Motorola Spins Off Semiconductor Business

[MacRumors]

Motorola has announced (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2003%2F10%2F06%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fmotorola%2F) that it is spinning off its semiconductor business into a separate publicly traded company.

The move is said to reflect Motorola's "increasing focus on finished communications products, such as wireless networks and cell phones."

Motorola's Semiconductor group is responsible for their version of the PowerPC processor, that has been used in Apple's laptops and desktop machines in recent years.

[Stike]

Bye bye Moto... we will never look back.

Hello IBM :)

[ennerseed]

Hopefully the new company will have new management. Anything new has to be better.

[Squire]

Can we assume this is a good move? Probably, eh? The folks at Motorola have been doing a pretty fine job of messing up their semiconductor business.

Squire

[Ambrose Chapel]

does this make it more or less likely that it will be sold to another company?

[OutThere]

I think that any step away from moto is a good one. If the new spinoff has its own management and production I think that we will see improvement in the waiting periods for the moto G4s.

[stockscalper]

Motorola had been in a joint venture with another group to produce the Power PC's and couldn't deliver the product and I dont' expect this new venture will do any better. This is just final confirmation that Apple needs to dump the Moto chip entirely and go entirely with IBM.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Stike
Bye bye Moto... we will never look back.

Hello IBM :)
I would say the opposite. It was clear that Motorola's priorities lied elsewhere. If they spinoff their chip manufacturing unit, that new unit will have a very different focus. Their job WILL BE to sell chips. Hence the (possibly) interesting new developments.

[PyroTurtle]

so, what does apple really need with the moto style chips at the moment? besides the powerbooks sence the current G5 is too hot...of cource i'd rather have a dual G3 with altivec(-ish) ;)

[dietsoda]

I'm amazed at how many people seem to think it would be a "Good Idea®" for Apple to drop Motorola completely.

I've no doubt in IBM's commitment to the PowerPC (they have their own aims and uses for it beside Apple), but to be reliant on only one chip maker is utter foly. Apple needs to keep their options open, and I've no doubt they will, despite Moto's dubious track record.

If this means that Moto stay in the picture then great, but if it means that Moto are trying to isolate themselves in preperation to wind up the semi-conductor division of their buisness, then that is bad for Apple, and bad for us.

[Goblin2099]

Guys, they're not doing this to help their semiconductor business. The point of this move is to make their balance sheets look prettier: their semiconductor division is losing so much money that the stuff they actually make a profit on isn't an alluring investment. This way, Motorola-proper can actually look like a decent company while Motorola-processors dies a slow death in the corner with no one watching.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by dietsoda
if it means that Moto are trying to isolate themselves in preperation to wind up the semi-conductor division of their buisness, then that is bad for Apple, and bad for us.
The article says spin-off, not wind-up. So there's hope (apparently).

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Motorola has announced (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2003%2F10%2F06%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fmotorola%2F) that it is spinning off its semiconductor business into a seperate publically traded company.

The move is said to reflect Motorola's "increasing focus on finished communications products, such as wireless networks and cell phones."

Motorola's Semiconductor group is responsible for their version of the PowerPC processor, that has been used in Apple's laptops and desktop machines in recent years.

Spinning off usually has benefits to the spinoff. The original offer price generally goes to the seller. The management team that takes over are the ones who wanted to be separated from the nipple all along and thus are the more "processor centric" folks.

The spinoff can then do a public offering and KEEP THE MONEY.

That usually involves telling a story to investors regarding forward looking statements. Anybody seen this story first hand yet?

Spinning off makes sense for Motorola and depending on how a stock offering goes it could be good for PowerPC at the new unit. PowerPC is now used in a wide variety of components. Not just macs.

This is one story where macrumors should follow the financial wires and disclosures for news.

Rocketman

[Chaszmyr]

This company will likely be an improvement over motorola's chips (like it was said, motorola's priorities were elsewhere but this company will have to make a profit with their chips) and will likely be used for future consumer Apple products.

However, the G5 is the finest desktop chip ever made... I don't know that this new company would be able to catch up with IBM

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Goblin2099
Guys, they're not doing this to help their semiconductor business. The point of this move is to make their balance sheets look prettier: their semiconductor division is losing so much money that the stuff they actually make a profit on isn't an alluring investment. This way, Motorola-proper can actually look like a decent company while Motorola-processors dies a slow death in the corner with no one watching.
Well you are aware that they need to sell it, and that the price they will get will depend on the health of the semiconductor business, comprising whatever they choose to put in it. If they spin-off a entity with loads of debts and very little prospect, well they won't be able cause noone will want it.

[MadMan]

Originally posted by NicoMan
I would say the opposite. It was clear that Motorola's priorities lied elsewhere. If they spinoff their chip manufacturing unit, that new unit will have a very different focus. Their job WILL BE to sell chips. Hence the (possibly) interesting new developments.

I agree with NicoMan...

Getting away from a company that just wants to sell phones, has got to be a good thing for the chip business.

Once completed, the spin-off will force the chip business to focus on selling chips and hopefully bring about a much more rapid improvement across the board. This MAY, REPEAT, MAY have the benefit of driving forward SPS's PowerPC development as they look to increase sales and income.

Another thing to remember is that SPS became "asset-light" over the past few years. Meaning they closed up their fabs and outsourced their manufacturing while laying off a ton of people.

Here's to hope :)

:cool:

MM

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by NicoMan
Well you are aware that they need to sell it, and that the price they will get will depend on the health of the semiconductor business, comprising whatever they choose to put in it. If they spin-off a entity with loads of debts and very little prospect, well they won't be able cause noone will want it.



From a (freindly) news service:

Motorola plans to IPO (initial public offering) a portion of the SPS shares, distributing the remainder to existing Motorola shareholders.

"We are embarking on the creation of a new company, and we are excited about the opportunity ahead of us," said SPS president Scott Anderson. "We have strategic and productivity initiatives already in place that are driving a sustainable difference in our approach to the semiconductor market."

PowerPC processor development and manufacture will also be spun-out as part of the SPS IPO, according to Weyrauch.

So part IPO and part stock swap. Motorola shareholders will have "free" shares of SPS (whatever they will eventually call it). Only the IPO portion will capitalize projects and the reason Mot is sumping SPS is because it was hemmoraging cash. One wonders if a spinoff can solve that AND maintain any impressive R&D.

I got the impression SPS was being groomed to be a subletting jobshop with a few value added in-house functions.

Rocketman

[dongmin]

Originally posted by Goblin2099
Guys, they're not doing this to help their semiconductor business. The point of this move is to make their balance sheets look prettier: their semiconductor division is losing so much money that the stuff they actually make a profit on isn't an alluring investment. This way, Motorola-proper can actually look like a decent company while Motorola-processors dies a slow death in the corner with no one watching.

agreed. This is a market-oriented move on Moto's part. Weren't there rumors recently of Moto looking for a buyer for their semiconductors biz? My guess is that their potential suitors said 'thanks but no thanks.' So Moto had no choice but to loose it. It only goes to show howbadly the division was managed and how far it had fallen.

Anyways, any news is good news, for a down in the dumps outfit like the Moto semiconductor division. Maybe the new management will get their act together and learn how to get decent yields on their chips. Probably not.

[tpjunkie]

I like it. Creating a company focussed only producing chips means more R&D, better motivation to get chips out as scheduled, and may even possibly help create some competition for IBM. Don't get me wrong, I love that IBM is producing apple's G5 chips, but competition breeds innovation.

[Fender2112]

I wonder if the new company will continue the AIM partnership. Maybe IBM will be the buyer.

