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 Spins Off Semiconductor Business
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
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?
Sun's headquarters are in California, in Santa Clara.
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.
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
macrumors 65816
The G4 and OS 9 are going in the same direction
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?
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
macrumors 603
macphoria
macrumors 6502a
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
macrumors 603
moto's heart is not in the semiconducter business otherwise they wouldnt be trying to pawn it off.
A minor nit, Solaris 1 was BSD-based (SunOS 4) but Solaris 2 was SVR4-based with BSD compatibility added to make porting easier.
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
macrumors 68030
Re: Short Sighted
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.
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
macrumors 6502a
Snowy_River
macrumors 68030
Re: The G4 and OS 9 are going in the same direction
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.
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
macrumors 68020
yamabushi
macrumors 65816
Turn down the flames, please
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.
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.
Single supplier FUD
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
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
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
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.
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.
CHRP-Common Hardware Reference Platform.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Phil Of Mac
macrumors 68020
Re: Turn down the flames, please
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.
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.
Re: Re: IBM is also losing money on chip fabrication
Not keeping the fab lines fully utilized translates into losing money. Meanwhile, Intel is making sh*tloads of money. In fact Intel's total revenue from chip manufacturing is equal to about the next four biggest chip makers put together.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Not keeping the fab lines fully utilized translates into losing money. Meanwhile, Intel is making sh*tloads of money. In fact Intel's total revenue from chip manufacturing is equal to about the next four biggest chip makers put together.
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.
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.
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.
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
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Re: IBM is also losing money on chip fabrication
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: IBM is also losing money on chip fabrication
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.
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
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IBM is also losing money on chip fabrication
Congratulations, Phinius. You have won the Non-Sequitur of the Year award!
Congratulations, Phinius. You have won the Non-Sequitur of the Year award!