PDA

View Full Version : Motorola CounterAttack?




MacRumors
Apr 21, 2003, 02:16 AM
MacBidouille (http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-04-21#5301) details Motorola's position on Apple's potential lawsuit, as well as new objections from Apple.



Nermal
Apr 21, 2003, 02:50 AM
Here's a rough translation:


Since Motorola knows about Apple's intentions for a lawsuit, the microprocessor manufacturer decided to counter-attack.

Here is the list of objections and justifications by Motorola:

1) By stopping the clones, Apple deprived Motorola of sales.
2) Apple was unfaiarly refusing to licence its operating system.
3) Apple contributed to its failure by making the Mac OS only function on PPC.
4) [Not sure what this one says]
5) Apple has pressured Motorola into unrealistic objectives for the delivery of the chips (refer to item 4).

Here is the list of objections by Apple:

1) Motorola worsened Apple's company crisis by failing to provide chips exceeding 500 MHz, and by [firing?] half of the engineers working on the G4. The 7450 was therefore delayed by one year.
2) Motorola engaged in anti-competitive practices by refusing to give permission to IBM to sell 7400 chips faster than Motorola could manufacture. IBM managed to manufacture 800 MHz G4s in volume whereas Motorola reached a maximum of 500 MHz.
3) Motorola blocked IBM again with Altivec. It refused to let IBM use Altivec in their G4 chips, but G3 + Altivec could be manufactured. Motorola gave the green flag to IBM after they officially abandoned the G5.

All this information is given without any interpretation or judgement.

Note that it is extremely interesting to learn that IBM can manufacture G4s quickly. They will probably be used in the new entry-level Apple machines. It is not very probable that Motorola will continue to work with Apple as they continue to diverge.

woodsey
Apr 21, 2003, 03:50 AM
4) Motorola also reproaches
them their attitude in the event of delay of delivery of the chips.
They required the large ones lowers tariff under penalty of refusing
the deliveries

mangoduck
Apr 21, 2003, 03:50 AM
a couple points i must object to:

1) By stopping the clones, Apple deprived Motorola of sales.

if apple hadn't stopped the clones, they would have jeopardized their own comapny and probably wouldn't be here today, or the mac platform either. a company is not required to risk its own "life" to make other companies happy.

if anything, apple saved any investment moto had in them by doing what they did. if apple weren't here moto would have lost that revenue anyway because the platform would no longer be viable. who would use macs if the os weren't constantly updated? it would become obsolete very fast despite availability of faster machines.

2) Apple was unfaiarly refusing to licence its operating system.

same reason as #1; apple realized that licensing the os out was costing them hardware sales, so clones were discontinued.

3) Apple contributed to its failure by making the Mac OS only function on PPC.

again related to the above. however in addition, apple's "whole widget" strategy is well known, and is what keeps the system software so tightly integrated with hardware. i know of nothing that states that an operating system must function on more than one platform (even windows runs on x86 alone). after all, being that apple is responsible for the development of both the hardware architecture and the os (they own rights to both), and taking into account their low marketshare, the term antitrust doesn't enter into this. these are not strong-arm tactics.

4) [Not sure what this one says]
5) Apple has pressured Motorola into unrealistic objectives for the delivery of the chips (refer to item 4).

i wouldn't know about development times for chips, and if apple did pressure them into delivering sooner than is reasonably possible. but from what i've read it was moto that bailed on the g5. (don't know the reason. anyone have info?) moto shouldn't have agreed on the timeframe they did if they had the slightest idea it was going to be a problem.

also, ibm was able to produce faster g4s than moto, and in volume. this proves that the timeframe moto was given wasn't unreasonable.

longer than i expected, but i believe all my points are valid. criticisms welcome

(spelling edit)

Abstract
Apr 21, 2003, 03:55 AM
Apple:
4) Motorola cost us money through their incompetence.

