I'm sorry if I was confusing you with AppleSpeak terminology.
"Kill" means "compete with". As is "Google wants to kill the iPhone". As in "The next 'iPhone killer'".
All actions are extreme black or white in AppleSpeak. I thought that it would be understood.
Yeah, not so much. Most of us speak in pretty straightforward terms and that is appreciated if yuo want people to know what the **** you are trying to say
I'm sure the Apple gig was great but Papermaster upgraded him from a director level position to Group VP (essentially a two level upgrade) with a lot more control of what he does. Of course, he has to work for AMD, which is a problem. They need all the help they can get right now.
What is wrong with AMD? They have a few very competitive processors in competition with Intel. They Basicaly blew Atom out of the water with their BRAZOS line of APUs. At the other end their high end APUs currently headed up by Triity are very good chips that result in very balanced performance.
Sure things have slipped and frankly Bulldozer is a bit of a performance disappointment. It is not however an innovation disappointment and is a base from which AMD can grow a competitive line of products. Of course performance can be highly variable and in the case of Bulldozer it actually has areas where it does very well.
On top of all of this they have an excellent line of GPU chips so again where does this idea come from that they need all the help they can get? Underdog yes; failure no!
I would guess that the conversation went something like this:
Papermaster: So, Jim, when do your Apple shares vest?
Keller: They just vested, so I'm good.
Papermaster: How'd you like to come work at a place where you aren't treated like dirt? I've enjoyed life a lot more since I left.
Keller: That might be interesting. What have you got in mind?
Papermaster: I'll put you in charge of our mobile development and a few other things where we need to improve our thermal envelope. You know data centers are even conscious of power consumption these days. Besides, we need a fresh look at our architectures in general.
Keller: OK, if I did come on board, just how much freedom of action will I have?
Papermaster: We are a team, but you will be one of the leaders. You won't have someone micromanaging your every thought either. You know what I mean.
Papermaster had been at IBM before Apple - and was involved in a lawsuit with IBM over non-compete and trade secret issues that prevented him from starting to work at Apple for an extended period of time.
It is easy for the press to make these "executives" seem like they are solely responsible for a product. "Keller was responsible for building Apple's custom System on a Chip designs"
But there is actually a team of people working on those SoC's.
There is a large collection of "executives" who seem to move around to high profile jobs where they are more a figurehead or a marketing person than some incredible visionary or game changer. Keller and Papermaster seem to fit that. They must be great politicians or hypnotists because they always seem to getting press for there next job.
If you have worked for a while you know you have seen managers like this - everyone always is wonder "wtf does that guy do?" or "how the heck did he get that job?". They are experts at self-promotion and telling upper management what they want to hear, but if you work for them you think they are worthless.
Maybe Keller and Papermaster are no longer at Apple because that crap does not fly there. We can only hope.
About a couple of decades ago, I used to feel shocked when some engineer or designer left a cool company in favor of a dumb one. It was like if such engineers didn't care about the products they designed. They didn't care designing OpenGL or DirectX, they seem to consider Windows as good as UNIX, and, it seemed these guys weren't able to tell the difference between a $100 wine bottle or a $4 one (unless they saw the price, sure).
In the past, there have always been an small subset of engineers who can tell the difference between a good and a bad design, and who really love what they're doing. But a vast majority didn't
But nowadays, there's a different situation. The market is different, the success and failure of companies arrives in surprising ways, and I no longer blame engineers for leaving cool companies. I say "hey, if you can build a good future and you can work doing useful stuff, run for your life, even if it's at Microsoft".
Anyway, there's always the engineer who can't tell a good from a cheap wine. The words of Wozniak after seeing the Microsoft Surface are... well... no comment.
I'm sure the Apple gig was great but Papermaster upgraded him from a director level position to Group VP (essentially a two level upgrade) with a lot more control of what he does. Of course, he has to work for AMD, which is a problem. They need all the help they can get right now.
