The main difference between Apple and Intel as an investment, is Apple gets most of it's income from the iPhone, which is very dependent on consumers continuing to prefer the iPhone. Intel keeps collecting money churning out PC CPU, which company IT Depts stick to for job security.
So naturally Intel's income is considered more secure and the reward is a higher PE.
Neither Intel nor Apple are a one-trick pony, but I can say that in the case of at least my employer, those chip purchases aren't all they're cracked up to be. Not only has virtualization reduced the number of servers I buy each year by a couple of hundred, but in the economic environment of the past five years we've stretched our minimum refresh period to four years, and even then we have to make an good argument for replacing a box. Its replacement is by default virtual unless we can show the application can't be supported in a VM.
... i wish they would get into the battery business.
Yes.
While others have mentioned that Apple does heavily customize their batteries (mostly shape... to fit the maximum amount of battery into a custom shape/space) ... that's all they do (as far as we know )
I think revenant was trying to say that they need (maybe they are) to devote vast amounts of R&D into improving the underlying technology inside the batteries. Perhaps figure out how to create Asimov's fictional "nucleics".
While others have mentioned that Apple does heavily customize their batteries (mostly shape... to fit the maximum amount of battery into a custom shape/space) ... that's all they do (as far as we know )
I think revenant was trying to say that they need (maybe they are) to devote vast amounts of R&D into improving the underlying technology inside the batteries. Perhaps figure out how to create Asimov's fictional "nucleics".
this is exactly what i meant. i know apple designed different batteries for the air. there have been some cool advancements made in batteries that have not made it to the light of commercial products day. it would be great for apple to bring about the first phone, tablet, laptop or watch that could last significantly longer than what we have now. and then patent the heck out of it (not that it means much when 'judge' cote is still around).
Comments
The main difference between Apple and Intel as an investment, is Apple gets most of it's income from the iPhone, which is very dependent on consumers continuing to prefer the iPhone. Intel keeps collecting money churning out PC CPU, which company IT Depts stick to for job security.
So naturally Intel's income is considered more secure and the reward is a higher PE.
Neither Intel nor Apple are a one-trick pony, but I can say that in the case of at least my employer, those chip purchases aren't all they're cracked up to be. Not only has virtualization reduced the number of servers I buy each year by a couple of hundred, but in the economic environment of the past five years we've stretched our minimum refresh period to four years, and even then we have to make an good argument for replacing a box. Its replacement is by default virtual unless we can show the application can't be supported in a VM.
Apple should have insisted he wear the apology on a sandwich board, like small town court orders, "I am a thief" type of thing.
this was a good article...
... i wish they would get into the battery business.
Yes.
While others have mentioned that Apple does heavily customize their batteries (mostly shape... to fit the maximum amount of battery into a custom shape/space) ... that's all they do (as far as we know
)
I think revenant was trying to say that they need (maybe they are) to devote vast amounts of R&D into improving the underlying technology inside the batteries. Perhaps figure out how to create Asimov's fictional "nucleics".
Yes.
While others have mentioned that Apple does heavily customize their batteries (mostly shape... to fit the maximum amount of battery into a custom shape/space) ... that's all they do (as far as we know
)
I think revenant was trying to say that they need (maybe they are) to devote vast amounts of R&D into improving the underlying technology inside the batteries. Perhaps figure out how to create Asimov's fictional "nucleics".
this is exactly what i meant. i know apple designed different batteries for the air. there have been some cool advancements made in batteries that have not made it to the light of commercial products day. it would be great for apple to bring about the first phone, tablet, laptop or watch that could last significantly longer than what we have now. and then patent the heck out of it (not that it means much when 'judge' cote is still around).
"Apple's custom Ax series Application Procssors"