Motorola:
5) Oh yeah, well Steve Jobs is a stinky poopy-face. Grrrrrrrrr!!


Well said, Moto. Well said. :D

huzur
Apr 21, 2003, 05:05 AM
"Note that it is extremely interesting to learn that IBM can manufacture G4s quickly. They will probably be used in the new entry-level Apple machines. It is not very probable that Motorola will continue to work with Apple as they continue to diverge.
"


ITs not that interesting, IBM has some of the most advance production plants if not the most advance in the world. I could be wrong but last time I read about it was
IBM
INTEL
AMD
VIA
and at the end Motorola

Bear
Apr 21, 2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Nermal
...
3) Apple contributed to its failure by making the Mac OS only function on PPC.
...
Since when is this a problem? Especially since the G3 and G4 are PPC chips.

If Apple had released Mac OS on anothe rprocessor, that wouldve probably dropped Motorola chip sales even more.

This makes you wonder what the rumor writes are imbibing to come up with this stuff.

JtheLemur
Apr 21, 2003, 07:59 AM
Mwahahaha, they ARE bitter about the clones!!! Bear, you really hit the nail on the head:

Moto: You guys stink, only making your OS compatible with PPCs!

Apple: Fine, we'll move the works over to Intel and AMD kit. *click*

Moto: Hello? *taps hook a few times* Don't tell me there's one of OUR processors in this damn phone? Crap.

Like I said elsewhere, Motorola is really the loser in the IT and communications industry. Heck, look at their mobile sector. Completely lackluster, devoid of any innovation. I know a few companies that have swtiched from Moto to Kenwood 2-ways, tons better.

chrisfx811
Apr 21, 2003, 08:02 AM
as for mobile...
besides nextel, motorola doesn't have any innovative phones. and direct connect is convenient but sounds like crap

patrick0brien
Apr 21, 2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Abstract
Motorola:
5) Oh yeah, well Steve Jobs is a stinky poopy-face. Grrrrrrrrr!!


-Abstract

You know, I think that's exactly what is being said here. I don't see any legal case to these claims by Moto. No solid numbers to point to whereage Apple has reams.

Seems like blowback noise to me.

ldjessee
Apr 21, 2003, 10:20 AM
Hello,

As for 'IBM having the most advanced production plants', I would say depends on what you call advanced.

IBMs plants are more flexible, and can produce more reliably than alot of its competitors, but I have yet to hear anything as advance as Intel's X-Ray laser lithograph 'printing' of their mobile processor line.

NavyIntel007
Apr 21, 2003, 10:21 AM
Moto has no legal claims. This is the biggest joke I've seen. Moto is complaining about OS X only running on PPC? But that's the only desktop-capable processor they make. So are they saying that Apple should look elsewhere? That's fine IBM is around. Apparently the CEO at Moto forgot that part of your objectives in a company is to increase revenue and marketshare.

Durendal
Apr 21, 2003, 10:27 AM
Good! With Apple going to IBM for the 970, they can finally kick Motorola to the curb for good. Motorola sucks. Apple should have dropped them sooner. Their chip facilities suck horribly. IBM has some really snazzy facilities, as well as more capital and resources. I haven't seen IBM laying off scores of employees like Motorola has. Motorola is talking out of their asses on this one. I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped PPC developement all together, even in the embedded market. Good riddance.

-hh
Apr 21, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Nermal
Here's a rough translation:
...
All this information is given without any interpretation or judgement.

Note that it is extremely interesting to learn that IBM can manufacture G4s quickly. They will probably be used in the new entry-level Apple machines. It is not very probable that Motorola will continue to work with Apple as they continue to diverge.


I find the statements quite interesting, mostly from the perspective of "perhaps true, but irrelevant".

Regardless of what the past history has been between Moto & Apple, what's relevent here is the contract that existed for the development of the G5. While it is hard to predict and schedule innovation, chip revisions shouldn't be that profoundly hard, and it appears that the gist of Apple's case will probably be if they can make the case that the classical contract clause of "Best Effort" was or was not met by Moto.

