I don't see what those arguments have to do with this at all. PPC chips had so little sales that neither IBM or Motorola could afford to put much R&D into them. It costs billions.
ARM licenses out reference designs that other processor company modify in whatever ways they think required.
Using an ARM chip is like using an x86 chip in that it's got the majority of the relevant market sewed up. Apple can buy this from any of the ARM licensees it wants to. It now has two chip design companies to do that modding. Buying ARM won't improve that.
If Apple did do it, and companies felt, even wrongly, that Apple was holding back, over time, they would find a way to move on to non ARM chips. That would destroy all the value of ARM, and damage Apple's stock price as well.
If that happened, without all those license sales, ARM wouldn't be able to spend the R&D money it need to on its own. Then Apple wouldn't be ahead of the game.
It would be better if they don't even try.
Actually mel - the PPC series processors sold very well into the game console systems ( Nintendo's GameCube and Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360) as well as IBM's embedded systems (ASIC), networking, wireless, storage, printing/imaging and industrial automation and especially as automobile controllers. The problem was Apple's volume was not significant enough against all these other application to convince IBM to accelerate the chipset in ways that were avantageous to Apple.
Conversely if Apple were to acquire and try to limit access to ARM reference designs by other companies, they would be charged as anti-competitive, but ultimately it would drive companies right into embracing Intel Atom processors on a wide scale. No advantages there at all.
Again, you're missing the point. Your question here is only about the per chip cost. Even on that level, let's say that Apple only saved $.08 per chip. Last quarter they sold
8 million iPhones, well, that's a savings of $1M. But I guess that's not enough of a savings in your opinion?
That shouldn't be enough of a savings in anyone's opinion. They make more than that on interest on the money they would spend on the deal in a week.
Quote:
You're also missing the point about the additional income Apple would get from holding ARM and receiving the royalties from the licensing to other companies. As I mentioned before, ARM earns what, $8B/yr? All they have to do is buy them, and just let business go on as usual. They'll get their investment back in a handful of years. Trying to say it would take them 100 yrs to get the investment back is again based only on the per chip savings, and doesn't look at the bigger picture.
I'm not missing any points here. I've thought about all of that. Look, Apple sold $5.4 billion worth of iPhones and stuff last quarter alone. That number is going up. Why would they want to get into the hassle of dealing with numerous companies doing licensing deals, who are also their competitors? Do they really want to sell chip designs to Qualcomm, or Nokia, or Samsung to just mention three? I don't think so.
They don't need the headache. There's nothing to be gained by this.
And if you want to be taken seriously, then look up your facts before making statements on what Apple would make from this. You have no idea of ARM Holdings sales numbers, yet you trot out one that ridiculous. By the way, sales are NOT earnings. Earnings are PROFITS. You're saying that ARM made $8 billion profit last year?
How did they do that when their SALES were $479.3 MILLION. Their earnings (profit) was $63.5 MILLION.
Quote:
And again, you've conveniently overlooked my point about how holding ARM would let Apple control it's own destiny with respect to hardware.
You keep saying the same things over and over in response to me, but you have yet refute the logic of my claims. If I said the earth was flat over and over and over and over again wouldn't make it true. Please actually address the logic of my points or don't bother.
I haven't overlooked anything. You just have all your facts wrong. When you get them right, you will have a different opinion.
Actually mel - the PPC series processors sold very well into the game console systems ( Nintendo's GameCube and Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360) as well as IBM's embedded systems (ASIC), networking, wireless, storage, printing/imaging and industrial automation and especially as automobile controllers. The problem was Apple's volume was not significant enough against all these other application to convince IBM to accelerate the chipset in ways that were avantageous to Apple.
Conversely if Apple were to acquire and try to limit access to ARM reference designs by other companies, they would be charged as anti-competitive, but ultimately it would drive companies right into embracing Intel Atom processors on a wide scale. No advantages there at all.
None of those gaming chips were really PPC chips in that they were made for and used by actual computers. They were all much changed from the PPC chips Apple used. Even the embedded PPC chips used in laser printers and automobiles are very different designs. In fact. It was stated a number of times by those in the business that Apple bought 75% of all the "real" PPC chis that IMB made.
In addition, The Sony console and the XBox chips were being designed about the tie Apple was leaving. It's also rumored that possibly both MS and Sony may move to Intel chips for the next iteration of their game consoles.
That shouldn't be enough of a savings in anyone's opinion. They make more than that on interest on the money they would spend on the deal in a week.