[yamabushi]

IBM is doing a great job, but is it a good idea to rely upon a single supplier? Also, while IBM and Apple are friendly right now, who knows what the future holds? IBM might get annoyed if Apple performs a miracle and gains market share for high end servers, for example. Also, relying on a single chip fab means being at the mercy of the production limits for that fab, as well as sharing with other customers.

Maybe Apple should ask IBM to help build their own fab. The investment required would be huge but a shared use fab with IBM might work. Plus, the new fab could include all of the cutting edge tech such as a .065 micron process, silicon on insulator chips, double gates, etc. A PowerPC 980 chip could easily run at 10 Ghz with production in early 2007. IBM has already been testing chips similar to these with very promising results.

Sun might also want to partner, especially if the fab is built in Texas near their production HQ at TI. Either build new Sparc chips at the fab or convince Sun to switch to PowerPC.

For that matter, perhaps Apple should acquire Sun via a leveraged buyout. Using this method it is possible for a company to acquire another company Solaris shares it's BSD origins with OSX so providing support for legacy Solaris Apps could be possible. More recent SYSV based apps could continue to be supported on existing hardware while newer apps could be built for newer hardware. This could turn into a major migration, as in the move from OS9 to OSX. This would be a dramatic change for Sun, just as it was with Apple. The potential benefits might be worth it for Apple as the acquirer, if not for Sun. Apple would gain a large pool of talented employees and greatly expand their market share.

(edited for clarity- sorry about the confusion)

[davey-nb]

Spell checkers help the appearance of editorial integrity. :)

[bluedalmatian]

hello dietsoda - my god somebody with some sense instead of childish motorola bashing

[Chaszmyr]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Maybe Apple should ask IBM to help build their own fab. The investment required would be huge but a shared use fab with IBM might work.

Apple does not have the resources to maintain a fab, and it would not be in their financial interest to have one. Not to mention the fact that they couldnt really afford one. IBM's fab produces chips for IBM, AMD, nVidia etc... An IBM/Apple fab just wouldn't be sensible in my opinion

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Fender2112
I wonder if the new company will continue the AIM partnership. Maybe IBM will be the buyer.
That's a very good question. One would hope that the spin-off is the part that retains PowerPC rights.

[GPTurismo]

Whenever a company spins off a money loosing department of that scale they re doing it for a buyout. End of story. Maybe IBM will chomp down on the little guy and take over all manufacturering of PPC's.

That is if they are through with SCO's bones in the near future ... <eg>

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Rocketman
So part IPO and part stock swap. Motorola shareholders will have "free" shares of SPS (whatever they will eventually call it). Only the IPO portion will capitalize projects and the reason Mot is sumping SPS is because it was hemmoraging cash. One wonders if a spinoff can solve that AND maintain any impressive R&D.

I got the impression SPS was being groomed to be a subletting jobshop with a few value added in-house functions.

Rocketman
Well it is going to depend on what sort of ratio IPO/swap they are going to go for, as well as exchange ratio for the stocks. All in all, you can't escape the valuation process, which means that Moto will HAVE TO make SPS look good on paper.

[Lanbrown]

Yamabushi,

What are you talking about? Sun does not have a HQ in Texas; their HQ is in California. Sun uses the fabs at Ti for their chips; they have had a long partnership with them and won't be moving anytime soon. Ti showcases the SPARC processor, learns a few things and might even be able to license Sun technology for their own use. There is no way Sun would go to the PowerPC platform, mainly for two reasons. First, binary compatibility would be gone. This is why Sun retains so many customers and why they are number one in market share. The second is because IBM uses it.

You are forgetting that Ti has some experience and technology that IBM and others can't use and is the best in the industry. There is no reason why Sun would want to leave Ti. All SPARC processors are made in the US in a Ti plant. That shows commitment from Sun.

Running your own fab is very expensive; Apple does not sell enough processors/chipsets to warrant one. A fab needs to be close to full capacity to pay for itself and keep it up to date. If you have a fab(s) that are not fully utilized, the cost cannot be justified to upgrade it. A perfect example is the Motorola semiconductor division. They have just moved to .13 while the rest of the industry is moving to .09.

[Phinius]

Originally posted by Stike
Bye bye Moto... we will never look back.

Hello IBM :)

IBM Power chip line is increasingly being squeezed by Intel's Itanium processor and IBM has been losing money at chip making for some time. So the future for IBM's Power chip business is kind of cloudly long term.

[MadMan]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Maybe IBM will chomp down on the little guy and take over all manufacturering of PPC's.

IIRC, Moto's SPS doesn't do most of their own manufacturing any more. They outsource. This could be the reason why they are having a hard time getting the process down and delivering faster, smaller chips.

Most contract fabs are still using the .13 process and will be farther behind the shift to .09 then a company like IBM or TI that has it's own fabs and a good .09 process. I think that even Intel is having problems moving to .09.

FWIW, while I'm EXTREMELY happy that IBM is moving rapidly ahead with the G5, et al, I hope that SPS, using it's soon to be freedom from Moto, will get back in the race and be a good second source for Apple to use/choose from.

:cool:

MM

[DeusOmnis]

Although the new Moto spinoff would be better than just moto by itself, IBM is still a much better choice since IBM is focusing on putting out excellent chips for Apple and IBM has excellent resources throughout the entire company. Also, the spinoff is likely to focus on application processors and it is likely to be a small company.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Motorola has announced (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2003%2F10%2F06%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fmotorola%2F) that it is spinning off its semiconductor business into a separate publicly traded company.

The move is said to reflect Motorola's "increasing focus on finished communications products, such as wireless networks and cell phones."

Motorola's Semiconductor group is responsible for their version of the PowerPC processor, that has been used in Apple's laptops and desktop machines in recent years.

I think that this is great news for Apple. If new management can get the semiconductor business in order under this spinoff then IBM has got two sources for PPC chips that can be manufactured to suit various needs. Moto's semiconductor business was once the best in the business, keeping Macintosh ahead of the PCs in speed and overall strength of processor until about 2000/2001. They've stalled the past few years, but I think that has a lot to do with Moto's shifting focus. Now the spinoff will be able to get some new $$$ with a public sale and be able to focus solely on chip manufacture. We may see a next generation PPC from Motorola sooner than expected, giving Apple the ability to have very diverse chip offerings and, with luck, lower costs.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by MadMan
Most contract fabs are still using the .13 process and will be farther behind the shift to .09 then a company like IBM or TI that has it's own fabs and a good .09 process. I think that even Intel is having problems moving to .09.

The reason why Intel is having trouble moving to a 0.09 process is that they have chosen a different technology path. IBM and Moto have chosen to rely on Silicon On Insulator (partnership with a company called SOITEC Silicon), when Intel has chosen the Strained Silicon technology (I think that recently they started looking at SOI after encountering loads of problems, but I am not 100% sure). Moto's problem stemmed from the fact that they didn't want to invest in state-of-the-art facilities, hence their poor yields, because chip-making wasn't a priority.
Let's hope that the spin-off SPS will have a very different focus.

[cubist]

Originally posted by Goblin2099
Guys, they're not doing this to help their semiconductor business. The point of this move is to make their balance sheets look prettier: their semiconductor division is losing so much money that the stuff they actually make a profit on isn't an alluring investment. This way, Motorola-proper can actually look like a decent company while Motorola-processors dies a slow death in the corner with no one watching.

Exactly right. And to go one step further, think about what moto-processors will do: They will kill any product lines where they are not moving a significant number of chips. Where do the vast majority of PowerPCs go? Embedded systems. Apple's business is a big headache for a small number of chips.