Given how far behind the rest of the Industry that Moto has put itself, and given how they reportedly pulled the plug on the effort, Apple should probably get their due.

There are some big "IF's" though - - such as the specifics of the agreement, and if Apple sent any R&D money over to Moto to do the work. If it was a zero-dollar investment from Apple, then there's probably a lot less substance for them to hang their hat on.


-hh

MrMacMan
Apr 21, 2003, 10:39 AM
Bah, the next super lawsuit of the Century! (fadeout)

MarksEvilTwin
Apr 21, 2003, 11:02 AM
Removed

boobers
Apr 21, 2003, 11:59 AM
1) By stopping the clones, Apple deprived Motorola of sales.
2) Apple was unfairly refusing to licence its operating system.
3) Apple contributed to its failure by making the Mac OS only function on PPC.

These 3 points are pretty much the same.

Apple's business model is "an integrated hardware/software computer company.
This is not anti competitive but its just the structure of their business.
M$ doesn't have a PPC version of Doze.
Number 3 surprises me. How is this claim going to get Moto money in a lawsuit? If anything Moto would have sold MORE PPC's because of this statement. Lionel Hutz must work for Moto.
:D

bigrock
Apr 21, 2003, 12:01 PM
"I haven't seen IBM laying off scores of employees like Motorola has."

you must not have been looking too hard. ibm had layoffs by the thousands in 2001 and 2002.

pgwalsh
Apr 21, 2003, 12:26 PM
With Motorola out of the ppc race, we are left with IBM, which most seem to be pleased with. However, if I were a manufacturer and I saw this lawsuit, I'd be weary of doing business with Apple.

On another note, if Apple goes with IBM, they are still stuck with one supplier. At least the x86 camp has competition with Intel and AMD. In addition VIA is making processors that already reached 1Ghz. PPC needs more competition, that will push the clock ratings.

Options

Bear
Apr 21, 2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
With Motorola out of the ppc race, we are left with IBM, which most seem to be pleased with. However, if I were a manufacturer and I saw this lawsuit, I'd be weary of doing business with Apple.
...
Remember these lawsuits are all rumors at this point. However let's say for the sake of argument, that apple does file a lawsuit against Motorola. If it is justified by the contract, then IBM should not hesitate to do business with Apple, since all would be controlled by a contract and IBM would do the same thing as Apple in the same type of circumstances.

patrick0brien
Apr 21, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
On another note, if Apple goes with IBM, they are still stuck with one supplier. At least the x86 camp has competition with Intel and AMD. In addition VIA is making processors that already reached 1Ghz. PPC needs more competition, that will push the clock ratings.


-pgwalsh

All good points, but I have one to add that might mitigate these a little.

IBM "eat's its own dog food" Intel and AMD are primarily component manufacturers/sellers, while IBM actially makes more of the complete computer picture: HD's, Chassis, Software, Servers, Mobos, and chips. They have a vested interest and the means to employ them to a depth unlike Intel AMD or Moto.

Like Apple, IBM makes "Whole Widgets"

I feel that this could be a start of a beautiful relationship.

Fukui
Apr 21, 2003, 02:11 PM
At least the x86 camp has competition with Intel and AMD.
If you call licensing the X86 instruction set from Intel competition...they could cut them out any time they want, the only reason AMD is still around is the same reason that Microsoft lets Apple be around: fear of the "Monopoly Police" (D.O.J).

GPTurismo
Apr 21, 2003, 02:54 PM
I think it's funny they said that apple hurt them by not making OSX run on other processors?

