What I'm saying is that a company can wriggle out of anything if they really want to. If mot faced any kind of serious penalties for their incompetence you can bet they wouldn't have been so incompetent. IBM WILL NOT enter any kind of contract that they can't easily get out of, they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. And that means that while they're gonna get a whole world better when IBM takes center stage, IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.
they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. And that means that while they're gonna get a whole world better when IBM takes center stage, IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will agree to a certain extent that IBM doesn't need Apple but, if they want to stay in the hardware business then Apple is helpful. One of the problems with Apple's low market share is that the very expensive R&D of chip designing is spread out over too few chips. That is one of the reasons Motorola lost interest. They knew it would be prohibitively expensive to try to out do Intel. With the sheer volume that Intel has it is a lot easier to justify the cost of designing and producing high end chips.
As you said IBM doesn't need Apple. They have been making moves into the service sector and derive a great deal of business in that area. They have also indicated that they plan on staying in the hardware business as well. They are not trying to compete in the desktop space as much but in the higher end. Therefore, they will need to develop fast chips. If they try to just use Intel chips for that market sector as well they will be beat again by Dell and HP. I think that Apple and IBM can benefit greatly from this arraingment. IBM gets a pretty large market for its chips in Apple (relatively large to the number of chips they will use themselves). Apple benefits by getting very fast chips from IBM. I have to believe that once the Power 4 or Power 5 chips are designed that the work to create a 970 or 980 (?) is a not a major undertaking. Some of the profits IBM gets from Apple will be used to help IBM with its next generation of computers.
The logic is that unless Apple had 20% of the market or some much higher number, they will always be at the mercy of their chip producer. As long as Apple keeps making great computers, I will keep buying them and I think that the introdution of the 970 and its descendents will mean that they will also be very fast.
What I'm saying is that a company can wriggle out of anything if they really want to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they can. Just like HP has wriggled out of their inherited Alpha contracts <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> I think perhaps you need to step into the real world and accept just how large the costs of such actions are.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>If mot faced any kind of serious penalties for their incompetence you can bet they wouldn't have been so incompetent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you should probably go discuss with some engineers just how hard it is to go from paper to reality. Project screw ups happen a lot even in good conditions (albeit not so bad as Motorola's) and Motorola's problems were starting much higher up the chain.
Again you make it sound like Motorola had premeditated this, which is nonsense. It's just the result of a combination and build up of factors.
As for penalties are you really so certain Apple hasn't been given concessions in return?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>IBM WILL NOT enter any kind of contract that they can't easily get out of, they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll put down what you're saying to straight ignorance. Apple will have inserted clauses into the contract to insure they can't be left in the lurch. Every company does it. Most directors of a companies do it on their personal work contracts even and more often than not pulling out of these contracts has very significant penalties depending on the circumstances.
IBM may not need Apple but they have chosen to support Apple and that carries with it certain responsibilities. If they weren't prepared to meet them they wouldn't accept the contract.
My assumption is with IBM increasingly focusing their semiconductor unit's business model on contract work for 3rd parties that Apple would be a prime client.
You'll find the PPC 9xx series of chips with development so closely linked to their pre-existing server products will have relatively low development costs and allow them to maximise revenues for the R&D they are spending. These chips should have nice margins for IBM and they'll likely be only too pleased with the arrangement.
What all this obviously means is that IBM has itself recognized the value of SIMD (and look they're talking about HT too) </strong><hr></blockquote>
<nitpick>
Sorry to do this to you while you are in a unhappy state:
By HT do you mean the Intel marketing phrase "Hyper Threading" intended to describe SMT (Symmetric Multi-Threading)? Be nice to use more generic terms instead of someone's marchitechtural terms. (He says, stealing a term from the INQ.) <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand? Just being cheeky, I appreciate your arguments but...
Let's play follow the conditionals:
Moto failed to deliver timely performance increases yet they faced no penalty we are aware of.
If moto faced penalties they would have:
A-either faced them equally for incompetence or breach of contract.
B-or faced penalties for pulling out of development but not for deficiencies in the "pace" of development due to unforseen problems.
Since Moto were not penalized yet surely had a contract, B mujst be the case.
There's your wiggle room. IBM doesn't have to say they're not making 970's anymore, they just have to run into problems that make the 970 or it's kin uncompetitive. While IBM WILL take the work, they WON'T make a long term legal commitment to get said work. IBM has lots of revenue streams, they don't NEED Apple, yes they would LIKE, probably LOVE to have Apple's CPU business but they won't get married just like they didn't when the AIM alliance was formed. Apple chose altivec, IBM said take a walk we have G3's if you want them. IBM was wrong, but they did what they wanted and won't put themselves in a long term situation where they cannot continue to do as they want. Nintendo's contract is very different. The deal is for chips of a set speed, no commitment to advance them, just to keep making them. When Nintendo needs a new chip for a new console there will be another similar deal and another commitmjent to make ONE product without evolving it. I seriously doubt Apple has the bargaining clout to get more than 2 year commitment from IBM. What were they going to do, wait for the G5? HAHHAHA. IBM knows this, they're not stupid.
To be clear, I don't think that's the case, but the use of IBM's chips doesn't constitute any sort of commitment with legal teeth. And even if there were a bit of bite behind it, there are ways to stop development without stopping development, wink wink, hello Moto.