[fred]

Any guesses as to how long it'll take the Moto Semiconductor spinoff stock to achieve penny stock status ?:)

On second thought that ain't so funny...it may happen in an awful hurry !

[Marble]

How will this affect Apple's current G4 production rate? Is this group just the research group or do they also handle fabrication? What would Apple have to do if Motorola suddenly could not deliver all the G4s that they need for Powerbook production?

[X86BSD]

Originally posted by Fender2112
I wonder if the new company will continue the AIM partnership. Maybe IBM will be the buyer.

Thats not true. Sun stopped using BSD a long time ago. It's SYSV based. And is quite a steaming POS imo. But I despise SYSV unix in all forms so that is not shocking. The only redeeming quality of Sun is the HW side. And even then it would have to be an attractive price tag.

[wrldwzrd89]

I hope that the spinoff does FAR better when separated from Motorola than they did when still together. This way, Apple has two competent suppliers of PowerPC chips. If the semiconductor portion fares poorly, though, Apple could be in trouble. My first thought is, "What's Apple's reaction to this news?" Knowing this would make the outlook quite a bit clearer.

Edit: Yay! I'm a member now!

[dho]

steve is throwing a party right about now,

he could have annother option for chips very soon

[shadowself]

Originally posted by Phinius
IBM Power chip line is increasingly being squeezed by Intel's Itanium processor and IBM has been losing money at chip making for some time. So the future for IBM's Power chip business is kind of cloudly long term.

IBM may be losing money on its own chip (POWER4 & POWER5) runs. However, IBM is turning the corner on all its fab lines as it is supplying chips for many customers and as of late this past summer solved virtually all of its production problems. Its biggest problem right now is keeping the fab lines fully utilized.

As for the Itanium putting pressure on the POWER chips... since when? The POWER5 is/will be better than any Itanium which comes out in the same time frame. All the top systems being installed over the next 2 years or so are planned on being POWER5 based. I know of none -- absolutely none -- of the top systems which will be Itanium based.

As for the long term of IBM's chip fab business being "cloudy"... that is 100% FUD. IBM is the only company with its own synchrotron light source. IBM has been experimenting with that type of source since before 1985. (They may have been doing it before them. I just spent some time with them in 85/86.) Others (including Intel) have been experiementing too, but for a much shorter time frame. Want to go smaller than 65 nm? Then you MUST get into this type of source. IBM has a huge lead in experience here. Intel and others will undoubtedly catch up, but it will take them A LOT of time. For at least 5-8 years I don't expect to see the competitors where IBM is with very short wavelength systems.

As of today, IBM's chip future is as sound as anyone else's -- even Intel's. In 10 or 15 years who knows? But until then, stating that IBM's chip future is cloudy is ludicrous.

[yamabushi]

My point was that Apple needs to grow in order to be more competitive and thus become a more viable alternative for more computer users. That means taking risks. One way is to acquire others another is to partner with others in growth ventures. The fab is just one idea but I still don't think the idea is so crazy. There is still demand for new and better chips. TI is building just such a fab. http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/2230971
I just thought Apple could get in on the action. Sun already has many engineers and managers on site at an older TI fab in Texas which is where the Sparc is made. If Apple owned Sun, they would have to go along with whatever Apple execs told them to do. The current Sparc is pretty weak compared to current IBM and Intel chips. Sun desperately needs a new chip soon or they will continue to lose customers despite their famous record of binary compatibility. Sun is also bleeding cash and is ripe for acquistion.

Whatever Apple decides to do - they need to think beyond their current boundaries if they ever want to get back to a comfortable market share.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
IBM is doing a great job, but is it a good idea to rely upon a single supplier? Also, while IBM and Apple are friendly right now, who knows what the future holds? IBM might get annoyed if Apple performs a miracle and gains market share for high end servers, for example.

While many things can happen between Apple and IBM to threaten the partnership, this isn't one of them. IBM is in the business of providing IS solutions to businesses. Their enterprise systems and high end servers are nothing but a means to that end. Apple is in the market of low end servers, and is unlikely to compete with IBM there. That said, if Apple intends to push into enterprise more, I am certain that they have discussed this with IBM as part of their partnership. Perhaps part of the IS solution IBM will offer in the future will be Apple systems? Apple and IBM have, no doubt, discussed this.

Originally posted by Fender2112
I wonder if the new company will continue the AIM partnership. Maybe IBM will be the buyer.

In reality, there is no AIM alliance, and there hasn't been since 1998, when IBM and Motorola pulled their respective teams from Somerset, the joint IBM-Motorola design facility. I find it possible but not probable that SPS will consider a similar arrangement to Somerset.

[Sol]

A lot of people here seem to be hoping that Motorola will suddenly become competitive with IBM and Apple will have two excellent PPC CPUs to choose from. While such a scenario would be ideal for Apple I do not think that there is a big enough market for Macs to make such competition profitable. If Apple wants to take on Intel & Microsoft it will have to do so with the best PPC and that for now is the G5.

With IBM chips now used in Apple's PowerMacs Motorola has seen the writing on the wall and is preparing for the inevitable. It is only a matter of time before IBM supplies all the CPUs for Macs.

[kherdin]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The current Sparc is pretty weak compared to current IBM and Intel chips.

It is true that an individual SPARC chip gets slaughtered by chips from the other top-players right now. However, you are forgetting what SPARC stands for. Scalable Processor ARChitecture.

How well do the other chips scale? Other than custom-made supercomputers, are 100+ processor machines being sold using competing technologies from Intel, IBM, AMD, Motorola? I don't think so.

[daveL]

Originally posted by yamabushi
IBM is doing a great job, but is it a good idea to rely upon a single supplier? Also, while IBM and Apple are friendly right now, who knows what the future holds? IBM might get annoyed if Apple performs a miracle and gains market share for high end servers, for example. Also, relying on a single chip fab means being at the mercy of the production limits for that fab, as well as sharing with other customers.

Maybe Apple should ask IBM to help build their own fab. The investment required would be huge but a shared use fab with IBM might work. Plus, the new fab could include all of the cutting edge tech such as a .065 micron process, silicon on insulator chips, double gates, etc. A PowerPC 980 chip could easily run at 10 Ghz with production in early 2007. IBM has already been testing chips similar to these with very promising results.

Sun might also want to partner, especially if the fab is built in Texas near their HQ. Either build new Sparc chips at the fab or convince Sun to switch to PowerPC.

For that matter, perhaps Apple should acquire Sun via a leveraged buyout. Solaris shares it's BSD origins with OSX so providing support for legacy Solaris Apps could be possible. Apple would gain a large pool of talented employees and greatly expand their market share.
OK. A bit OT, but I can't stand to see this flawed info dispersed.

Sun's HQ is in Santa Clara, CA and has always been in that area. Sun has no major presence in Texas, other than your normal sales offices. Perhaps you are thinking of Texas Instruments, the company that has been making the SPARC processors for Sun since they first came out more than a decade ago?

In addition, Solaris is *not* based on BSD. Solaris is Unix System V release 4, which is the AT&T flavor of Unix, and has been since the early '90s.

Finally, Apple isn't stupid enough, or big enough, to want to buy Sun.

[KEL9000]

This news probably means MOT tried to sell the semiconductor business and couldn't get a buyer. The new company will probably be less likely to support chips for consumer PC's as Apple's market share is not high enough to dictate otherwise. Apple has chosen the correct supplier, IBM is in this for the long haul (why else would they build a new fab facility, and a roadmap for new chips), and have far more resources than MOT ever did.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i think this will be the end of g4's in macs soon, my guess is everything will be moving to the g5 next year and ibook gets the newerg 3 with altivec. Just more reason for apple to implement the G5. i wouldnt make a big deal about chip suppliers there still is intel/AMD but IBM is going to be the guy to beat.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by NicoMan
I would say the opposite. It was clear that Motorola's priorities lied elsewhere. If they spinoff their chip manufacturing unit, that new unit will have a very different focus. Their job WILL BE to sell chips. Hence the (possibly) interesting new developments.

