- Last Active
This is a classic example of the failures of communism, big government and central planning. They can’t keep the lights on! The article, which in many ways from a journalistic perspective, isn’t written well - doesn’t answer the basic question of why there is a power shortage in China. It also speaks to the corruption of big government. Companies with political influence, and by inference, the resources to bribe officials, are the ones who get electricity (sounds a bit like what’s going on in Washington D.C.) You can be sure if companies are being denied electricity, private citizens are going without power in their homes. Do global warming alarmists really think China is going to limit CO2 output when they are bringing new coal burning power plants online every week, yet still can’t meet power demand? Apple should have been undertaking a serious effort to leave China a long time ago. But the lure of cheap labor and easier profitability has kept them there longer than they should have been. So wake up America! The siren’s lure of big brother government being the provider of the basic necessities of daily life touted by the likes of AOC, Bernie, Biden, Nancy and Schumer are deceptive and false. California, which is already a semi-socialist state, is well on its way to being unable to meet everyday power needs during periods of peak demand. Gavin Newsome and his ilk in Sacramento falsely think they posses the intellectual superiority to control the basic economic, environmental and societal variables of California to lead to optimal outcomes for the citizens of California. Given the outflow of people and companies from California I would argue they are failing. Tesla is moving their headquarters to Texas as a very recent example of this. Not to mention the California problems with homelessness. Apple’s next big worry is TSMC and their reliance on Taiwan for Apple CPU’s. If Apple were smart they’d be knocking on the doors of Intel and other domestic chip producers and start developing backup supply chains for chips. This is a multi-year effort so get started now! The China pendulum has reached its apex. Time for new plans Apple!
There is no doubt the Apple ecosystem is highly managed and controlled. Therefore Apple decides from a marketing-driven perspective when or if new technologies get released. You’ll never see a touch screen Mac because touch screens are the purview of the iPad. With Apple Silicon the performance of the system heavily depends on the RAM being integrated on the same silicon as the CPU - which means RAM upgradability will probably/can never be offered. However SSD’s could be upgradeable but Apple chooses not to offer that for marketing reasons. If Apple didn’t price gouge on upgrades for RAM and Storage it would be a different story (these upgrades are huge profit makers). Given Apple’s big focus on sustainability it’s unfortunate that some of their systems can’t be upgraded to give the system a longer useful life. But Intel has failed to perform over the past 5 years regarding advances in manufacturing technology (no where near ready to offer 5nm chips). Intel could be offering more tightly coupled CPU/RAM architectures. Or lower power consumption designs for laptops. Or advancing Windows on ARM technology. Intel missed the boat on mobile platform technology as well. And since Microsoft is in control of Windows there will never be the tight hardware/OS coupling Apple Silicon offers. Intel was fat, dumb and happy and unmotivated to innovate. Plus Intel should have not have been surprised by Apple’s move to new technology. IBM and before them, Motorola were both pushed aside by Apple as changes to new CPU technologies occurred. I think Intel is pushing this advertising campaign because of a bruised ego and trying to prove to the stock market that they haven’t totally messed up. I don’t think they have any expectation that Apple is capable of converting a huge chunk of the Wintel market to Apple - there’s too much inertia to overcome. Kudos to Apple for truly innovating.
Tim Cook just needs to be careful that Apple doesn’t wind up being the real world personification of the crazed security apparatus found at Hooli in “Silicon Valley.” Security is important but Tim needs to make sure Apple doesn’t loose agility or innovation at the expense of security. Year to year updates to existing products are less of a security issue than brand new products. Software capabilities will overtake hardware capabilities as revenue continues to shift from devices to services. For most people it’s affordability that drives purchasing decisions vs. gee wiz new features of hardware.
New product secrecy and IP are clearly very important to Apple. But Apple’s success has created a demand for advance product information unlike any other in any industry. A whole industry of predicting Apple’s product strategy has developed over the years. In many ways that’s a measure of just how successful Apple has been. Of course it’s not just the fan boys who want inside information. It’s also the Wall Street crowd. But Tim has to be careful. Creating a corporate culture that’s so locked down in the interest of protecting information can in fact stymie innovation, communication and colleagueality. I think leaks need to be an accepted reality of life at Apple. “Doubling down” is just a heavy hammer threat that may or may not produce the desired outcomes and could have unforeseen negative consequences. Apple needs to grow its disinformation capabilities vs. trying to plug all the leaks in the organization. As far as preventing the leaking of internal organizational information/emails/meeting notes, that too is mission impossible. In an organization with 150k employees you will never succeed in preventing external data transfer. You’ll never have 150k happy employees. So there will always be disgruntled staff who feel a need to share internal information with outsiders as a way of seeking retribution. Perhaps internal communication needs to be segmented and true open communication is an unattainable dream. Tim needs to manage to this reality.
How much performance do people want out of a handheld computer? How much performance is actually needed? Unless Apple significantly increases the number of megapixels in their camera I’d argue you don’t need any more performance than what the 13 Pro offers. The challenge Apple has is they need to continuously offer “compelling” reasons to justify the premium price of the iPhone. Android has a superior market share. But Apple has an incredible share of the market measured in dollars and average price per device sold. The performance numbers are more important with the M series of laptop and desktop CPUs.