Moto: "You aren't giving us enough money to uphold our contract, use other processors other than PPC"
Apple: "Okay, do you have Intel, AMD and IBMs number handy?"

pgwalsh
Apr 21, 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
If you call licensing the X86 instruction set from Intel competition...they could cut them out any time they want, the only reason AMD is still around is the same reason that Microsoft lets Apple be around: fear of the "Monopoly Police" (D.O.J). Correct me if I'm wrong but, my understanding is that AMD doesn't license x86 they use emulation. I know VIA does as they just got out of a lawsuit, but they have 3 years to change the process they're using.

-patrick0brien
They may eat their own food, but that also means they can move at there own pace. They do compete in certain areas with Intel and collaborate with AMD etc. So, in some sense there is competition. They have competition in the embedded market from cisco and the like (I think).

Regardless, I would like to see another player in the PPC market place. I thought I read somewhere that third parties can license the chip for manufacturing purposes? It would be interesting if AMD walked this road as there is a market for PPC on Linux.

-hh
Apr 21, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Bear
Remember these lawsuits are all rumors at this point. However let's say for the sake of argument, that apple does file a lawsuit against Motorola. If it is justified by the contract, then IBM should not hesitate to do business with Apple, since all would be controlled by a contract and IBM would do the same thing as Apple in the same type of circumstances.


I think its also appropriate to look at why Apple might want to go through all of the cost and grief of filing a lawsuit.

IMO, the most likely reason why is because they want to find something that Motorola is in breach of, so that they may terminate the balance of the contract.

Said "balance" might be something like a delivery schedule commitment from Apple to buy a couple of million 867MHz G4's through 2003 & 2004.

If Apple's going with IBM and the 970, they'll want to find a way to avoid paying Moto for some hardware that they're not going to use. Hence, accuse them of breach of contract so that you can walk away from the commitment.

This is the way business is played. The unfortuante part about it is that neither Apple nor Motorola would have to jump through such hoops if they both concentrated on delivering the highest quality products.


Its just a personal opinion, but the fact that Apple has gone to IBM and has obviously spent a lot of money for spooling up with the 970 after Moto's G5 went belly-up is pretty much the pragmatic proof that Moto was the one who failed here, not Apple.


-hh

tcolling
Apr 21, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
PPC needs more competition, that will push the clock ratings.



PPC has all the competition it can handle and needs, namely, Intel, AMD, and any other x86 processor manufacturers.

pgwalsh
Apr 21, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by tcolling
PPC has all the competition it can handle and needs, namely, Intel, AMD, and any other x86 processor manufacturers. Right and how many desktop software vendors are delivering products for the PPC platform? It's a parallel market, but it's not the same market. Apple is in the desktop and now the low end server market where competition for PPC CPU speed is limited. IBM is developing the PPC for low end linux servers for small businesses. We wont get the push - I don't think - as the wintel crowd is getting.

What's key for the linux group and the PPC 970 is the 64bit. However, AMD has released a 64 bit cpu that's x86 32bit compatible.

GeneR
Apr 21, 2003, 06:59 PM
Sounds like Moto's just throwing a lot of hot wind at Apple to obscure the issue. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. :o

tcolling
Apr 21, 2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Right and how many desktop software vendors are delivering products for the PPC platform? It's a parallel market, but it's not the same market. Apple is in the desktop and now the low end server market where competition for PPC CPU speed is limited. IBM is developing the PPC for low end linux servers for small businesses. We wont get the push - I don't think - as the wintel crowd is getting.

What's key for the linux group and the PPC 970 is the 64bit. However, AMD has released a 64 bit cpu that's x86 32bit compatible.