I would totally agree with this. The spin off company will have to survive on one thing...selling chips. I think people all want Moto to go broke on here, but PowerPC competition would be good for Apple. If this spin off company wants to go after IBM for Apple's market you might see some new things coming down the pipeline, which is good news for everyone.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i think this will be the end of g4's in macs soon, my guess is everything will be moving to the g5 next year and ibook gets the newerg 3 with altivec.

Until you can provide evidence that such a G3 exists I'll wait for the G5.

[Dont Hurt Me]

just dont expect a g5 ibook anytime soon. the g5 is the chip and apple needs to get it in xserve, powerbooks and imac. this time next year we will be talking about more g5 macs im sure. its a awsome chip, it was cheaper then the g4 by a few bucks so i dont see apple doing anything but moving this way. to me moto announcing this is almost like mac saying g5's everywhere.

[macphoria]

This could be something positive. Motorola might be trying to get serious about their PowerPC development. I hope that is the case, and bring competition to IBM and boost Mac's performance.

[Dont Hurt Me]

macphoria what are you talking about??? Moto stagnation had almost killed us???? 500 mhz g4 for how long. macphoria IBM is what apple needed but they didnt have the best history. things are much different now and they both need each other and IBM is investing big bucks on its semiconductor's. they got some great stuff period. also i am almost certain g5's are less cost then g4's in bulk so what are you saying man?

[steveh]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Sun might also want to partner, especially if the fab is built in Texas near their HQ.

Sun's headquarters are in California, in Santa Clara.

Either build new Sparc chips at the fab or convince Sun to switch to PowerPC.

SPARC are made by TI and Fujitsu and Sun, currently.

Moving to PowerPC would be a huge job, for little evident benefit. They have enough invested in adding I64 to SPARC as it is.

For that matter, perhaps Apple should acquire Sun via a leveraged buyout. Solaris shares it's BSD origins with OSX so providing support for legacy Solaris Apps could be possible.

You missed out on Sun's moving SunOS from BSD to sVr4 more than a decade ago. Solaris hasn't been BSD-based for a very long time.

[reyesmac]

Motorola is not going anywhere with the G4 line. IBM has publicly admitted to investing millions just on Apples chip. When has motorola ever done that? They always invested on their other chips but never publicly stated that they are doing anything special with Apples G4 chips.

Now that this new company will not be a part of motorola Apple is not bound by any contracts to buy chips from them I would think. Do you really think Apple would sign any new chip contracts with this new company?

[Dont Hurt Me]

nope!

[macphoria]

macphoria what are you talking about??? Moto stagnation had almost killed us???? 500 mhz g4 for how long. macphoria IBM is what apple needed but they didnt have the best history. things are much different now and they both need each other and IBM is investing big bucks on its semiconductor's. they got some great stuff period. also i am almost certain g5's are less cost then g4's in bulk so what are you saying man?
Oh I know about Motorola's problems. Starting with slow development to pathetic inability to deliver chips on time. IBM delivering the G5 is like knight in shining armor rescuing damsel in distress.

What I am saying is should Motorola get their act together, it would be great for Apple because competition between Motorola and IBM will result in faster development, more selections, and lower price.

[Dont Hurt Me]

moto's heart is not in the semiconducter business otherwise they wouldnt be trying to pawn it off.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by daveL
In addition, Solaris is *not* based on BSD. Solaris is Unix System V release 4, which is the AT&T flavor of Unix, and has been since the early '90s.

A minor nit, Solaris 1 was BSD-based (SunOS 4) but Solaris 2 was SVR4-based with BSD compatibility added to make porting easier.

[ktlx]

Originally posted by cubist
Exactly right. And to go one step further, think about what moto-processors will do: They will kill any product lines where they are not moving a significant number of chips. Where do the vast majority of PowerPCs go? Embedded systems. Apple's business is a big headache for a small number of chips.

I am glad someone has a grasp on reality.

The new company will live or die on its own business case. Since Apple is putting IBM PowerPC 970s in its high end machines, that means the potential for high margin sales is greatly diminished. All that will be left will be sales for iMacs and PowerBooks until Apple is able to move them to G5 processors.

My guess is they will continue to manufacture G4s that are already designed but R&D investments will be targetted completely at the embedded space where Motorola has a good reputation and lots of sales potential. The G4s will be cash cows until Apple moves everything to IBM chips.

Attempting to go after IBM for Apple's high end business is a very risky investment for a company that is going to enter the world with a very shaky future.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by dietsoda
... to be reliant on only one chip maker is utter foly...

Well, in principle this may be true, but there are more factors that have to be considered. The market for PPC chips for Macintosh computers is not a large one, no matter how much we'd like it to be. If there are more manufacturers than there is demand for the chip, then one of two things will happen. Either some (or all but one) of the manufacturers will decide that it's not worth their time and money, or all of the manufacturers will decide that, leaving the consumer of PPC chips (Apple) up a creek without a paddle.

If Apple wants to swim in a bigger sea, then they should choose a core processor that serves a bigger market. (I'm not trying to start the whole OS X on x86 again. Lord knows, I'll be quite happy if we never see that day.)

My point is that it may well be a simple market fact that the current demand for PPC chips is insufficient to support more than one company developing them. So, Apple could be in a position where the only real choice is to rely on one chip producer. If that's the case, which I suspect that it is, Apple will want to get as "cozy" with IBM as possible, and share some of the development costs, where appropriate.

[pjkelnhofer]

Apparently, investors like the news.
Motorola stock was up 1.22 point (9.93%) today.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by reyesmac
Now that this new company will not be a part of motorola Apple is not bound by any contracts to buy chips from them I would think. Do you really think Apple would sign any new chip contracts with this new company?

Hmm... This argument could go both ways, though. The new company could say "The G4 is a profitless line. We're hereby discontinuing G4 production, as we're no longer bound by the contracts for that production that were made between Apple and Moto." Then we'd have some interesting problems, as most of the Apple line is still based on the G4.

However, I suspect that there are plenty of legal precedents having to do with how prior contracts apply to a spin-off company.

[Phil Of Mac]

By doing this, could Motorola dodge getting sued by Apple over the G4 debacles?

[yamabushi]

I edited my original post for clarity since several people seem to have misuderstood what I was attempting to say. Sorry about the confusion. I should have been more clear the first time. I was just trying to keep that post to a reasonable length and keep focused on my my point.

Again, my main point is that Apple, like most other computer companies must grow quickly or else be left on the sidelines and die. Remember Amiga? They made great computers but couldn't grow and the platform wound up splintering apart with the remains passed along to many other companies. Amiga will probably never be able to recover. I don't want the same to happen to Apple. Sure, we love Macs and will keep buying them but if Apple winds up with a 1% share of the market in ten years, nobody will want to make applications or hardware for them any more. Of course , IBM has great technology that can help Apple tremendously. Nevertheless this may not be enough to take on Intel and Microsoft unless there are more successful measures taken at Apple to improve market share. Nobody knows what will happen in the future but a bold plan of action can improve the odds that the future will be bright for Apple.