How is this a problem? You are just assuming that working for Apple equates to a better job for him than working for AMD. Given that we're on Appleinsider, perhaps you believe no one should ever leave Apple once they're in the door :P. Beyond that you ignore potential benefits to Apple. AMD is one of their suppliers. If AMD produces better products, it only serves to increase Apple's options in the Mac lineup. You should really get past the idea that working for AMD is a definitive step down as it's never that simple when examined objectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is wrong with AMD? They have a few very competitive processors in competition with Intel. They Basicaly blew Atom out of the water with their BRAZOS line of APUs. At the other end their high end APUs currently headed up by Triity are very good chips that result in very balanced performance.
Sure things have slipped and frankly Bulldozer is a bit of a performance disappointment. It is not however an innovation disappointment and is a base from which AMD can grow a competitive line of products. Of course performance can be highly variable and in the case of Bulldozer it actually has areas where it does very well.
On top of all of this they have an excellent line of GPU chips so again where does this idea come from that they need all the help they can get? Underdog yes; failure no!
I would ask the same thing. Given the comments, you would think they were a train wreck with no future. Too many people just read the article rather than considering fundamentals..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
About a couple of decades ago, I used to feel shocked when some engineer or designer left a cool company in favor of a dumb one. It was like if such engineers didn't care about the products they designed. They didn't care designing OpenGL or DirectX, they seem to consider Windows as good as UNIX, and, it seemed these guys weren't able to tell the difference between a $100 wine bottle or a $4 one (unless they saw the price, sure).
In the past, there have always been an small subset of engineers who can tell the difference between a good and a bad design, and who really love what they're doing. But a vast majority didn't
But nowadays, there's a different situation. The market is different, the success and failure of companies arrives in surprising ways, and I no longer blame engineers for leaving cool companies. I say "hey, if you can build a good future and you can work doing useful stuff, run for your life, even if it's at Microsoft".
Anyway, there's always the engineer who can't tell a good from a cheap wine. The words of Wozniak after seeing the Microsoft Surface are... well... no comment.
You're looking at this in the wrong way! The guy makes a very good living either way. If he feels he can make a bigger difference at AMD or see better career growth there, why remain at Apple? Apple is the bigger company. You think it's cooler, yet you're projecting your own preconceived opinions on someone you (likely) do not know.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
I'm sorry if I was confusing you with AppleSpeak terminology.
"Kill" means "compete with". As is "Google wants to kill the iPhone". As in "The next 'iPhone killer'".
All actions are extreme black or white in AppleSpeak. I thought that it would be understood.
Yeah, not so much. Most of us speak in pretty straightforward terms and that is appreciated if yuo want people to know what the **** you are trying to say
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
Papermaster: How'd you like to come work at a place where you aren't treated like dirt?
Really? They treat people like dirt at Apple? No wonder they are all fleeing the sinking ship, then.
What is wrong with AMD? They have a few very competitive processors in competition with Intel. They Basicaly blew Atom out of the water with their BRAZOS line of APUs. At the other end their high end APUs currently headed up by Triity are very good chips that result in very balanced performance.
Sure things have slipped and frankly Bulldozer is a bit of a performance disappointment. It is not however an innovation disappointment and is a base from which AMD can grow a competitive line of products. Of course performance can be highly variable and in the case of Bulldozer it actually has areas where it does very well.
On top of all of this they have an excellent line of GPU chips so again where does this idea come from that they need all the help they can get? Underdog yes; failure no!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
I would guess that the conversation went something like this:
Papermaster: So, Jim, when do your Apple shares vest?
Keller: They just vested, so I'm good.
Papermaster: How'd you like to come work at a place where you aren't treated like dirt? I've enjoyed life a lot more since I left.
Keller: That might be interesting. What have you got in mind?
Papermaster: I'll put you in charge of our mobile development and a few other things where we need to improve our thermal envelope. You know data centers are even conscious of power consumption these days. Besides, we need a fresh look at our architectures in general.
Keller: OK, if I did come on board, just how much freedom of action will I have?
Papermaster: We are a team, but you will be one of the leaders. You won't have someone micromanaging your every thought either. You know what I mean.
Keller: When do you want me?
:-)
you should write a screen play
Papermaster had been at IBM before Apple - and was involved in a lawsuit with IBM over non-compete and trade secret issues that prevented him from starting to work at Apple for an extended period of time.
It is easy for the press to make these "executives" seem like they are solely responsible for a product. "Keller was responsible for building Apple's custom System on a Chip designs"
But there is actually a team of people working on those SoC's.
