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.
Reasons Behind Apple's Strategic Shift Into Chip Design
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But isn't "build quality", one of the big reasons thrown around by people in Mac vs PC arguments?
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)
This really does sound like Apple. How do you keep secrets? Keep everyone on the payroll and outsource as little as possible. It makes sense.
This really does sound like Apple. How do you keep secrets? Keep everyone on the payroll and outsource as little as possible. It makes sense.
I agree, but...this kind of secrecy is not about paranoia per se, it's about future innovation and marketshare. If Apple brings something radical to market which they've been able to keep under wraps because of secret in-house design, they would have an enormous competitive advantage over everyone else who might take years to catch up - which spells big bucks for Apple in the meantime.
Ot
Actually, there are 2 errors.
1) As you mentioned, Pinky and the Brain wanted to take over the world - well, the Brain did.
2) It's Ren and Stimpy, not Skimpy. lol
Actually, there are 2 errors.
1) As you mentioned, Pinky and the Brain wanted to take over the world - well, the Brain did.
2) It's Ren and Stimpy, not Skimpy. lol
But isn't "build quality", one of the big reasons thrown around by people in Mac vs PC arguments?
It might be, but I think that it is misleading. Production quality is a problem that all of the computer makers face. It is an industry problem. I suggest that the quality of off the shelf parts is high or, at least high enough for build quality to not be a problem for computer makers and customers. If a company makes poor quality products, then it will become known and computer makers will avoid that company.
It is how those parts are put together that distinguishes Apple. This does mean modifications, but these modifications are to off the shelf parts that already have enough quality for computer makers and customers.
Build quality is a function of (a) product design and engineering and (b) manufacturing standards and tolerances. Controlling the former is obvious, but the latter is accomplished based on the ODM specs, and "PC" vendors, particularly those bottom-of-the-barrel systems often dug up for specious comparisons, simply don't pay for that level of work because their retail price doesn't allow for it.But isn't "build quality", one of the big reasons thrown around by people in Mac vs PC arguments?
Some of the more expensive PCs have excellent build quality--but it always comes down to the question of how much one is willing to pay for fabrication improvements and the R&D to make a workable design. It's less common for PC vendors to start with a truly good design, though, because like most people here, the intricacies of design and engineering are seen as either voodoo or a waste, in either case detracting from the bottom line. But consider this: you can follow the blueprints for a house down to the millimeter, but if it's a bad design, the south wall is going to collapse, and that reflects on "build quality" to the buyer--even though in fact it's not. It's a design/engineering flaw.
At the end of the day, commodity vendors just can't afford it...but customers can't evaluate its value and most commodity machines are "good enough", so the industry bar isn't set too high for Apple.
No, it isn't. It's an issue that customers and companies simply aren't willing to pay to resolve. The solution is simple, obvious, and practical. The only problem is the economics of the computing market.
You present a binary where none exists. There is a great deal of granular control in the availability, quality, and pricing of all bulk parts. "Off the shelf" isn't a measure of quality, and the essential comparison isn't between "good" and "poor" quality, but a rather more subtle distinction.
Huh?
Apple have stolen Ren, Stimpy, Pinky AND the Brain from AMD?!
OMG who's next?! Blofeld??
Oh crap -- really? In a few months I may be getting a 15" MBP and was jazzed to hear the graphics had been upgraded. I am not jazzed to hear about the increased heat. Maybe I'll just get a MacBook instead ... how warm do these get now?
so next year should be interesting. can't wait.
and i don't blame apple for wanting to keep their stuff a secret. people are always stealing your ideas
and i don't blame apple for wanting to keep their stuff a secret. people are always stealing your ideas
G series coming back?
If this is true apple would drop Intel making it harder to make hackintosh's unless its limited to just graphics cards. Love the idea though!
If this is true apple would drop Intel making it harder to make hackintosh's unless its limited to just graphics cards. Love the idea though!