I'm not missing any points here. I've thought about all of that. Look, Apple sold $5.4 billion worth of iPhones and stuff last quarter alone. That number is going up. Why would they want to get into the hassle of dealing with numerous companies doing licensing deals, who are also their competitors? Do they really want to sell chip designs to Qualcomm, or Nokia, or Samsung to just mention three? I don't think so.
They don't need the headache. There's nothing to be gained by this.
And if you want to be taken seriously, then look up your facts before making statements on what Apple would make from this. You have no idea of ARM Holdings sales numbers, yet you trot out one that ridiculous. By the way, sales are NOT earnings. Earnings are PROFITS. You're saying that ARM made $8 billion profit last year?
How did they do that when their SALES were $479.3 MILLION. Their earnings (profit) was $63.5 MILLION.
I haven't overlooked anything. You just have all your facts wrong. When you get them right, you will have a different opinion.
So you're saying that our claims about what Apple should do are FACTS? You really do need to learn some critical thinking and reasoning skills.
And if a million bucks doesn't mean anything to you, I'll take a spare million from you, no problem. After all, it's just, nothing, right?
None of those gaming chips were really PPC chips in that they were made for and used by actual computers. They were all much changed from the PPC chips Apple used. Even the embedded PPC chips used in laser printers and automobiles are very different designs. In fact. It was stated a number of times by those in the business that Apple bought 75% of all the "real" PPC chis that IMB made.
In addition, The Sony console and the XBox chips were being designed about the tie Apple was leaving. It's also rumored that possibly both MS and Sony may move to Intel chips for the next iteration of their game consoles.
***** They're not PPC chips because they didn't go into computers? So somehow when they were installed in the circuit boards of those devices they stopped being PPC chips?
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
Are you just spouting off to hear yourself think?!?!
Learn to read a Form 10-Q, then find and read the last 30+ years worth of reports (tip: 4 reports are produced each year) and then then try and tell us Apple isn't a hardware company. Oh and BTW, that 'bit of dabbling' you claim Apple does isn't right either. You really have no knowledge of the computer industry do you?
Acorn, Apple, VLSI were the companies who FOUNDED ARM!
Apple, IBM & Motorola were the companies who were responsible for the PPC!
Not that it matters because those accomplishments, wouldn't make them any more of a hardware company than they are now... They would make them a CPU designer, but their core business is most assuredly based on the sales of hardware.
Are you just spouting off to hear yourself think?!?!
Learn to read a Form 10-Q, then find and read the last 30+ years worth of reports (tip: 4 reports are produced each year) and then then try and tell us Apple isn't a hardware company. Oh and BTW, that 'bit of dabbling' you claim Apple does isn't right either. You really have no knowledge of the computer industry do you?
Acorn, Apple, VLSI were the companies who FOUNDED ARM!
Apple, IBM & Motorola were the companies who were responsible for the PPC!
Not that it matters because those accomplishments, wouldn't make them any more of a hardware company than they are now... They would make them a CPU designer, but their core business is most assuredly based on the sales of hardware.
I'm well aware of ARM and AIM. Both these areas of technological expertise were and have been enablers.
Apple's main business model is currently dependent on software. Apple started life with a strong original manufacturing ethos but that nearly cost them their business. By the time Jobs came back on the scene they'd killed off 99% of their hardware lines. Job's then spent a year or two running around with a machete while Tevanian struggled to get his software to run on faltering AIM processors.
Apple's increasing market strength (since the PPC>Intel transition) has been structured primarily on gluing commodity-broking with software models which make money.
Mac OS X
iTunes
App Store
These core software components drive their business models and generate hardware sales. If they were a hardware company per se they would be no different from Dell, etc., and they would have perished.
Of course they make "hardware" but that is not what their business depends on. Their business model depends on the profit leverage their software gives to bog-standard hardware which they encase in classy designs.
Do an autopsy on a dead Mac and you find a PC.
Think about what the following wiki grab implies...
"The Software Development Kit for iPhone OS was announced at the iPhone Software Roadmap event on March 6, 2008. The SDK allows developers (running Mac OS X 10.5.4 or higher on an Intel Mac) to create applications using Xcode that will natively run on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad."
***** They're not PPC chips because they didn't go into computers? So somehow when they were installed in the circuit boards of those devices they stopped being PPC chips?
*****
*****
If you read more carefully, you would have understood what I said, but as can be seen from your post, that's too much effort for you.
