AMD doesn't make sense for Apple's Market Strategy
This is probably over done but I want to give some input on why I think AMD makes no sense for Apple. First of all, aside from switching to X86 which will provide some technological hurdles,(and this is so soon after migrating developers and users to OS X), the business model does not make sense if Apple chose to move to AMD. Let me give you an example.
Let say Apple adopts AMD's chips inside every Mac. This is assuming having parity with PC boxes. Lets assume every faster AMD chip that comes out supposedly can just simply be switched out on the Macintosh. If this was the case, it is bye bye to product launches as has been the case. It is bye bye to the kind of close attention to the "whole box" experience that Apple is so famous for. Not only that, let's say that Apple decides to ugrade their products every 6 months to a year, including faster CPU's, there'll still be a perception by the PC tech hordes that the Mac is still behind PC offerings in the way of faster CPU's, memory, and chipsets.
The reason that Apple will not go AMD is that Apple is a hardware company and unless the day comes when Apple is only a software company, apple will continue to make its own motherboards and the whole widget. Because the Apple experience is more than the simple matter of swapping out faster CPU's for some bragging rights, and the fact Apple will not succomb to such way of thinking, AMD will not be a good choice. How many more Macs will Apple sell if they became so CPU specific, and one could just swap out a CPU for a faster one as on the pC side?The 970 fits more nicely with Apple's philosophy of a hardware driven company.
Any thoughts? I heard of reasons why AMD would be good for APple but I have not heard many reasons on why AMD is a bad idea. Than again, I am new to this forum and I may not have read all the threads
Let say Apple adopts AMD's chips inside every Mac. This is assuming having parity with PC boxes. Lets assume every faster AMD chip that comes out supposedly can just simply be switched out on the Macintosh. If this was the case, it is bye bye to product launches as has been the case. It is bye bye to the kind of close attention to the "whole box" experience that Apple is so famous for. Not only that, let's say that Apple decides to ugrade their products every 6 months to a year, including faster CPU's, there'll still be a perception by the PC tech hordes that the Mac is still behind PC offerings in the way of faster CPU's, memory, and chipsets.
The reason that Apple will not go AMD is that Apple is a hardware company and unless the day comes when Apple is only a software company, apple will continue to make its own motherboards and the whole widget. Because the Apple experience is more than the simple matter of swapping out faster CPU's for some bragging rights, and the fact Apple will not succomb to such way of thinking, AMD will not be a good choice. How many more Macs will Apple sell if they became so CPU specific, and one could just swap out a CPU for a faster one as on the pC side?The 970 fits more nicely with Apple's philosophy of a hardware driven company.
Any thoughts? I heard of reasons why AMD would be good for APple but I have not heard many reasons on why AMD is a bad idea. Than again, I am new to this forum and I may not have read all the threads
Comments
The only reason to switch is to get a common platform with Windows, and pretty much guarantee hardware parity. If you end up getting stuck with the also ran in the 64bit windows stakes, you can expect that chip to quickly die out as either Intel or AMD rejigs for the appropriate clone architecture. What's the point, you'll have to switch again just to keep up. Going to IA32 (X86) guarantees another switch in 2-3 years (or sooner).
All x86 equals a bad idea ATM.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
What if OSX/x86-machines prove to be considerably slower than its Windows/x86-counterpart? Suddenly there won't be compairing apples and bananas but apples and apples and OSX will probably loose going head to head with Windows or Linux on the same hardware. And.. if Apple goes x86 they will _never_ have a faster processor than the Wintel world.
<strong>... Let say Apple adopts AMD's chips inside every Mac. This is assuming having parity with PC boxes. Lets assume every faster AMD chip that comes out supposedly can just simply be switched out on the Macintosh. If this was the case, it is bye bye to product launches as has been the case. It is bye bye to the kind of close attention to the "whole box" experience that Apple is so famous for... </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you, but the argument is not related to AMD only. The question is whether you can upgrade a machine or not. You could replace AMD with MOTO in your post and still have the same argument.
If users are able to upgrade Mac Boxes, some of us will surely benefit but Apple will loose (money).
<strong>... So, you gain a sale, but you also lose a sale from the used buyer...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not every machine gets resold. Are there any numbers of how many Macs are resold compared to how many new ones are sold?