If this is true apple would drop Intel making it harder to make hackintosh's unless its limited to just graphics cards. Love the idea though!
I'm pretty sure this will only affect apples handheld device market.
While I agree with the first statement in a general manner, I believe it is not applicable in this case with Apple.
Why? Because Apple, first and foremost, is a hardware company. It focuses on that in its products, which we can see with exemplary design. Whether its laptops or handheld devices, Apple has shown the capability to focus initially on the design and then on mass manufacturing. Remember, there was a pic floating around showing Jon Ive around the aluminum body manufacturing. I understand the need for minutiae in chipsets but it is not impossible to translate that manufacturing experience into chipsets by Apple. As you say Apple is good at design. It is good in design for both hardware and software to create the best user experience.
Therefore, I was wondering why Apple was waiting to incorporate PA into its manufacturing fold. Apple is known for keeping things inhouse with a closed system. It has created a closed system for the iPhone, Macbooks and its other products. What Apple is good at is using this closed system to build a fanbase and then using that fanbase to propel against other areas. Case in point, the iPhone by playing it to AT&T. And now the Macbook ads against Microsoft eliciting a weak response by MS (on the hardware and not software).
Quite simply put, Apple has enough cash in the bank. What if it acquired AMD to pitch itself against Intel? With its partnership with NVIDIA in its laptops, Apple might leverage that against Intel. Intel might have its hands full against NVIDIA but a NVIDIA-Apple combo????.
Why? Because Apple, first and foremost, is a hardware company. It focuses on that in its products, which we can see with exemplary design. Whether its laptops or handheld devices, Apple has shown the capability to focus initially on the design and then on mass manufacturing. Remember, there was a pic floating around showing Jon Ive around the aluminum body manufacturing. I understand the need for minutiae in chipsets but it is not impossible to translate that manufacturing experience into chipsets by Apple. As you say Apple is good at design. It is good in design for both hardware and software to create the best user experience.
Therefore, I was wondering why Apple was waiting to incorporate PA into its manufacturing fold. Apple is known for keeping things inhouse with a closed system. It has created a closed system for the iPhone, Macbooks and its other products. What Apple is good at is using this closed system to build a fanbase and then using that fanbase to propel against other areas. Case in point, the iPhone by playing it to AT&T. And now the Macbook ads against Microsoft eliciting a weak response by MS (on the hardware and not software).
Quite simply put, Apple has enough cash in the bank. What if it acquired AMD to pitch itself against Intel? With its partnership with NVIDIA in its laptops, Apple might leverage that against Intel. Intel might have its hands full against NVIDIA but a NVIDIA-Apple combo????.
Can someone actually tell me why Apple make everything so secret? What is the point of doing this?
To keep ahead of the competition?
Its patently (pun intended!) obvious why they have done this to me.
Short sightedness, is what makes companies think that saving money is the best thing for shareholders.
Outsourcing is what companies do to save money.
Apple has never been about doing things cheap. They are about quality, quality costs money.
Nobody knows whether, in the long run, quality will win over cheap. However I think that Jobs' (and likely now the rest of the board) thinks it will. I agree with this.
Its about value. Which allows a price to be assessed not on competition, but instead with respect to Quality.
If you draw an analogy with the individual, people have traditionally focused on saving money as the number one benefit to the bottom line. Much like Companies try to cut costs to increase profit.
A long time ago I thought to myself that this outlook was flawed. We are programmed to want more - and this runs contrary to the idea that you should try and reduce your spending. My conclusion was that instead of spending my time trying to cut costs I would instead spend time on making more money. The biggest difference is that my 'turnover' has increased. Expenses have also increased (and thus quality of life has improved). What's interesting is that maintaining a static profit margin, I am increasing my assets.
Flip back to the company perspective - I think that Apple is following the 'earn more money' model.
The success hinges on the public coming to reject the 'old ways' and learning about value.
If consumers, over time, begin to understand value then they will realise that buying 'cheap' doesn't necessarily give you the best net benefit.