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
From your post, you obviously think that there are NO computer hardware manufacturers, as most of them do less design work that Apple by far.
And a manufacturer doesn't usually manufacturer from their own parts.
There are two lines. ARM is used for small mobile, and Intel for everything else.
You're talking about replacing Intel's chips with ARM. That's what you said in your post. How do you know what Apple "feels"?
x86 hardware and software are completely different from ARM hardware and software. When a couple of years from now ARM chips are 4 core and faster, x86 chips will be much faster as well.
You can't substitute an ARM device for an x86 one. Apple will make a more powerful device than the current iPad. That's a certainty. But it will be in addition. I need certain software. I can't use something else. But I'm buying an iPad for the something else to use in addition. It's for a different direction.
The iPad will be great for a lot of things, but not for others.
This is where it will be great, for example, and an area in which a Macbook won't serve (ignore the snotty remarks from posters):
Apple buying PA Semi and Intrinsity is one thing. If Apple buys ARM then the game is on. It won't be 2 years where Apple would then challenge Intel in the higher end systems computing but much longer out (say 5-10 years). In the meantime they'd play AMD against Intel to ensure a steady supply and getting early tech advantages. Long term you'd better believe Apple is going after Intel's full product line. The performance in the iPad kicks anything I've seen the Atom do and that's not even the multi-core ARM reference.
Thanks for the link. That's awesome what she did with 2 iPads.
Apple buying PA Semi and Intrinsity is one thing. If Apple buys ARM then the game is on. It won't be 2 years where Apple would then challenge Intel in the higher end systems computing but much longer out (say 5-10 years). In the meantime they'd play AMD against Intel to ensure a steady supply and getting early tech advantages. Long term you'd better believe Apple is going after Intel's full product line. The performance in the iPad kicks anything I've seen the Atom do and that's not even the multi-core ARM reference.
Thanks for the link. That's awesome what she did with 2 iPads.
I see too many assumptions in the threads that Apple will do this, or they will do that, all based on rumors.
We have no idea what they were talking about with AMD. It could be AMD trotting out their newest stuff and roadmap to potential customers. Apple would be run by fools if they didn't at least hear the spiel. AMD could also be having talks about ATI. Apple does use ATI.
So we have no idea what this was all about.I prefer saying that I think Apple may do this or that based on what I see and read. but when its stated as a fact already, well, that's too much.
We also don't know if Apple is going after Intel's lines.
What I think is possibly going to happen is that Apple will keep extending this concept. At some point, it might replace low end models, but it might not.
There is a very different market for keyboarded open OS's, and Apple's mobile OS. They may have to remain separate.
I don't see them buying ARM either. Too many reasons against, and no GOOD reasons for. I'm reading a lot of bad reasons for, though.
From your post, you obviously think that there are NO computer hardware manufacturers, as most of them do less design work that Apple by far.
And a manufacturer doesn't usually manufacturer from their own parts.
Noticed how design conscious Dell has become of late? Their forthcoming smartphones are an example of design. But, yes, Dell are commodity brokers too.
By the way, both these companies, Apple/Dell have computers cobbled together for them by manufacturers and assembly plants in China.
What distinguishes Apple from Dell is software and cheeky profit margins.
I'm well aware of ARM and AIM. Both these areas of technological expertise were and have been enablers. Apple's main business model is currently dependent on software.
Yes...
We aren't thinking of 'hardware based' in the same light... You are thinking of it in a very traditional way... Like DELL for example they are the 'poster child' for a 'hardware based company'. While I was thing in the broader sense of Apple existence is totally dependent of it selling hardware. Both are true but Dell and Apple are quite clearly two totally different animals. So, we both very much believe the same things. However it's the sales of 'overpriced-underpowered' hardware is what allows Apple to continue innovating the software that in turn drives the desire of people to want to pay for 'over-priced-underpowered' hardware that allows Apple to... etc etc etc So we are really looking at two sides of the same coin and one couldn't really exist without the other.
Tho I guess what my deepest desire for Apple is that they do find a way to divorce the two sides by finding alternative sources of income that FUND the continued software advances and they are doing just that. The less Apples bottom line is dependent of selling 'overpriced-underpowered' computers the more they will be free to change things up in that department.
We aren't thinking of 'hardware based' in the same light...
I concur with your comment. Though I should have added Boot Camp to the list of software models driving Apple hardware sales. Because I seriously doubt I would have upgraded my PPC G5 to a MacPro without the ability to boot WIndows for game playing. That just tipped the scales.
