karmadave

Covid-19 has definitely impacted supply chains. I work for a computer manufacturer (not Apple) and the market is just now getting caught up on severe NAND shortages. I expect capacity, in China, is no longer an issue however NAND shortages coupled with Apple's new 5nm A14 mean that supply will be tight throughout 2020 and into the first half of 2021. Frankly, given the circumstances I'm amazed that Apple can ever pull this off in 2020...

netrox said:

Why is it bleeding? 

Probably because banks make money on credit cards by charging late fees and high interest on customers who carry large balances and make the minimum payment. Keep  in mind, that a bank pays a fee to the company who processes the credit card transaction which in this case is Mastercard. Many Apple customers are more financially well-off and pay their entire balance off on-time. Good for Apple because of the incentives customers get on Apple products, but not so good for Goldman Sachs which likely loses money on every transaction.

Most of Intel's chip manufacturing facilities are already in the United States (Oregon and Arizona) so I am not sure what they are talking about. TSMC (aka Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) has manufacturing facilities in Taiwan, Mainland China and the United States. While I believe we all want more manufacturing in the United States, there are a couple of issues to keep in mind 1) Since Taiwan, China, South Korea, and Singapore have done a MUCH better job of containing the spread of Coronavirus than the United States what benefit would there be if all these facilities existed in the US? It might even cause more supply chain disruption. 2) These are well-established Asian facilities which would take years to bring back IF even feasible from a financial and logistical standpoint. There is a reason why companies like Apple Manufacturer most of their product in Asia. Who wants to pay $2,500 for an iPhone? 

Protectionism and economic populism may appeal to parts of the country that have lost significant manufacturing jobs, but this is not something I believe most tech multinationals would see as in the best interests of their shareholders and customers. Capitalism isn't a sentimental system. It's a system that maximizes shareholder value while delivering the best innovative products at the lowest possible prices. That's the stark reality and unless the US embraces 'state capitalism' (as the Chinese Communist Party as done) I don't see this happening. Not trying to make a political argument. Just an observation based on reality.

I was working at Apple, in Higher Education Sales, when NeXT launched. NeXT was busy poaching Apple HE Sales Reps so on a moment's notice we were flown to NYC and wined and dined for a couple days. It was basically a big party to remind people why the worked, at Apple, and Scully even showed to give us a pep talk. He needn't bother as most of our customers found the NeXT 'cube' to be too expensive and under-powered to run the object-oriented NeXTStep OS. Many of these machines ended up running various internet applications (www was even 'invented' on NeXT) or as they say 'expensive doorstops'. NeXT had a big booth, at Educom, in 1989 and Steve was giving demo's dressed in an expensive Italian suit. Good times...

Full disclosure. I formerly worked at Apple and now work at Dell. My personal system is a MacBook Pro while my work system is of course Dell (Latitude 7400). It's always amazed me that Apple could take essentially a single platform and sell it to both Consumer and Business customers. There is some limited configurability, but it's essentially the same product. Dell, and other PC manufacturers build products (and brands) for specific market segments such as Consumer, General Business, Education, and Workstation. The new XPS15 and XPS17 are 'crossover' platforms that share most of the same components with their Workstation counterparts, the Precision 5550 and 5750. These products are also 'certified' to run specific technical apps from Autodesk, Adobe, Dassault, Synopsis, Cadence, etc. and have a few more CPU and GPU options.  

From strictly a hardware perspective, Apple and Dell both have their strengths, weakness, and the choice is increasingly based on user preference. What really differentiates these platforms are the 'ecosystems' that both reside in. Dell is firmly in the Microsoft ecosystem, although the XPS 15 and 17 can run many of the widely available Linux distributions. Dell also bundles optimizer software, on Business laptops. Since Apple writes the operating system they can add such features directly into the OS. The primary Mac differentiator is that Apple engineers and builds both the Hardware & Operating System + a few 1st party applications. This gives the user a more unique experience, but tends to limit the choice of options. Dell laptops also tend to be more serviceable as components are more easily added/swapped and user accessible. I know this site is devoted to Apple, but I am happy to answer Dell-related questions 

The roots of Claris go all the way back to the Macintosh introduction in 1984. Microsoft basically threatened to stop all Microsoft development, on the Mac, unless Apple canned their own 1st party apps (MacWrite, MacDraw, etc.) Apple setup Claris as their software subsidiary to keep Bill Gates happy...

Gasse was head of hardware when I worked at Apple. As I recall, he was fired for being a pompous jerk. In any event, Apple is NOT moving from Intel to ARM on a high end product they just recently started shipping. There is no equivalent ARM CPU that runs these high end workstation applications. Furthermore, given the relatively low volume of Mac Pro's sold, there is simply no financial justification to switch. My guess is that this is simply Jean-Louis being Jean-Louis... 

I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)

Seems that Governors who rail against ‘Socialism’ are quick to use subsidies to lure companies to their states.

Steve Jobs wanted to donate a computer to every school in the US. In order to make it work financially, Apple lobbied Congress for a tax break. The bill failed in the US Congress, but a similar one passed in the California Legislature. The subsequent program, called 'Kids Can't Wait' was a stoke of genius as it immediately established Apple as the leader in Education. The Apple IIe was introduced for Kids Can't Wait...

https://timeline.com/apple-kids-cant-wait-2792d326aa31