Motorola has failed, which is why they are doing the spinoff. I am really not surprised at their failure. I noticed some disturbing attitudes among their management when I talked with them near their offices in Illinois. They were too complacent and judged their future chances of success to be assured based upon past success. I am sure that not everyone at the company shared this attitude, but it seemed to be a common theme. IBM has been far better able to adapt to change.

[a1291762]

All the talk of not relying on a single supplier is just utter FUD! There's no way to use chips from IBM or Moto in the same computer right now. MIPS and ARM are probably the only chips that you can get from multiple manufacturers and drop into the same sockets.

Apple can take the PowerPC design to any manufacturer and get them to make PowerPC chips. They could even get Transmeta to do a PowerPC emulation for the crusoe.

There's no reason to think that Motorola and IBM are the only companies that can make PowerPC chips.

Of course, Apple doesn't even need to limit itself to PowerPC. Legacy code will be affected by an architecture change but OSX-compatible Carbon/Cocoa code will work with little more than a recompile. If Apple did change platforms, they'd no doubt invest in an emulator similar to the PPC->68k one found in classic MacOS.

Link

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by ktlx
A minor nit, Solaris 1 was BSD-based (SunOS 4) but Solaris 2 was SVR4-based with BSD compatibility added to make porting easier.

Yes, that is what I meant about BSD origins in Solaris. I feel that it could be done again (somewhat in reverse) to add some Solaris compatibility to OSX. OSX is moving in a better direction IMHO.

[Dont Hurt Me]

why people keep ignoring G5 and future 980 based whatever is beyond me. this baby was just born. give 6 months -year and watch out. the duallies is allready smoking p4 and i havent seen a 64 bit os yet. this is apples future not some intel blah blah blah.

[Gyroscope]

Motorola has been contemplating exit from its PPC chip business for some time now. Since Stevie von Apple killed CHRP and MacOS clones in late 90's it just didn't make sense to pour money into PPC advancement. Motorola ended up losing 95 milion bucks and IBM even more than that. It's real wonder how Apple persuaded IBM to make step forward with PPC970. They must have paid quite alot or their desperate need for new cpu just fitted well with IBM strategy of producing custom made CPU's for its clients at new Fish Kill plant.

CHRP-Common Hardware Reference Platform.

[Dont Hurt Me]

they all ready had the power4

[Fukui]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By doing this, could Motorola dodge getting sued by Apple over the G4 debacles?
Exactly what I was thinking.
It might get more complicated in deciding who to sue if they ever decide to....

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Sure, we love Macs and will keep buying them but if Apple winds up with a 1% share of the market in ten years, nobody will want to make applications or hardware for them any more.

It's not a matter of share, it's a matter of markets. As long as Macs are still prevalent in some fields, those fields will be Mac-based, and software will exist. Overall market share doesn't matter that much.

[Phinius]

Originally posted by shadowself
IBM may be losing money on its own chip (POWER4 & POWER5) runs. However, IBM is turning the corner on all its fab lines as it is supplying chips for many customers and as of late this past summer solved virtually all of its production problems. Its biggest problem right now is keeping the fab lines fully utilized.

Not keeping the fab lines fully utilized translates into losing money. Meanwhile, Intel is making *********s of money. In fact Intel's total revenue from chip manufacturing is equal to about the next four biggest chip makers put together.

As for the Itanium putting pressure on the POWER chips... since when? The POWER5 is/will be better than any Itanium which comes out in the same time frame. All the top systems being installed over the next 2 years or so are planned on being POWER5 based. I know of none -- absolutely none -- of the top systems which will be Itanium based.

IBM is the only company that will be selling a POWER5 computer.

HP, Dell and IBM all will be selling Itanium based computers. It will be very difficult for IBM's POWER chips to match the potential sales that Intel can make with the Itanium line.

Intel sells a Itanium chip for a top price of about $4,000 now. In about three years Intel will sell a Itanium chip that has 4 or more processors on a chip for probably $4,000. That's $1,000 per processor. Intel plans to up that to about 8 Itanium processors per chip, which would be about $500 per processor. That price squeeze will be difficult for IBM to counter with the Power5 chip. The performance difference between the Power and Itanium chips will not justify IBM charging up to $10,000 per processor in a computer as the company does now.

As for the long term of IBM's chip fab business being "cloudy"... that is 100% FUD. IBM is the only company with its own synchrotron light source. IBM has been experimenting with that type of source since before 1985. (They may have been doing it before them. I just spent some time with them in 85/86.) Others (including Intel) have been experiementing too, but for a much shorter time frame. Want to go smaller than 65 nm? Then you MUST get into this type of source. IBM has a huge lead in experience here. Intel and others will undoubtedly catch up, but it will take them A LOT of time. For at least 5-8 years I don't expect to see the competitors where IBM is with very short wavelength systems.

IBM was supposed to be way ahead in strained silicon technology too. Low and behold Intel is coming out with strained silicon at the .90nm process size long before IBM will on a 65nm process.

Intel uses new technologies when there is a cost benefit to use it. They have yet to utilized SOI because of its lack of a beneficial cost/performance ratio at this time.

As of today, IBM's chip future is as sound as anyone else's -- even Intel's.

IBM has been losing money from the chip manufacturing business for quite some time and Intel is making loads of money. That translates much more capital expenditures for Intel and faster chip development.

In 10 or 15 years who knows? But until then, stating that IBM's chip future is cloudy is ludicrous.

Where is IBM going to get the money to keep pace with Intel in chip manufacturing? Or for that matter how is IBM going to keep pace with Intel in advancing the speed of a given chip design when IBM is losing buckets of money on chip manufacturing and Intel is making boatloads of money?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Phinius
IBM was supposed to be way ahead in strained silicon technology too. Low and behold Intel is coming out with strained silicon at the .90nm process size long before IBM will on a 65nm process.

I was wondering when you were going to show up. To the uninitiated, Phinius's purpose here is to basically spread FUD about every single company that makes processors except Intel and Motorola. No joke.

[Phinius]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I was wondering when you were going to show up. To the uninitiated, Phinius's purpose here is to basically spread FUD about every single company that makes processors except Intel and Motorola. No joke.

You habitually jump to conclusions that lie in the simple generalities of all good or all bad categories. That doesn't make you look like someone who does a lot of reading or thinking before jumping in with a viewpoint.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Phinius
You habitually jump to conclusions that lie in the simple generalities of all good or all bad categories. That doesn't make you look like someone who does a lot of reading or thinking before jumping in with a viewpoint.

Congratulations, Phinius. You have won the Non-Sequitur of the Year award!

[DrBoar]

Moto still spinning and spinning...
Even if the semiconductor part will eventually get into good hands will they to that without loosing momentum (do not laugh!) and keep up a steady production of G4s
:confused:

The thought of the semiconductor part getting stuck in a "not yet spun of state" at Motorola or extensive reorganization in the new structure were the G4 production is less good than normal must scare Apple.

My bet is that a speedbumped eMac will be the last we see of "new" g4s used by Apple. If 2003 was he year of the portable computer then 2004 will not be it and the PB will be stuck with the current CPUs until the G5 90nm arrives.

I would not mind see a the former Moto reborn and suddenly sprouting G4s reaching 2 GHz and supporting DDR snappy FSBs but the last time they were able to make a leading edge desktop CPU was the 68030 40 MHz way back in 1990, and is the more of a decade of problem only caused by Dilberts in the top of Motorola

[Dont Hurt Me]

please look we have 1.6, 1.8.2.0 G5's right now. the best moto has is a 1.3 g4??? I hope & think this will be the last run of g4 models with more g5's showing up after the holidays. why stick with the g4?? move on to better. G4's are not exactley cheap.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Motorola has failed, which is why they are doing the spinoff. I am really not surprised at thir failure. I noticed some disturbing attitudes among their management when I talked with them near their offices in Illinois. They were too complacent and judged their future chances of success to be assured based upon past success. I am sure that not everyone at the company shared this attitude, but it seemed to be a common theme. IBM has been far better able to adapt to change. To think that Moto's inability to produce faster PPC chips for Apple is the reason that Moto SPS is overstating Apple's importance. PPC sales are such a small part of SPS's business. Apple has very little clout within Moto's semiconductor business.