What I think is possibly going to happen is that Apple will keep extending this concept. At some point, it might replace low end models, but it might not.
There is a very different market for keyboarded open OS's, and Apple's mobile OS. They may have to remain separate.
[/snip]
I believe the two are different sides of the same coin.
With the iPad, it's just a matter of plugging into the dock or pairing with a bluetooth keyboard.
Other touchscreen mobile os's based on Linux (similar enough), often come on devices with slide-out keyboards, i.e. Palm Pre, Nokia N900, Motorola Droid...
I think it's just a matter of having the software keyboard designed well enough for use on-the-go, but to hide it when a hardware keyboard becomes available.
In either case, neither the iPad, nor the devices i've listed above support the use of mouse. So the objective of a portable OS is to make touchscreen use as painless and logical as possible, and compensate for the lack of keyboard when one is not attached.
Such an os can even be scaled up for kiosk-type use, with hardware such as a reasonably large screen (17") and more powerful processor
I agree. Apple isn't worried about controlling Intel because in the long term, the iDevices will far outsell the Mac in volume.
That doesn't mean the Mac isn't important to Apple, or that they will be dropping it - but "the next frontier" is portable devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
Apple should buy ARM, Adobe and Palm! Maybe NVIDIA if the have any cash left lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree
What if Adobe bought ARM and licensed it to everyone except Apple. Would that be anticompetitive? Not likely to happen of course, but that would be kind of funny.
Apple should buy ARM, Adobe and Palm! Maybe NVIDIA if the have any cash left lol
After a shopping spree like that, i doubt their operations would be as clean and well managed as they are now.
At Palm, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and they don't have any existing market share to bring with them. Nokia may be able to squeeze something out of them, but to Apple, they would be dead weight.
As for Adobe, there's way too much debt there. Everyone pirates their software anyway. They are too important to fail, but don't necessarily have anything to give. Flash can be knocked out of orbit easily, without even touching Adobe with a ten foot pole. I'll only take maybe $50,000 to build a Flash clone that takes over the existing Flash platform, than the billions that it would take to get a handle on Adobe as is.
ARM is more of a blueprint company. I don't think the industry will allow them to be bought and closed off. Te EU alone will raise a big issue.
After a shopping spree like that, i doubt their operations would be as clean and well managed as they are now.
At Palm, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and they don't have any existing market share to bring with them. Nokia may be able to squeeze something out of them, but to Apple, they would be dead weight.
Actually Palm has useful IP and Palm's engineers are pretty talented they just need the right guidance and Apple can provide that. Apple could alleviate the strain on engineering resources by adding more talented engineers from Palm, this way they can develop the iPhone OS and the next version of Mac OS X simultaneously
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot
As for Adobe, there's way too much debt there. Everyone pirates their software anyway. They are too important to fail, but don't necessarily have anything to give. Flash can be knocked out of orbit easily, without even touching Adobe with a ten foot pole. I'll only take maybe $50,000 to build a Flash clone that takes over the existing Flash platform, than the billions that it would take to get a handle on Adobe as is.
Adobe only owes $1 Billion according to recent reports. That's nothing Apple can't handle. Apple would gain an advantage in the creative sector by improving Adobes offerings to fully take advantage of Mac OS X and tightly coupling with current Apple pro apps. Avid and Autodesk are pretty big competitors and Microsoft would more then likely try picking up the slack with their Expressions Suite which rules out any monopoly hogwash talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot
ARM is more of a blueprint company. I don't think the industry will allow them to be bought and closed off. Te EU alone will raise a big issue.
Dan
There are plenty of chip companies out there that can compete with ARM so there aren't much issues for the EU to bring up. Intel, AMD, Samsung, Nvidia (SOC), FreeScale, etc... To name a few major players. Competition is alive and well, if anything Apple buying ARM will force competitors to compete more agressively.
Of course I do have a list of other interesting prospects for Apple to acquire that would be interesting. Especially in the film Production/3D/Compositing space. It's also too bad Apple didn't snatch Sun while it had a chance, that would have been really interesting. In the hands if Oracle you can bet Suns innovations will die, starting with solaris and mysql next.
Comments
I don't see what those arguments have to do with this at all. PPC chips had so little sales that neither IBM or Motorola could afford to put much R&D into them. It costs billions.
ARM licenses out reference designs that other processor company modify in whatever ways they think required.
Using an ARM chip is like using an x86 chip in that it's got the majority of the relevant market sewed up. Apple can buy this from any of the ARM licensees it wants to. It now has two chip design companies to do that modding. Buying ARM won't improve that.