Personally I would never buy a used Mac and of the ones I owned (6) so far I only sold 2. These two were both only about 6 month old, and I fetched a nice price therefore.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
Now that PPC 970 is in the works, it is more or less taken for granted that, that is apple hardware's future processor.
I think Apple has more to gain if they can optimise OSX for the x86 platform and market OSX as an alternative for Windows.
Of course this would mean going head to head with Microsoft and will only happen if Gates pulls the partnership with apple.
One thing apple will have a hard time with is keeping the OS stable and controlled similar to the apple world, to handle all the useless junk the windows users throw at their PCs.
That would be nice. But then would you want to dish out additional bucks for the latest and the greatest?
<strong>
That would be nice. But then would you want to dish out additional bucks for the latest and the greatest?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, it would cost a little more. But Apple would be forced to guarantee compatibility. So dealing with new parts would be less of a hassle.
<strong>
I agree with you, but the argument is not related to AMD only. The question is whether you can upgrade a machine or not. You could replace AMD with MOTO in your post and still have the same argument.
If users are able to upgrade Mac Boxes, some of us will surely benefit but Apple will loose (money).</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that I can go and buy an AMD processor (CompUSA or Frys, or online). There is no where that I can buy just a moto processor, so it is nt the same argument.
You also cant compare our CPU card upgrade market to the x86 world. Here we are charged an arm and a leg for 6 months ago tech. In the x86 world, you can buy the latest and greatest for way less than a mac processor upgrade, and you can do it soon after the chip starts shipping.
If Apple released x86 boxes, they might be able to write a firmware patch (or BIOS patch, isn't that what it is called in X86 land) that restriced OS X from only running on Aplpe boxes (and we all know that would be cracked in months, people cracked the G4 upgrade firmware patch remember...). However, there isn't much they can do about us buying processor upgrades from AMD, and not using Apple any more (well except when you buy a new machine).
<strong>
The problem is that I can go and buy an AMD processor (CompUSA or Frys, or online). There is no where that I can buy just a moto processor... </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right. But even if you could buy a Motorola CPU there's no way upgrading a Powerbook G4, iBook, eMac or Flatpanel-iMac (as far as I know). There was a time when the CPU of Powerbooks resided on a daughterboard you were able to upgrade.
[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
This is why I like Matsu's posts. Whatever he writes, he is always very concerned about prices.
(<a href="http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/11/19/rtr799607.html"; target="_blank">forbes report</a>)
if you want to speculate on an AMD powered powerPod go ahead but IF apple go the x86 route, it 'aint going to be on AMD.
<strong>Not only this, but would Apple be good for AMD? I think not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Could you elaborate on that?
<strong>i think this whole thread is a moot point given AMDs recent announcement that they are pulling out of the chip for PCs market </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I believe you have misread the article. AMD is simply stating that it will diversify rather than continue the race for faster processors with Intel. In no way, shape, or form, has AMD announced that it will no longer produce CPUs.
This announcement was made to convince investors that AMD understands the future role of PCs as well as confirm that AMD has a clear, strategic vision.
[ 11-30-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>Why does every x86+apple discussion focus around a hardware paltform switch by apple?
Now that PPC 970 is in the works, it is more or less taken for granted that, that is apple hardware's future processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the 970 is about a year away and by then it'll suck about as much as the G4 sucks now as a marketable product? 1.8 GHz? Intel's laughing NOW.
Not that I think like that, mind you, but as long as consumers see 3 GHz Intel processors and 1.25 GHz PowerPC processors, they choose Intel (not all of them, but most). And if there's a 1.8 GHz 970 at the end of next year, there'll be a 5 GHz P4 or a 8 GHz P5, whatever.
There's not enough money behind PowerPC. That's why this discussion crops up. And because people, even Mac fanatics, start to lose sight about the fact that the Mac is more than its processor.
<strong>
Let say Apple adopts AMD's chips inside every Mac. This is assuming having parity with PC boxes. Lets assume every faster AMD chip that comes out supposedly can just simply be switched out on the Macintosh. If this was the case, it is bye bye to product launches as has been the case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PC makers don't seem to have any problems slapping the latest processors into their boxes as they are released. Of course, brand new tech such as the switch to DDR, P3->P4, etc. still merits a product launch.
Having a small lag time between introduction of new tech and Apple adopting it is GOOD, not bad. Remember, Apple's product launches wouldn't be so anxiously awaited if the previous products didn't get so out of date in the meantime.