Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.
I still believe that Tim Cook has his limitations. What was a benefit for Apple ten years ago doesn't mean that it will be a benefit going forward. As I said, this could be Apple's Achille's heel. One CEO can give tremendous growth to a company but the quality that made that CEO tremendous can quickly become the quality that makes a company stagnate.
Companies like Samsung can put 28nm tech in a couple of its phones. They can get the yield needed for 5 or 6 million phones a quarter. Who is Apple going to be able to push hard enough, get to invest fast enough, to be able to ramp up their fab plants to get consistent yield for 30-40 million phones in a quarter.
Eventually Apple could be left noticeably behind in the tech race due to its size.
How do you fix that other than having your own fab plant.
Correction.... SAMSUNG will be the world's largest chip maker.
They are also the main producer of the world's BEST MOBILE SCREEN... also on your iPad.
If GM sells 18 million cars with Toyota engines, and it becomes the world's best selling car, GM isn't the largest engine maker in the world. They are the largest CAR maker/seller in the world. Toyota would in fact be the largest engine maker in the world.
Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.
I guess Samsung, then, is the exception to your rule.
They own all the facilities to produce their products yet is flexible to adapt to the ever changing technologies.
Troll much? A designer can innovate. And a manufacturer can innovate. You seem to think only one of those is true. The A5X chip is an Apple design. If you would be so kind as to quote (and link) a couple of Apple claims about being innovative that you think are lies, and explain why they're lies.
SHA is a method of increasing aperture ratio by applying approximately a 3 µm thick photo-definable acrylic resin layer to planarize the device and increase the vertical gap between the ITO pixel electrodes and signal lines. ...... SHA technology was pioneered by Sharp and JSR many years ago.
I think the objective is for Intel to become the foundry for Apple chips
... goes all the way back to the 6502 days...
Unfortunately, a lot Intel chips are being made in Chinese factories under [loose ??] Intel control. So from a security POV, Intel can't guarantee there are no back doors in their chips. Apple does have some chips made in America by Samsung or some other Asian factory. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Unless Apple's chips are made in America by Americans, Apple can't guarantee the security of their chips, and if they are made here, there's still no guarantees. But it would be less likely.
Comments
Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.
I still believe that Tim Cook has his limitations. What was a benefit for Apple ten years ago doesn't mean that it will be a benefit going forward. As I said, this could be Apple's Achille's heel. One CEO can give tremendous growth to a company but the quality that made that CEO tremendous can quickly become the quality that makes a company stagnate.
Companies like Samsung can put 28nm tech in a couple of its phones. They can get the yield needed for 5 or 6 million phones a quarter. Who is Apple going to be able to push hard enough, get to invest fast enough, to be able to ramp up their fab plants to get consistent yield for 30-40 million phones in a quarter.
Eventually Apple could be left noticeably behind in the tech race due to its size.
How do you fix that other than having your own fab plant.
They are also the main producer of the world's BEST MOBILE SCREEN... also on your iPad.
If GM sells 18 million cars with Toyota engines, and it becomes the world's best selling car, GM isn't the largest engine maker in the world. They are the largest CAR maker/seller in the world. Toyota would in fact be the largest engine maker in the world.
Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.
I guess Samsung, then, is the exception to your rule.
They own all the facilities to produce their products yet is flexible to adapt to the ever changing technologies.
You CAN have your cake and eat it too.
Troll much? A designer can innovate. And a manufacturer can innovate. You seem to think only one of those is true. The A5X chip is an Apple design. If you would be so kind as to quote (and link) a couple of Apple claims about being innovative that you think are lies, and explain why they're lies.
(Slams head against table)
I guess Samsung, then, is the exception to your rule.
They own all the facilities to produce their products yet is flexible to adapt to the ever changing technologies.
You CAN have your cake and eat it too.
Hmmm... I was going to use that as my closing argument but you beat me to it.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you... lol!
Off the top of my head at 1h:17m:30s Scott Brodrick is talking about how "we" had to elevate the pixels from the signals.
Link from this article: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._the_leds.html
SHA is a method of increasing aperture ratio by applying approximately a 3 µm thick photo-definable acrylic resin layer to planarize the device and increase the vertical gap between the ITO pixel electrodes and signal lines. ...... SHA technology was pioneered by Sharp and JSR many years ago.
I think the objective is for Intel to become the foundry for Apple chips
... goes all the way back to the 6502 days...
Unfortunately, a lot Intel chips are being made in Chinese factories under [loose ??] Intel control. So from a security POV, Intel can't guarantee there are no back doors in their chips. Apple does have some chips made in America by Samsung or some other Asian factory. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Unless Apple's chips are made in America by Americans, Apple can't guarantee the security of their chips, and if they are made here, there's still no guarantees. But it would be less likely.