If Apple did do it, and companies felt, even wrongly, that Apple was holding back, over time, they would find a way to move on to non ARM chips. That would destroy all the value of ARM, and damage Apple's stock price as well.
If that happened, without all those license sales, ARM wouldn't be able to spend the R&D money it need to on its own. Then Apple wouldn't be ahead of the game.
It would be better if they don't even try.
Actually mel - the PPC series processors sold very well into the game console systems ( Nintendo's GameCube and Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360) as well as IBM's embedded systems (ASIC), networking, wireless, storage, printing/imaging and industrial automation and especially as automobile controllers. The problem was Apple's volume was not significant enough against all these other application to convince IBM to accelerate the chipset in ways that were avantageous to Apple.
Conversely if Apple were to acquire and try to limit access to ARM reference designs by other companies, they would be charged as anti-competitive, but ultimately it would drive companies right into embracing Intel Atom processors on a wide scale. No advantages there at all.
Again, you're missing the point. Your question here is only about the per chip cost. Even on that level, let's say that Apple only saved $.08 per chip. Last quarter they sold
8 million iPhones, well, that's a savings of $1M. But I guess that's not enough of a savings in your opinion?
That shouldn't be enough of a savings in anyone's opinion. They make more than that on interest on the money they would spend on the deal in a week.
You're also missing the point about the additional income Apple would get from holding ARM and receiving the royalties from the licensing to other companies. As I mentioned before, ARM earns what, $8B/yr? All they have to do is buy them, and just let business go on as usual. They'll get their investment back in a handful of years. Trying to say it would take them 100 yrs to get the investment back is again based only on the per chip savings, and doesn't look at the bigger picture.
I'm not missing any points here. I've thought about all of that. Look, Apple sold $5.4 billion worth of iPhones and stuff last quarter alone. That number is going up. Why would they want to get into the hassle of dealing with numerous companies doing licensing deals, who are also their competitors? Do they really want to sell chip designs to Qualcomm, or Nokia, or Samsung to just mention three? I don't think so.
They don't need the headache. There's nothing to be gained by this.
And if you want to be taken seriously, then look up your facts before making statements on what Apple would make from this. You have no idea of ARM Holdings sales numbers, yet you trot out one that ridiculous. By the way, sales are NOT earnings. Earnings are PROFITS. You're saying that ARM made $8 billion profit last year?
How did they do that when their SALES were $479.3 MILLION. Their earnings (profit) was $63.5 MILLION.
And again, you've conveniently overlooked my point about how holding ARM would let Apple control it's own destiny with respect to hardware.
You keep saying the same things over and over in response to me, but you have yet refute the logic of my claims. If I said the earth was flat over and over and over and over again wouldn't make it true. Please actually address the logic of my points or don't bother.
I haven't overlooked anything. You just have all your facts wrong. When you get them right, you will have a different opinion.
Actually mel - the PPC series processors sold very well into the game console systems ( Nintendo's GameCube and Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Microsoft's Xbox 360) as well as IBM's embedded systems (ASIC), networking, wireless, storage, printing/imaging and industrial automation and especially as automobile controllers. The problem was Apple's volume was not significant enough against all these other application to convince IBM to accelerate the chipset in ways that were avantageous to Apple.
Conversely if Apple were to acquire and try to limit access to ARM reference designs by other companies, they would be charged as anti-competitive, but ultimately it would drive companies right into embracing Intel Atom processors on a wide scale. No advantages there at all.
None of those gaming chips were really PPC chips in that they were made for and used by actual computers. They were all much changed from the PPC chips Apple used. Even the embedded PPC chips used in laser printers and automobiles are very different designs. In fact. It was stated a number of times by those in the business that Apple bought 75% of all the "real" PPC chis that IMB made.
In addition, The Sony console and the XBox chips were being designed about the tie Apple was leaving. It's also rumored that possibly both MS and Sony may move to Intel chips for the next iteration of their game consoles.
That shouldn't be enough of a savings in anyone's opinion. They make more than that on interest on the money they would spend on the deal in a week.
I'm not missing any points here. I've thought about all of that. Look, Apple sold $5.4 billion worth of iPhones and stuff last quarter alone. That number is going up. Why would they want to get into the hassle of dealing with numerous companies doing licensing deals, who are also their competitors? Do they really want to sell chip designs to Qualcomm, or Nokia, or Samsung to just mention three? I don't think so.