The main reason that SPS is losing money is that they aren't able to sell their chips for the PCS business. Their only customer is Moto's phone business. Nokia and Samsung aren't buying Moto chips. The theory behind spinning off SPS is that the perception of a conflict of interests is removed, therefore, the Nokias and Samsungs will consider buying chips from SPS.

The problems surrounding Apple and Moto's relationship has very little to do with the spinoff.

[rickag]

Phinius

Itanium competing with Power 4
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!

thanks for the laugh. What, have you been looking at, lame benchmarks? Itanium isn't even in the same class of processors as the Power 4. Comparing these 2 processers is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

[DrBoar]

The problematic Apple-Motorola rellation as such may have very little if anything with the SPS spinof. However, the reasons for those problem might point to the core of why Motorola is spinning of SPS.

Take a look at this:
Replacing the very nice 68030 was the 68040 that was to slow to keep up with the 486 as the 68040 would not scale well
Replacing the 68040 was the 68050 and 68060 but they were so late that they forced Apple to jump to the PPC CPUs despite all the costs.
601 went well as did the 603 mostly
604 went well thanks to IBM supplying the faster CPUs (Motorola manufacturing problems)
G3 went well thanks to IBM supplying the faster CPUs (Motorola manufacturing problems)
G4 went to hell as IBM could not help when Motorola had manufacturing problems. Perhaps Moto and Apple have different views of things but that stall on 500 MHz must have been bad for Motorola as well and it still took more than a year to sort out.

Bad things might happen to every CPU manufacturer so I do not blame Moto to be stuck at 500 MHz 4 years ago with AMD reaching 1 GHz ( and Intel not that much later). The sad thing is that they during four years never have even had the smallest reduction of this 1:2 speed gap, if anything they have been closer to slide to 1/3 of the clock speed of the P4.

Time for Apple to spin of Motorola

:p

[Bruja]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By doing this, could Motorola dodge getting sued by Apple over the G4 debacles? That wold explain a lot of things but i don't think that aapl should let Moto off the hook. Moto still sux turtle toes because they are a material factor in why the processor chips were not released to aapl in a timely fashion.

Note: aapl is the stock listing;)

[cerid]

Thanks ftaok!

First time to read something resonable. I know Motorola SPS for more than 20 years. They have been the best chip manufacturer in the past but during the years strategies in the company shifted to sales focused operations instead of R&D. Being market leader in embedded controllers the small revenue with PPC for Apple made no sense. In addition Apple's desicion to take back the MacOS license after Motorola got the 40 million Mac clone order from China gave the last drop to let the glass overflow. Revenue of PPC's for networking, communication, automotive and other sectors are by an order of magnitude larger compared to Apple G4s.
The corporate allways poked in SPS, and many high-end designs were stopped due to wrong decisions by their high ranked bosses. The spin-off will free SPS, and allow them move, decide and develop much faster than now.
The SPS will also be able to sell chips to other phone makers like Nokia
since they will be no more rivals.
To my opinion the spin-off is the best decision ever made and we will soon see the new company producing high performance CPUs.
:)

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Bruja
That wold explain a lot of things but i don't think that aapl should let Moto off the hook. Moto still sux turtle toes because they are a material factor in why the processor chips were not released to aapl in a timely fashion.

Note: aapl is the stock listing;) This is another thing that bugs me (not that that means anything).

Apple is not going to sue Motorola because there is no grounds for a lawsuit. That whole "Moto didn't give Apple enough notice" thing is completely ridiculous. How could Motorola give Apple one years notice that they were going to kill the G5 project? Seriously, how do they do that?

Here's the scenario. Motorola decides that going forward with the G5 would be financially unwise. Do they a) tell Apple right away that they are cancelling the project and risk being sued by Apple OR b) they tell Apple that they are planning on cancelling the G5 project in about a year, but they're still developing it (wink wink).

Get over this whole Apple sues Moto thing. It's ridiculous.

[rickag]

Originally posted by cerid
Thanks ftaok!

........ the small revenue with PPC for Apple made no sense. ...... after Motorola got the 40 million Mac clone order from China

"small revenue with PPC for Apple" - I believe this is a misconception that is repeatedly spread over the internet. In a press release from Motorola about 2 1/2 years ago, they stated that Apple was one of their top FIVE customers, and that was before beginning to use the G4 in the iMac and eMac's. Apple has purchased right @ half of all the G4's ever made. Throw in the fact the the cost/price of the G4 is an order of magnitude more that the vast majority of embedded chips sold, the dollar value in sales to Apple was, until introduction of the G5, very significant.

"40 million Mac clone order from China" - I'd be mad too, but Apple's survival depended on eliminating clones. If Apple hadn't stopped licensing their systems, there was a very real chance we'd not be discussing this right now, because there'd be no Apple.

I have nothing against Motorola and wish them well, but I could never fully understand their lack of interest and/or commitment in advancing the G4. Sure it was a risk, that is take a chance on what was a feeble Apple at the time, but when the G4 was introduced it was superior to the competition, it just stagnated @ 500 MHz for wayyyyy toooooo lonngggggg.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Apple is not going to sue Motorola because there is no grounds for a lawsuit. That whole "Moto didn't give Apple enough notice" thing is completely ridiculous. How could Motorola give Apple one years notice that they were going to kill the G5 project? Seriously, how do they do that?

It would depend on the terms of the contract between Apple and Motorola, and the Motorola G5 is not the only grounds for a lawsuit.

By poor management of SPS, Motorola was unable to deliver on their obligations to Apple. That may be grounds for a suit, but IANAL.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It would depend on the terms of the contract between Apple and Motorola, and the Motorola G5 is not the only grounds for a lawsuit.

By poor management of SPS, Motorola was unable to deliver on their obligations to Apple. That may be grounds for a suit, but IANAL. The lawsuit that I was referring to was the one that had been making the rounds over the last couple of months. It was the one where Moto was in breach of contract with Apple because they failed to give 1 years notice before terminating the G5 project.

I agree, there could be lawsuits filed if Moto failed to deliver to Apple what was contracted. But I'm not privvy to that info.

Anyways, aside from the "can't get to 500mhz" debacle, I don't think Moto has missed any timeframes since then. At least Apple hasn't made any statements as such. What other obligations were there? The 7447/57 G4 chips went out in Q3 like they promised.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ftaok
The lawsuit that I was referring to was the one that had been making the rounds over the last couple of months. It was the one where Moto was in breach of contract with Apple because they failed to give 1 years notice before terminating the G5 project.

If it was legal within the bounds of contract law to sign a contract to that effect and Motorola violated that contract, then they are liable.

If it was an unreasonable thing to ask of them, they shouldn't have signed the damn contract in the first place. Contract law doesn't protect you from your own bad judgment in signing contracts.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by rickag
"small revenue with PPC for Apple" - I believe this is a misconception that is repeatedly spread over the internet. In a press release from Motorola about 2 1/2 years ago, they stated that Apple was one of their top FIVE customers, and that was before beginning to use the G4 in the iMac and eMac's. Apple has purchased right @ half of all the G4's ever made. Throw in the fact the the cost/price of the G4 is an order of magnitude more that the vast majority of embedded chips sold, the dollar value in sales to Apple was, until introduction of the G5, very significant. I'm not sure which press release that you're talking about, but I do remember one from Jan 2002, right after Moto released the 1ghz G4. The guy said something about not mentioning Apple as a customer so as to not pre-empt anything that Apple was doing. He said that Apple is an important partner and they don't want to mess up their product intro's.