Comments
What I'm saying is that a company can wriggle out of anything if they really want to. If mot faced any kind of serious penalties for their incompetence you can bet they wouldn't have been so incompetent. IBM WILL NOT enter any kind of contract that they can't easily get out of, they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. And that means that while they're gonna get a whole world better when IBM takes center stage, IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.
<strong>Telomar,
they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. And that means that while they're gonna get a whole world better when IBM takes center stage, IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I will agree to a certain extent that IBM doesn't need Apple but, if they want to stay in the hardware business then Apple is helpful. One of the problems with Apple's low market share is that the very expensive R&D of chip designing is spread out over too few chips. That is one of the reasons Motorola lost interest. They knew it would be prohibitively expensive to try to out do Intel. With the sheer volume that Intel has it is a lot easier to justify the cost of designing and producing high end chips.
As you said IBM doesn't need Apple. They have been making moves into the service sector and derive a great deal of business in that area. They have also indicated that they plan on staying in the hardware business as well. They are not trying to compete in the desktop space as much but in the higher end. Therefore, they will need to develop fast chips. If they try to just use Intel chips for that market sector as well they will be beat again by Dell and HP. I think that Apple and IBM can benefit greatly from this arraingment. IBM gets a pretty large market for its chips in Apple (relatively large to the number of chips they will use themselves). Apple benefits by getting very fast chips from IBM. I have to believe that once the Power 4 or Power 5 chips are designed that the work to create a 970 or 980 (?) is a not a major undertaking. Some of the profits IBM gets from Apple will be used to help IBM with its next generation of computers.
The logic is that unless Apple had 20% of the market or some much higher number, they will always be at the mercy of their chip producer. As long as Apple keeps making great computers, I will keep buying them and I think that the introdution of the 970 and its descendents will mean that they will also be very fast.
<strong>Telomar,
What I'm saying is that a company can wriggle out of anything if they really want to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure they can. Just like HP has wriggled out of their inherited Alpha contracts <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> I think perhaps you need to step into the real world and accept just how large the costs of such actions are.
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>If mot faced any kind of serious penalties for their incompetence you can bet they wouldn't have been so incompetent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you should probably go discuss with some engineers just how hard it is to go from paper to reality. Project screw ups happen a lot even in good conditions (albeit not so bad as Motorola's) and Motorola's problems were starting much higher up the chain.
Again you make it sound like Motorola had premeditated this, which is nonsense. It's just the result of a combination and build up of factors.
As for penalties are you really so certain Apple hasn't been given concessions in return?
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>IBM WILL NOT enter any kind of contract that they can't easily get out of, they DO NOT NEED Apple's business in the grand scheme, Apple has to pretty much accept IBM's terms. IBM can leave any time it wants. Follow the logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll put down what you're saying to straight ignorance. Apple will have inserted clauses into the contract to insure they can't be left in the lurch. Every company does it. Most directors of a companies do it on their personal work contracts even and more often than not pulling out of these contracts has very significant penalties depending on the circumstances.
IBM may not need Apple but they have chosen to support Apple and that carries with it certain responsibilities. If they weren't prepared to meet them they wouldn't accept the contract.
My assumption is with IBM increasingly focusing their semiconductor unit's business model on contract work for 3rd parties that Apple would be a prime client.
You'll find the PPC 9xx series of chips with development so closely linked to their pre-existing server products will have relatively low development costs and allow them to maximise revenues for the R&D they are spending. These chips should have nice margins for IBM and they'll likely be only too pleased with the arrangement.
<strong>
What all this obviously means is that IBM has itself recognized the value of SIMD (and look they're talking about HT too) </strong><hr></blockquote>
<nitpick>
Sorry to do this to you while you are in a unhappy state:
By HT do you mean the Intel marketing phrase "Hyper Threading" intended to describe SMT (Symmetric Multi-Threading)? Be nice to use more generic terms instead of someone's marchitechtural terms.
</np>
MM
Let's play follow the conditionals:
Moto failed to deliver timely performance increases yet they faced no penalty we are aware of.
If moto faced penalties they would have:
A-either faced them equally for incompetence or breach of contract.
B-or faced penalties for pulling out of development but not for deficiencies in the "pace" of development due to unforseen problems.
Since Moto were not penalized yet surely had a contract, B mujst be the case.
There's your wiggle room. IBM doesn't have to say they're not making 970's anymore, they just have to run into problems that make the 970 or it's kin uncompetitive. While IBM WILL take the work, they WON'T make a long term legal commitment to get said work. IBM has lots of revenue streams, they don't NEED Apple, yes they would LIKE, probably LOVE to have Apple's CPU business but they won't get married just like they didn't when the AIM alliance was formed. Apple chose altivec, IBM said take a walk we have G3's if you want them. IBM was wrong, but they did what they wanted and won't put themselves in a long term situation where they cannot continue to do as they want. Nintendo's contract is very different. The deal is for chips of a set speed, no commitment to advance them, just to keep making them. When Nintendo needs a new chip for a new console there will be another similar deal and another commitmjent to make ONE product without evolving it. I seriously doubt Apple has the bargaining clout to get more than 2 year commitment from IBM. What were they going to do, wait for the G5? HAHHAHA. IBM knows this, they're not stupid.
To be clear, I don't think that's the case, but the use of IBM's chips doesn't constitute any sort of commitment with legal teeth. And even if there were a bit of bite behind it, there are ways to stop development without stopping development, wink wink, hello Moto.