They don't need the headache. There's nothing to be gained by this.
And if you want to be taken seriously, then look up your facts before making statements on what Apple would make from this. You have no idea of ARM Holdings sales numbers, yet you trot out one that ridiculous. By the way, sales are NOT earnings. Earnings are PROFITS. You're saying that ARM made $8 billion profit last year?
How did they do that when their SALES were $479.3 MILLION. Their earnings (profit) was $63.5 MILLION.
I haven't overlooked anything. You just have all your facts wrong. When you get them right, you will have a different opinion.
So you're saying that our claims about what Apple should do are FACTS? You really do need to learn some critical thinking and reasoning skills.
And if a million bucks doesn't mean anything to you, I'll take a spare million from you, no problem. After all, it's just, nothing, right?
Get a grip on reality.
None of those gaming chips were really PPC chips in that they were made for and used by actual computers. They were all much changed from the PPC chips Apple used. Even the embedded PPC chips used in laser printers and automobiles are very different designs. In fact. It was stated a number of times by those in the business that Apple bought 75% of all the "real" PPC chis that IMB made.
In addition, The Sony console and the XBox chips were being designed about the tie Apple was leaving. It's also rumored that possibly both MS and Sony may move to Intel chips for the next iteration of their game consoles.
***** They're not PPC chips because they didn't go into computers? So somehow when they were installed in the circuit boards of those devices they stopped being PPC chips?
*****
*****
Remember, Apple is a hardware company...
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
Are you just spouting off to hear yourself think?!?!
Learn to read a Form 10-Q, then find and read the last 30+ years worth of reports (tip: 4 reports are produced each year) and then then try and tell us Apple isn't a hardware company. Oh and BTW, that 'bit of dabbling' you claim Apple does isn't right either. You really have no knowledge of the computer industry do you?
Acorn, Apple, VLSI were the companies who FOUNDED ARM!
Apple, IBM & Motorola were the companies who were responsible for the PPC!
Not that it matters because those accomplishments, wouldn't make them any more of a hardware company than they are now... They would make them a CPU designer, but their core business is most assuredly based on the sales of hardware.
Are you just spouting off to hear yourself think?!?!
Learn to read a Form 10-Q, then find and read the last 30+ years worth of reports (tip: 4 reports are produced each year) and then then try and tell us Apple isn't a hardware company. Oh and BTW, that 'bit of dabbling' you claim Apple does isn't right either. You really have no knowledge of the computer industry do you?
Acorn, Apple, VLSI were the companies who FOUNDED ARM!
Apple, IBM & Motorola were the companies who were responsible for the PPC!
Not that it matters because those accomplishments, wouldn't make them any more of a hardware company than they are now... They would make them a CPU designer, but their core business is most assuredly based on the sales of hardware.
I'm well aware of ARM and AIM. Both these areas of technological expertise were and have been enablers.
Apple's main business model is currently dependent on software. Apple started life with a strong original manufacturing ethos but that nearly cost them their business. By the time Jobs came back on the scene they'd killed off 99% of their hardware lines. Job's then spent a year or two running around with a machete while Tevanian struggled to get his software to run on faltering AIM processors.
Apple's increasing market strength (since the PPC>Intel transition) has been structured primarily on gluing commodity-broking with software models which make money.
Mac OS X
iTunes
App Store
These core software components drive their business models and generate hardware sales. If they were a hardware company per se they would be no different from Dell, etc., and they would have perished.
Of course they make "hardware" but that is not what their business depends on. Their business model depends on the profit leverage their software gives to bog-standard hardware which they encase in classy designs.
Do an autopsy on a dead Mac and you find a PC.
Think about what the following wiki grab implies...
"The Software Development Kit for iPhone OS was announced at the iPhone Software Roadmap event on March 6, 2008. The SDK allows developers (running Mac OS X 10.5.4 or higher on an Intel Mac) to create applications using Xcode that will natively run on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad."
***** They're not PPC chips because they didn't go into computers? So somehow when they were installed in the circuit boards of those devices they stopped being PPC chips?
*****
*****
If you read more carefully, you would have understood what I said, but as can be seen from your post, that's too much effort for you.
No they are not. They are commodity brokers who put bog standard PC components in Apple designed computer cases and charge a premium for the integration of the components and their OS. They are primarily a software company which happens to make PC computers and other technological fashion accessories which have been bent to their will.
A bit of dabbling in microprocessors to enable their particular hegemony does not a hardware manufacturer make.
