts to clone the MBA.
I'm struggling to see how any notebook in Apple's price range can have a better monitor. They're pretty much the best in that price class. Chassis I can understand - Toshiba notebooks (for example) are surprisingly well built machines if you spend a bit of money on them. Same with Lenovo (although as time goes on, Lenovo is slowly turning cheap and crappy as well - sadly).
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the business units had better chassis and displays than Apple - I meant better than the standard cut-price consumer PC units, often of the same brand. I've updated the post, sorry for the confusion.
I thought the HP ProBook (or whatever) was pretty nice, I knew someone that had one and I liked it. I didn't buy one though, but I did consider it.
Don't weep for Apple. Mourn Intel's foolishness. Remember why Apple switched to Intel in the first place. Apple switched to Intel because IBM ignored Apple's needs. Unlike other Intel OEMs, Apple never plastered its cases with the "Intel Inside" stickers. Soon after the Intel transition, Apple bought PA Semiconductor. Apple now sells a substantial number of products based on its own A5 processor. There have been rumors of Apple processor-based MacBooks. I tend not to put much stock in rumors. However, I am convinced that the Intel transition was not Apple's last. Intel's behavior may speed the day. Intel will then find itself in the same position as IBM after Apple's last transition.
Which behavior? They've been doing a lot of research to improve performance per watt. When you have ARM processors comparable to the intel offering, then you can see which consumes less power. Theoretical numbers of what could be mean very little until you have something ready to use.
I think Intel is attacking Apple for either testing or planning AMD processors
I still think it has more to do with Intel wanting to stay relevant in the post PC-centric era.
Apple is primarily using ARM. Google is also primarily focused on ARM (although Intel is trying to port Android to x86). Windows 8 will run on ARM as well as x86.
Which behavior? They've been doing a lot of research to improve performance per watt. When you have ARM processors comparable to the intel offering, then you can see which consumes less power. Theoretical numbers of what could be mean very little until you have something ready to use.
"Which behavior?" seriously?
It is Intel's idiotic choice to give $300,000,000 to Apple's competitors to help them take market share away from the Air. Google also tried to "departner" from Apple and look where it got them.
I think the long-term, mutually beneficial relationship between Apple and Intel is now doomed.