Yes, but now you're talking software. All I'm saying is that there is plenty of competition for the processors to kick whomever the manufacturer is in the tail. Apple may be small potatoes compared to the Intel/AMD world, but that 5% of the market beats 0% of the market, and if IBM wants to make it in that world, they will have to make a processor that will allow Apple and themselves to survive in that market, not to mention grow.

huzur
Apr 21, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by tcolling
Yes, but now you're talking software. All I'm saying is that there is plenty of competition for the processors to kick whomever the manufacturer is in the tail. Apple may be small potatoes compared to the Intel/AMD world, but that 5% of the market beats 0% of the market, and if IBM wants to make it in that world, they will have to make a processor that will allow Apple and themselves to survive in that market, not to mention grow.

what is needed is more competition in the same market, dosent matter what AMD and Intel can do, MacOS runs on PPC not Intel and if Apple only has one vender to buy PPC cpu's from thats not competition. Now if AMD or Intel started making PPC CPUs for the Mac then that would be competition :)

iSmell
Apr 22, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Durendal
I haven't seen IBM laying off scores of employees like Motorola has.

Ha! They layed off half of Vermont. They're still in better shape than Moto, though. And some of their commercials are even kind of funny (which is what really counts).





Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes

Fukui
Apr 22, 2003, 03:25 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but, my understanding is that AMD doesn't license x86 they use emulation. I know VIA does as they just got out of a lawsuit, but they have 3 years to change the process they're using.


No way they use "emulation" thats what the Crusoe chips do and their damn slow at it...AMD does in fact license the X86 instruction set from Intel, remember, X86 BELONGS to Intel (a monopoly), PPC instruction set belongs to IBM, APPLE, and MOTO, if another company wanted to compete with them, they would have to license the instruction set which I hear Fujitu or NEC (I forget what company) was going to do with the PPC chip. Fujitu does license SPARC as well for example.

There is NO viable competition (i.e actually has a chance in hell of winning a majority share) in two key areas in the PC world, one is in Office Software/Operating Systems (Microsoft) and the other is in the CPU (Intel). Calling apple a monopoly for integrating their products (even though they have minority marketshare) is like saying Nintendo has a monopoly on Gamecubes!! If only Nintendo would license their Gamecube chipset to third parties then they would lower their prices because of increased competition in the GC market - see how ridiculous that sounds? If anything it would be sony or X-box would cause them to lower their price/improve features...similarly intel/MS and companies like DELL will eventually force Apple's hand, and they will lower their prices and release systems that users demand...if you have competition in in a MARKETPLACE (which is what counts) your a company like apple, if you have competition in/with your own product line (because of monopoly) your Microsoft.

tcolling
Apr 22, 2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by huzur
what is needed is more competition in the same market, dosent matter what AMD and Intel can do, MacOS runs on PPC not Intel and if Apple only has one vender to buy PPC cpu's from thats not competition. Now if AMD or Intel started making PPC CPUs for the Mac then that would be competition :)

I totally disagree. Let's say Joe/Joan Consumer decides he wants to buy a computer. Does he say "hmmm, should I buy an Apple with a Motorola chip, or one with an IBM chip?" No, he says, "should I buy an Apple, or a Dell, or a Compaq, HP, emachines, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. (or maybe just any old Windows machine). Then he decides what his/her best value is based on his/her criteria.

It's the same as gaming consoles. Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. Playstation. Each one has its own design and chips, but they all compete against each other.

If AMD and Intel started making PPC cpu's, then, arguably, there would be LESS competition, because they would no longer have to compete with Apple's platform, forming a mini-monopoly (sound like anyone familiar?).

I am not saying Apple isn't behind, and don't need to do something, I'm just saying that there is plenty of competition in chip manufacturing.

pgwalsh
Apr 22, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by tcolling
I totally disagree. Let's say Joe/Joan Consumer decides he wants to buy a computer. Does he say "hmmm, should I buy an Apple with a Motorola chip, or one with an IBM chip?" No, he says, "should I buy an Apple, or a Dell, or a Compaq, HP, emachines, Alienware, etc., etc., etc. (or maybe just any old Windows machine). Then he decides what his/her best value is based on his/her criteria. I don't quite follow what you're saying.
Jor or Joan consumer wouldn't get a choice in the chip, that's a decision Apple makes for them. With more than one PPC manufacturer they have competition within the PPC market. They wont be selling just to Apple.

tcolling
Apr 22, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I don't quite follow what you're saying.
Jor or Joan consumer wouldn't get a choice in the chip, that's a decision Apple makes for them. With more than one PPC manufacturer they have competition within the PPC market. They wont be selling just to Apple.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you prefer the Motorola vs. IBM supplying to Apple, not an actual separate PPC computer manufactured by some other company besides Apple.