Certainly they innovate in many areas of the industry and technology but they are not, to date, hardware manufacturers. That illusion is the smoke-screen Jobs lobs into the fray to colour the fog-of-war.
From your post, you obviously think that there are NO computer hardware manufacturers, as most of them do less design work that Apple by far.
And a manufacturer doesn't usually manufacturer from their own parts.
There are two lines. ARM is used for small mobile, and Intel for everything else.
You're talking about replacing Intel's chips with ARM. That's what you said in your post. How do you know what Apple "feels"?
x86 hardware and software are completely different from ARM hardware and software. When a couple of years from now ARM chips are 4 core and faster, x86 chips will be much faster as well.
You can't substitute an ARM device for an x86 one. Apple will make a more powerful device than the current iPad. That's a certainty. But it will be in addition. I need certain software. I can't use something else. But I'm buying an iPad for the something else to use in addition. It's for a different direction.
The iPad will be great for a lot of things, but not for others.
This is where it will be great, for example, and an area in which a Macbook won't serve (ignore the snotty remarks from posters):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPmc...mbedded&fmt=22
And her site:http://www.destroythesilence.com/
Apple buying PA Semi and Intrinsity is one thing. If Apple buys ARM then the game is on. It won't be 2 years where Apple would then challenge Intel in the higher end systems computing but much longer out (say 5-10 years). In the meantime they'd play AMD against Intel to ensure a steady supply and getting early tech advantages. Long term you'd better believe Apple is going after Intel's full product line. The performance in the iPad kicks anything I've seen the Atom do and that's not even the multi-core ARM reference.
Thanks for the link. That's awesome what she did with 2 iPads.
Apple buying PA Semi and Intrinsity is one thing. If Apple buys ARM then the game is on. It won't be 2 years where Apple would then challenge Intel in the higher end systems computing but much longer out (say 5-10 years). In the meantime they'd play AMD against Intel to ensure a steady supply and getting early tech advantages. Long term you'd better believe Apple is going after Intel's full product line. The performance in the iPad kicks anything I've seen the Atom do and that's not even the multi-core ARM reference.
Thanks for the link. That's awesome what she did with 2 iPads.
I see too many assumptions in the threads that Apple will do this, or they will do that, all based on rumors.
We have no idea what they were talking about with AMD. It could be AMD trotting out their newest stuff and roadmap to potential customers. Apple would be run by fools if they didn't at least hear the spiel. AMD could also be having talks about ATI. Apple does use ATI.
So we have no idea what this was all about.I prefer saying that I think Apple may do this or that based on what I see and read. but when its stated as a fact already, well, that's too much.
We also don't know if Apple is going after Intel's lines.
What I think is possibly going to happen is that Apple will keep extending this concept. At some point, it might replace low end models, but it might not.
There is a very different market for keyboarded open OS's, and Apple's mobile OS. They may have to remain separate.
I don't see them buying ARM either. Too many reasons against, and no GOOD reasons for. I'm reading a lot of bad reasons for, though.
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/Ru...ing-69841.html
From your post, you obviously think that there are NO computer hardware manufacturers, as most of them do less design work that Apple by far.
And a manufacturer doesn't usually manufacturer from their own parts.
Noticed how design conscious Dell has become of late? Their forthcoming smartphones are an example of design. But, yes, Dell are commodity brokers too.
By the way, both these companies, Apple/Dell have computers cobbled together for them by manufacturers and assembly plants in China.
What distinguishes Apple from Dell is software and cheeky profit margins.
I'm well aware of ARM and AIM. Both these areas of technological expertise were and have been enablers. Apple's main business model is currently dependent on software.
Yes...
We aren't thinking of 'hardware based' in the same light... You are thinking of it in a very traditional way... Like DELL for example they are the 'poster child' for a 'hardware based company'. While I was thing in the broader sense of Apple existence is totally dependent of it selling hardware. Both are true but Dell and Apple are quite clearly two totally different animals. So, we both very much believe the same things. However it's the sales of 'overpriced-underpowered' hardware is what allows Apple to continue innovating the software that in turn drives the desire of people to want to pay for 'over-priced-underpowered' hardware that allows Apple to... etc etc etc So we are really looking at two sides of the same coin and one couldn't really exist without the other.
Tho I guess what my deepest desire for Apple is that they do find a way to divorce the two sides by finding alternative sources of income that FUND the continued software advances and they are doing just that. The less Apples bottom line is dependent of selling 'overpriced-underpowered' computers the more they will be free to change things up in that department.