Anyways, I've never heard anything about Apple being a top 5 customer. Honestly, I find that extremely hard to believe. Maybe at one point, they were, but there's no way they are anymore. Moto's SPS does so much more than just PPC and G4s. They're pumping out Dragonball's for Palms and chips for cell phones. No way that Apple's still a top 5 customer.

I'm also questionable about whether Apple has purchased 1/2 of all G4's produced. Cisco is a big company that uses G4s. There are others that use them as well.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If it was legal within the bounds of contract law to sign a contract to that effect and Motorola violated that contract, then they are liable.

If it was an unreasonable thing to ask of them, they shouldn't have signed the damn contract in the first place. Contract law doesn't protect you from your own bad judgment in signing contracts. Phil,

This is exactly what I'm saying. That supposed contract between Moto and Apple doesn't exist. It can't. That type of contract can never be honored, so it can't exist.

Everyone was saying how Moto was in breach of contract because they pulled the plug on the G5 without telling Apple about it a year in advanced. Think about that. How can you tell someone that you're pulling the plug a year in advanced? You can't.

That's why you'll never see a lawsuit against Moto for this. And that's the alleged contract that I was referring to.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Phil,

This is exactly what I'm saying. That supposed contract between Moto and Apple doesn't exist. It can't. That type of contract can never be honored, so it can't exist.

Everyone was saying how Moto was in breach of contract because they pulled the plug on the G5 without telling Apple about it a year in advanced. Think about that. How can you tell someone that you're pulling the plug a year in advanced? You can't.

That's why you'll never see a lawsuit against Moto for this. And that's the alleged contract that I was referring to.

Apparently so. However, this does not utterly rule out the possibility of Apple suing Motorola on unrelated or partially related grounds. Until such a suit is filed, it is ignorant for either of us to comment about it beyond these hypothetical remarks.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It's not a matter of share, it's a matter of markets. As long as Macs are still prevalent in some fields, those fields will be Mac-based, and software will exist. Overall market share doesn't matter that much.

I disagree. A lack of market share has resulted in sluggish software development as well as a lack of widespread support for macs in many hardware devices such as graphics cards. Macs are relegated to second or third choice status for developers. More market share would make Macs more appealing to develop for. The Mac platform is most appealing to them when popular opinion is that Mac appears to be highly competitive with wintel.

Originally posted by rickag
I have nothing against Motorola and wish them well, but I could never fully understand their lack of interest and/or commitment in advancing the G4. Sure it was a risk, that is take a chance on what was a feeble Apple at the time, but when the G4 was introduced it was superior to the competition, it just stagnated @ 500 MHz for wayyyyy toooooo lonngggggg.

I think this is where Motorola failed. The G4 chip design is pretty good but delivery times and clock speeds were poor compared to intel. Ideally they should have been able to keep clock speeds at roughly half that of the Pentiums in order to maintain an overall performance premium. This is a direct result of an aversion to investing in better fabrication methods for the PPC. They never believed that they could really compete with Intel, so they didn't even try. If they had been producing much faster chips Apple would have sold many more computers and Motorola could have sold a few more chips for the embedded market. A long term commitment (several more years) would have been required to realize a return on the investment in fab tech through sales volume.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I disagree. A lack of market share has resulted in sluggish software development

Really? I haven't seen any of this, except for Quark, and Quark is just Quark.

My point is, if most graphic artists use the Mac, then the Mac will continue to exist, and graphic art programs will continue to exist on the platform. It doesn't matter if graphic artists are the only ones to use the Mac, unless of course you're not a graphic artist.

Originally posted by yamabushi
as well as a lack of widespread support for macs in many hardware devices such as graphics cards.

Gaming isn't a big market on the Mac. Graphics and other professional things that use graphics cards, okay, I can see your point there.

Originally posted by yamabushi
Macs are relegated to second or third choice status for developers. More market share would make Macs more appealing to develop for.

Adobe seems pretty happy, at least now that Macs actually perform at respectable speeds. Final Cut Pro is always up to date on the Mac :)

Apple might fall behind in some markets and in overall share, but as long as they hold onto some markets, they will survive and thrive.

[yamabushi]

I can't comprehend why Macs are supposed to only stay in niche markets such as graphic design. Graphic designers and such should stop hogging all the market for Macs. Truthfully, it isn't their fault - it's Apple's.

Seriously though, Macs can do just as well in other markets such as business if applications are written for the platform. Macs are great enough to be the computer of choice for most any purpose if apps and hardware support were to exist.

Of course a great many people would still love Windows, Linux or whatever running on x86 or whatever. That's great - the competition will encourage innovation.


When Apple gains 95% market share (and big M has refocused on just making apps) they might get lazy, but we won't have to worry about that for a while. That is uh... ever. ;)

That dream world will never happen, but 35% is completely realistic.

Stay in a niche, and you will get squashed sooner or later by the big boys regardless of how good of a product you have.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I can't comprehend why Macs are supposed to only stay in niche markets such as graphic design. Graphic designers and such should stop hogging all the market for Macs. Truthfully, it isn't their fault - it's Apple's.

Seriously though, Macs can do just as well in other markets such as business if applications are written for the platform. Macs are great enough to be the computer of choice for most any purpose if apps and hardware support were to exist.

Sure. Apple should make directed assaults on other markets, bribing developers or even developing the software themselves. But they should do it market by market. They shouldn't just randomly and recklessly try to increase share.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by a1291762
...
Legacy code will be affected by an architecture change but OSX-compatible Carbon/Cocoa code will work with little more than a recompile.
...

Just as a point, it's fine to say that things would run with just a recompile, but what about all the old software that I have? Do I have to buy updated versions that have been recompiled? This is why I hope to never see an architecture change, as I have a ton of (some very) old software.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Gyroscope
...MacOS clones in late 90's it just didn't make sense to pour money into PPC advancement...

An interesting point, here, is the fact that the total unit sales of Mac compatible systems was, essentially, stable during that period. The reason that Apple cancelled the clones was because they were loosing sales. So, I don't see that the cancelling of the clones would really have any effect on Moto, as they weren't really loosing any chip sales.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
An interesting point, here, is the fact that the total unit sales of Mac compatible systems was, essentially, stable during that period. The reason that Apple cancelled the clones was because they were loosing sales. So, I don't see that the cancelling of the clones would really have any effect on Moto, as they weren't really loosing any chip sales.

Yes, but they sold a lot less Mac clones!

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by ftaok
...
Apple is not going to sue Motorola because there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
...

Originally posted by ftaok

This is exactly what I'm saying. That supposed contract between Moto and Apple doesn't exist. It can't. That type of contract can never be honored, so it can't exist.

Here's an easy way to look at it. The contract between Apple and Moto needn't have specified the G5 project. It could have simply stated that Moto would not discontinue the next-generation processor development without giving Apple one year notice. Whether that development was for the G4, G5 or G6 wouldn't matter. The point would be that Apple would be in a position of dependence on Moto, and would demand a certain level of contractual commitment from Moto. It, in no way, seems unreasonable to me.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac

My point is, if most graphic artists use the Mac, then the Mac will continue to exist, and graphic art programs will continue to exist on the platform. It doesn't matter if graphic artists are the only ones to use the Mac, unless of course you're not a graphic artist.
...