I believe that this cultural change is on the way. I think Apple do to.
When the cultural change happens Apple will, once again, be pioneers. Leaving the Best Buy's and Dell's of the world scrambling to change their 'cheap and cheerful' business model into something the consumer truly wants.
Furthermore once the desire for Quality and Value is realised in an individual, it becomes much stronger than the desire to save money ever could have been. The desire to save money is forced upon consumers as a result of circumstance, the desire for quality is a conscious choice, and human's are by nature more partial to their conscious desires, then imposed restrictions. I think this is because it goes right to the heart of free will, and humans want to be free.
Short sightedness, is what makes companies think that saving money is the best thing for shareholders.
Outsourcing is what companies do to save money.
Apple has never been about doing things cheap. They are about quality, quality costs money.
Nobody knows whether, in the long run, quality will win over cheap. However I think that Jobs' (and likely now the rest of the board) thinks it will. I agree with this.
Its about value. Which allows a price to be assessed not on competition, but instead with respect to Quality.
If you draw an analogy with the individual, people have traditionally focused on saving money as the number one benefit to the bottom line. Much like Companies try to cut costs to increase profit.
A long time ago I thought to myself that this outlook was flawed. We are programmed to want more - and this runs contrary to the idea that you should try and reduce your spending. My conclusion was that instead of spending my time trying to cut costs I would instead spend time on making more money. The biggest difference is that my 'turnover' has increased. Expenses have also increased (and thus quality of life has improved). What's interesting is that maintaining a static profit margin, I am increasing my assets.
Flip back to the company perspective - I think that Apple is following the 'earn more money' model.
The success hinges on the public coming to reject the 'old ways' and learning about value.
If consumers, over time, begin to understand value then they will realise that buying 'cheap' doesn't necessarily give you the best net benefit.
I believe that this cultural change is on the way. I think Apple do to.
When the cultural change happens Apple will, once again, be pioneers. Leaving the Best Buy's and Dell's of the world scrambling to change their 'cheap and cheerful' business model into something the consumer truly wants.
Furthermore once the desire for Quality and Value is realised in an individual, it becomes much stronger than the desire to save money ever could have been. The desire to save money is forced upon consumers as a result of circumstance, the desire for quality is a conscious choice, and human's are by nature more partial to their conscious desires, then imposed restrictions. I think this is because it goes right to the heart of free will, and humans want to be free.
Wasn't it Ballmer who said, referring to Apple of course, that a company just can't survive trying to produce the software and the hardware at the same time?
If so, looks like Jobs is trying to make Ballmer shove it.
If so, looks like Jobs is trying to make Ballmer shove it.
Steve Ballmer said that "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"
LOL... Ballmer is an idiot.
I could see apple doing something like this. APple sure seems to like being proprietary. I know, Apple has a lot of Open Source software, but that's very little to everything else it has. I feel that while Apple may do this, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot in some ways. I'm sure there's a fairly sizable market for Hackintoshes. I've heard so many people say they like Macs for the OS, not necessarily the hardware.
For some reason, I'm remembering the CHRP platform.
This. There are already USB hardware devices that let you install OSX from a factory disc and update it like a regular Mac.
And jeez what's your beef with a Hackintosh. No-one that gets one doesn't end up buying a Mac, it's just a good way for people to experience* OSX without the initial outlay and then having AU$10,000 (slight exaggeration) credit at "your favourite" Apple store if things go pear shaped (hah, I like that pun considering Apples...yeah you all got it).
*Experience: get a good feel, have a decent play around. I'm not saying it will run the same blah blah. EXPERIENCE. I'm not making a AU$4,000+ decision based on a 15 minute in-store play around, I can tell you that right now.
As for staying on topic. I welcome the move, especially if they're limiting it to mobile devices. It will make this site a) more important b) finding out new product information FUN again c) Optimise (hopefully) my favourite mobile devices