There is a large collection of "executives" who seem to move around to high profile jobs where they are more a figurehead or a marketing person than some incredible visionary or game changer. Keller and Papermaster seem to fit that. They must be great politicians or hypnotists because they always seem to getting press for there next job.
If you have worked for a while you know you have seen managers like this - everyone always is wonder "wtf does that guy do?" or "how the heck did he get that job?". They are experts at self-promotion and telling upper management what they want to hear, but if you work for them you think they are worthless.
Maybe Keller and Papermaster are no longer at Apple because that crap does not fly there. We can only hope.
As a Mac user, I watched safely from the comfort of my Core i7.
Cultural differences? Well, I really can't see Steve being a huge fan of Spinal Tap, and AMD must of said they'll let him go up to 11. Godspeed Jim.
About a couple of decades ago, I used to feel shocked when some engineer or designer left a cool company in favor of a dumb one. It was like if such engineers didn't care about the products they designed. They didn't care designing OpenGL or DirectX, they seem to consider Windows as good as UNIX, and, it seemed these guys weren't able to tell the difference between a $100 wine bottle or a $4 one (unless they saw the price, sure).
In the past, there have always been an small subset of engineers who can tell the difference between a good and a bad design, and who really love what they're doing. But a vast majority didn't
But nowadays, there's a different situation. The market is different, the success and failure of companies arrives in surprising ways, and I no longer blame engineers for leaving cool companies. I say "hey, if you can build a good future and you can work doing useful stuff, run for your life, even if it's at Microsoft".
Anyway, there's always the engineer who can't tell a good from a cheap wine. The words of Wozniak after seeing the Microsoft Surface are... well... no comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet
I'm sure the Apple gig was great but Papermaster upgraded him from a director level position to Group VP (essentially a two level upgrade) with a lot more control of what he does. Of course, he has to work for AMD, which is a problem. They need all the help they can get right now.
How is this a problem? You are just assuming that working for Apple equates to a better job for him than working for AMD. Given that we're on Appleinsider, perhaps you believe no one should ever leave Apple once they're in the door :P. Beyond that you ignore potential benefits to Apple. AMD is one of their suppliers. If AMD produces better products, it only serves to increase Apple's options in the Mac lineup. You should really get past the idea that working for AMD is a definitive step down as it's never that simple when examined objectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is wrong with AMD? They have a few very competitive processors in competition with Intel. They Basicaly blew Atom out of the water with their BRAZOS line of APUs. At the other end their high end APUs currently headed up by Triity are very good chips that result in very balanced performance.
Sure things have slipped and frankly Bulldozer is a bit of a performance disappointment. It is not however an innovation disappointment and is a base from which AMD can grow a competitive line of products. Of course performance can be highly variable and in the case of Bulldozer it actually has areas where it does very well.
On top of all of this they have an excellent line of GPU chips so again where does this idea come from that they need all the help they can get? Underdog yes; failure no!
I would ask the same thing. Given the comments, you would think they were a train wreck with no future. Too many people just read the article rather than considering fundamentals..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
About a couple of decades ago, I used to feel shocked when some engineer or designer left a cool company in favor of a dumb one. It was like if such engineers didn't care about the products they designed. They didn't care designing OpenGL or DirectX, they seem to consider Windows as good as UNIX, and, it seemed these guys weren't able to tell the difference between a $100 wine bottle or a $4 one (unless they saw the price, sure).
In the past, there have always been an small subset of engineers who can tell the difference between a good and a bad design, and who really love what they're doing. But a vast majority didn't
But nowadays, there's a different situation. The market is different, the success and failure of companies arrives in surprising ways, and I no longer blame engineers for leaving cool companies. I say "hey, if you can build a good future and you can work doing useful stuff, run for your life, even if it's at Microsoft".
Anyway, there's always the engineer who can't tell a good from a cheap wine. The words of Wozniak after seeing the Microsoft Surface are... well... no comment.
You're looking at this in the wrong way! The guy makes a very good living either way. If he feels he can make a bigger difference at AMD or see better career growth there, why remain at Apple? Apple is the bigger company. You think it's cooler, yet you're projecting your own preconceived opinions on someone you (likely) do not know.