MacBidouille details Motorola's position on Apple's potential lawsuit, as well as new objections from Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola CounterAttack?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Translation
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.
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.
a couple points i must object to:
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.
same reason as #1; apple realized that licensing the os out was costing them hardware sales, so clones were discontinued.
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.
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)
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.
same reason as #1; apple realized that licensing the os out was costing them hardware sales, so clones were discontinued.
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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
"
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
Re: Translation
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.
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.
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.
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.
as for mobile...
besides nextel, motorola doesn't have any innovative phones. and direct connect is convenient but sounds like crap
besides nextel, motorola doesn't have any innovative phones. and direct connect is convenient but sounds like crap
-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.
Advance production plants?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Translation
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
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
Lionel Hutz
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.
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.
layoffs?
"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.
"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.
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
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
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.
-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.
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?"
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?"
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.
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