Well, there is a decending circle built into this, though, that would result in the end of the Mac. If Apple's marketshare dropped too low, then they wouldn't have as much money for R&D, it'd be more likely that IBM might let their PPC development slip, thus Macs would fall farther and farther behind. Before long, Windows or Linux on x86 would be a better platform and even the niche markets would dwindle. Soon, the Mac would cease to exist as a viable modern platform.

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
macphoria what are you talking about??? Moto stagnation had almost killed us???? 500 mhz g4 for how long. macphoria IBM is what apple needed but they didnt have the best history. things are much different now and they both need each other and IBM is investing big bucks on its semiconductor's. they got some great stuff period. also i am almost certain g5's are less cost then g4's in bulk so what are you saying man?
While all you are saying is certainly true, that means absolutely nothing for the future of the spin-off. There is a chance that as a spin-off SPS will do much better than the old Moto (yeah I know that's pretty easy).

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Here's an easy way to look at it. The contract between Apple and Moto needn't have specified the G5 project. It could have simply stated that Moto would not discontinue the next-generation processor development without giving Apple one year notice. Whether that development was for the G4, G5 or G6 wouldn't matter. The point would be that Apple would be in a position of dependence on Moto, and would demand a certain level of contractual commitment from Moto. It, in no way, seems unreasonable to me. Aggghhh!

This type of contract cannot exist. It's the one years notice thing that makes it impossible to honor.

Let's say that there was such a contract. All Motorola would have to do to avoid being sued is to "pretend" to develop G5s, G6s, whatever after telling Apple that they intend to stop development. How does that help Apple or Moto?

This type of contract couldn't have existed because there's no way to honor it.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by ftaok
Aggghhh!

This type of contract cannot exist. It's the one years notice thing that makes it impossible to honor.

Let's say that there was such a contract. All Motorola would have to do to avoid being sued is to "pretend" to develop G5s, G6s, whatever after telling Apple that they intend to stop development. How does that help Apple or Moto?

This type of contract couldn't have existed because there's no way to honor it.

In order to do what you claim, Moto would have to do more than just "pretend". They'd also have to modify their books to show that they were still investing in R&D of the new chip. That is highly illegal.

No way to honor such a contract? That's just BS. Companies keep records, and it's a simple matter to demostrate that development is continuing to a client.

[Phil Of Mac]

Are either of you lawyers?

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are either of you lawyers?

I'm not, but I worked with one on a contract that required a certain level of commitment to an R&D project at one of my previous jobs. As I recall, we were committed to spend no less than 500 man-hours over the course of three months on R&D for this project. For this particular project, we came to the conclusion that it was unlikely to get the desired results in the allotted time. Should we have just pretended to work on it after that? No, that would have been a violation of the contract.

In that case, when we reached the end of the three months (totalling something around 650 hours), and we didn't have the results, our client authorized further work on the project. But they just as easily could have dropped the project at that point, or taken the results we had to another vender to continue the work. If we had pretended to work, it would have been obvious.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not, but I worked with one on a contract that required a certain level of commitment to an R&D project at one of my previous jobs. As I recall, we were committed to spend no less than 500 man-hours over the course of three months on R&D for this project. For this particular project, we came to the conclusion that it was unlikely to get the desired results in the allotted time. Should we have just pretended to work on it after that? No, that would have been a violation of the contract.

In that case, when we reached the end of the three months (totalling something around 650 hours), and we didn't have the results, our client authorized further work on the project. But they just as easily could have dropped the project at that point, or taken the results we had to another vender to continue the work. If we had pretended to work, it would have been obvious.

As someone who knows what he's talking about, you win the argument :)

[Gyroscope]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
An interesting point, here, is the fact that the total unit sales of Mac compatible systems was, essentially, stable during that period. The reason that Apple cancelled the clones was because they were loosing sales. So, I don't see that the cancelling of the clones would really have any effect on Moto, as they weren't really loosing any chip sales.

Yeah but, the purpose of CHRP was to increase its market share as hardware reference platform for possibly more than just one OS (MacOS 7). In those days Apple market share (even without clones) was declining rapidly, think it was arount 5.X % at the time clones were killed. MacOS 7 was needed by CHRP clone makers as OS to run on new boxes simplu because there wasn't really that many other OS'es available for PPC. BeOs was still in early stages and wasn't considered to be ready for prime time. Microsoft killed its PPC NT version adding another nail into PPC future prospects. So when Apple killed clones, it wasnt so much about losing CPU sales(Motorola would ship them to Apple anyway) (ok they could make little more profit by selling whole combo) but rather losing steam and market potential that CHRP could have established in order to compete with x86 (Intel,AMD..)
So,Motorola figured out that now CHRP was dead, Apple was sinking anyway so they decided that they gonna pull outta PC chip business altogether in few years time.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not, but I worked with one on a contract that required a certain level of commitment to an R&D project at one of my previous jobs. As I recall, we were committed to spend no less than 500 man-hours over the course of three months on R&D for this project. For this particular project, we came to the conclusion that it was unlikely to get the desired results in the allotted time. Should we have just pretended to work on it after that? No, that would have been a violation of the contract.

In that case, when we reached the end of the three months (totalling something around 650 hours), and we didn't have the results, our client authorized further work on the project. But they just as easily could have dropped the project at that point, or taken the results we had to another vender to continue the work. If we had pretended to work, it would have been obvious. Snowy,

Your situation isn't comparing Apples with Oranges. Your contract states that your company had to spend at least 500 hours over 3 months. That's the contract and that's what you did. Just because preliminary work showed that you wouldn't get results doesn't mean that something could happen to change that.

The "contract" between Moto and Apple says that Moto was supposed to give Apple a one-year heads up if they were gonna kill the G5 project. This is different because Moto cannot know a year in advance that they would kill the project.

Moto would have never agreed to such a contract. If they did, the shareholders would have their heads. Since Moto canned the G5 project a long time ago, and Apple has yet to file suit, I contend that such a contract never existed.

Are either of you lawyers? Phil,

I'm no lawyer, but I like to think of myself as a purveyor of common sense. ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Phil,

I'm no lawyer, but I like to think of myself as a purveyor of common sense. ;)

Unfortunately, the law and common sense are not always the same.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by ftaok
Snowy,

Your situation isn't comparing Apples with Oranges. Your contract states that your company had to spend at least 500 hours over 3 months. That's the contract and that's what you did. Just because preliminary work showed that you wouldn't get results doesn't mean that something could happen to change that.

The "contract" between Moto and Apple says that Moto was supposed to give Apple a one-year heads up if they were gonna kill the G5 project. This is different because Moto cannot know a year in advance that they would kill the project.

Moto would have never agreed to such a contract. If they did, the shareholders would have their heads. Since Moto canned the G5 project a long time ago, and Apple has yet to file suit, I contend that such a contract never existed.

Actually, I'd beg to differ. Let's try making the comparison a little more realistic. Moto agreed that they would apply X hours per year to new processor development, and would give Apple a one year notice before discontinuing this development. Apple, in return, agreed to purchase a minimum of X processors per year from Moto, for as long as the new processor development is going on. This situation is not that different than the one I described. Apple gets a committed processor developer, and Moto get a guarantied customer.

Bear in mind that this is hypothetical. I don't know what the contract is like between Apple and Moto. But this is a perfectly reasonable contract template, and it is similar to the contract that I was part of some years back.


Phil,

I'm no lawyer, but I like to think of myself as a purveyor of common sense. ;)


Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Unfortunately, the law and common sense are not always the same.


I'd have to agree with Phil on this one.