I would have to agree, an alternate PPC based computer system (a viable one, I'm not sure whether the Amiga falls into that category), but only along with a different PPC manufacturer partnership, would create a competitive market within Apple's "niche".

eric_n_dfw
Apr 22, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Fukui

No way they use "emulation" thats what the Crusoe chips do and their damn slow at it...AMD does in fact license the X86 instruction set from Intel, remember, X86 BELONGS to Intel (a monopoly), PPC instruction set belongs to IBM, APPLE, and MOTO, if another company wanted to compete with them, they would have to license the instruction set which I hear Fujitu or NEC (I forget what company) was going to do with the PPC chip. Fujitu does license SPARC as well for example. I may be completely off base, but didn't AMD reverse engineer the IA32 ISA? (Which is now just a front end to the RISC core that they use anyway)

Emulation is the wrong word - as far as I knew, they wrote their own, compatible ISA and went from there, much the same way the 1st PC clones used a reverse engineered BIOS that was compatible with IBM's.

Why in the world would Intel want to license the ISA to anyone anyway?

pgwalsh
Apr 22, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by tcolling
I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you prefer the Motorola vs. IBM supplying to Apple, not an actual separate PPC computer manufactured by some other company besides Apple.

I would have to agree, an alternate PPC based computer system (a viable one, I'm not sure whether the Amiga falls into that category), but only along with a different PPC manufacturer partnership, would create a competitive market within Apple's "niche". Cool :cool:

I'm not partial about one manufacturer or another. As long as Apple's end product is competitive or better than the market they compete in.

Fukui
Apr 23, 2003, 12:15 AM
I may be completely off base, but didn't AMD reverse engineer the IA32 ISA? (Which is now just a front end to the RISC core that they use anyway)

No, they were one of the original "manufacturing buddies" that actually licenced from Intel, them and Cyrix if you remember them...

pgwalsh
Apr 23, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
No, they were one of the original "manufacturing buddies" that actually licenced from Intel, them and Cyrix if you remember them... Well the CISC instructions are the front end of AMD's cpu's They use RISC in the backend.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,39128,00.asp

But that doesn't mean they didn't license the CISC instructions. Just can't find any press releases that state that they did.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,368747-2,00.html

This article suggests through a lawsuit that AMD is pretty much free to do what they want as long as they have a separate chipset from Intel, which is the case.

Scottgfx
Apr 29, 2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by -hh

Regardless of what the past history has been between Moto & Apple, what's relevent here is the contract that existed for the development of the G5.
-hh

Also, if Moto was so profoundly angered by the clone issue, they should never had signed the contract with Apple to make the G5 chips. Someone at Moto, at some point, must have thought that working with Apple would be a "good thing".

Scottgfx
Apr 29, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Bear
Remember these lawsuits are all rumors at this point. However let's say for the sake of argument, that apple does file a lawsuit against Motorola. If it is justified by the contract, then IBM should not hesitate to do business with Apple, since all would be controlled by a contract and IBM would do the same thing as Apple in the same type of circumstances.

And if Apple doesn't stand up for it's rights, what's to keep the next supplier from backing out from their contract. They could say, "Well, you let Moto get away with it, why not us."

I used to have a strong respect for Motorola but they went off-course somewhere in the mid to late `90's. I'm even a bit saddened that they haven't further developed the 680X0 processors. If Intel could keep the bastard child of the 4004/8088 going, imagine where the 68000 series could be today. :)