Yes...
We aren't thinking of 'hardware based' in the same light...
I concur with your comment. Though I should have added Boot Camp to the list of software models driving Apple hardware sales. Because I seriously doubt I would have upgraded my PPC G5 to a MacPro without the ability to boot WIndows for game playing. That just tipped the scales.
[snip]
What I think is possibly going to happen is that Apple will keep extending this concept. At some point, it might replace low end models, but it might not.
There is a very different market for keyboarded open OS's, and Apple's mobile OS. They may have to remain separate.
[/snip]
I believe the two are different sides of the same coin.
With the iPad, it's just a matter of plugging into the dock or pairing with a bluetooth keyboard.
Other touchscreen mobile os's based on Linux (similar enough), often come on devices with slide-out keyboards, i.e. Palm Pre, Nokia N900, Motorola Droid...
I think it's just a matter of having the software keyboard designed well enough for use on-the-go, but to hide it when a hardware keyboard becomes available.
In either case, neither the iPad, nor the devices i've listed above support the use of mouse. So the objective of a portable OS is to make touchscreen use as painless and logical as possible, and compensate for the lack of keyboard when one is not attached.
Such an os can even be scaled up for kiosk-type use, with hardware such as a reasonably large screen (17") and more powerful processor
Dan
Buying ARM makes PERFECT sense for Apple.
I agree. Apple isn't worried about controlling Intel because in the long term, the iDevices will far outsell the Mac in volume.
That doesn't mean the Mac isn't important to Apple, or that they will be dropping it - but "the next frontier" is portable devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
What if Adobe bought ARM and licensed it to everyone except Apple. Would that be anticompetitive? Not likely to happen of course, but that would be kind of funny.
Apple should buy ARM, Adobe and Palm! Maybe NVIDIA if the have any cash left lol
After a shopping spree like that, i doubt their operations would be as clean and well managed as they are now.
At Palm, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and they don't have any existing market share to bring with them. Nokia may be able to squeeze something out of them, but to Apple, they would be dead weight.
As for Adobe, there's way too much debt there. Everyone pirates their software anyway. They are too important to fail, but don't necessarily have anything to give. Flash can be knocked out of orbit easily, without even touching Adobe with a ten foot pole. I'll only take maybe $50,000 to build a Flash clone that takes over the existing Flash platform, than the billions that it would take to get a handle on Adobe as is.
ARM is more of a blueprint company. I don't think the industry will allow them to be bought and closed off. Te EU alone will raise a big issue.
Dan
After a shopping spree like that, i doubt their operations would be as clean and well managed as they are now.
At Palm, the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and they don't have any existing market share to bring with them. Nokia may be able to squeeze something out of them, but to Apple, they would be dead weight.
Actually Palm has useful IP and Palm's engineers are pretty talented they just need the right guidance and Apple can provide that. Apple could alleviate the strain on engineering resources by adding more talented engineers from Palm, this way they can develop the iPhone OS and the next version of Mac OS X simultaneously
As for Adobe, there's way too much debt there. Everyone pirates their software anyway. They are too important to fail, but don't necessarily have anything to give. Flash can be knocked out of orbit easily, without even touching Adobe with a ten foot pole. I'll only take maybe $50,000 to build a Flash clone that takes over the existing Flash platform, than the billions that it would take to get a handle on Adobe as is.
Adobe only owes $1 Billion according to recent reports. That's nothing Apple can't handle. Apple would gain an advantage in the creative sector by improving Adobes offerings to fully take advantage of Mac OS X and tightly coupling with current Apple pro apps. Avid and Autodesk are pretty big competitors and Microsoft would more then likely try picking up the slack with their Expressions Suite which rules out any monopoly hogwash talk.
ARM is more of a blueprint company. I don't think the industry will allow them to be bought and closed off. Te EU alone will raise a big issue.
Dan
There are plenty of chip companies out there that can compete with ARM so there aren't much issues for the EU to bring up. Intel, AMD, Samsung, Nvidia (SOC), FreeScale, etc... To name a few major players. Competition is alive and well, if anything Apple buying ARM will force competitors to compete more agressively.
Of course I do have a list of other interesting prospects for Apple to acquire that would be interesting. Especially in the film Production/3D/Compositing space. It's also too bad Apple didn't snatch Sun while it had a chance, that would have been really interesting. In the hands if Oracle you can bet Suns innovations will die, starting with solaris and mysql next.