Steve Jobs on Apple, iPods, Lifestyle Brand

[ZorPrime]

I agree. I for one welcome our new Intel overlords.

Heh heh .

I'll be due for a new Mac in 2007 anyway, so picking up a nice Intel Mac with Leopard pre-installed and a kick-ass Blu Ray drive is my plan.

Blu-Ray is going to seriously kick some rear.

 

[~Shard~]

Blu-Ray is going to seriously kick some rear.

That's what I'm hoping!

 

[shamino]

I respectfully disagree in part on that point. I think Apple's shifting to Intel has more to due with profit than IBM's "lack of desire". IBM is very comitted to the PPC architecture. I think Apple simply doesn't want to spend the R&D $$$ on processor development anymore.

Since when is it the business of the customer to underwrite the supplier's R&D roadmap? Are you required to invest in Ford in order to buy the car you want? Of course not.

IBM was, and still is, uninterested in developing the kinds of chips that Apple wants to use. Their commitment to the PPC architecture is for the POWER series processors, which are designed for IBM's big iron, not for inexpensive desktop systems.

They'd rather shop around for third party vendors for their CPUs.

When your supplier says "pay for the R&D yourself if you want the chips", that's the business-world equivalent of saying "FU and the horse you rode in on."

I think the "iPod Profit Model" adopted by Apple is to blame for this shift. One day, we might even see Apple using AMD processors instead of Intel.

Selling products at high margin isn't some kind of new "iPod profit model". It's what all companies do when they're not in a cut-throat commodity market. It's the only way you can fund your own R&D, to allow future generations of new innovative products.

The instant you're forced into slim margins, you lose all ability to develop anything new, and are forced into just slapping together other people's products (like what all the PC makers do today.)

As for using AMD, why not? If, in the future, AMD's products better fit Apple's needs than Intel's, why shouldn't they switch?

And because AMD is software-compatible with Intel, Apple could continue to use both without clobbering themselves.

 

[ZorPrime]

Since when is it the business of the customer to underwrite the supplier's R&D roadmap? Are you required to invest in Ford in order to buy the car you want? Of course not.

Of course Apple “underwrote” part of the R&D. Who do you think was 1/3 or AIM, which developed the PPC and AltiVec?

IBM was, and still is, uninterested in developing the kinds of chips that Apple wants to use. Their commitment to the PPC architecture is for the POWER series processors, which are designed for IBM's big iron, not for inexpensive desktop systems.
When your supplier says "pay for the R&D yourself if you want the chips", that's the business-world equivalent of saying "FU and the horse you rode in on."

I disaggree. How do you explain IBM co-developing PPC chips for the “cheap” game consoles the Xbox 360, PS3, and Revolution? Last time I checked, the game consoles are not going to cost the consumer $1K or more. ALL are using PPC chips, not to be confused with the PPC chips Apple’s currently using. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft partnered with IBM to meet a goal, multiple core and CPU systems at 3+GHz, as applied to the Xbox 360 and PS3. IBM didn’t fork over 100% of the CPU R&D. I'm asserting, given the amount of $$ Apple was investing in the custom CPUs with IBM, it felt it wasn't getting the returns desired. Apple switches to Intel, cuts it's R&D cost per CPU used and saves a grip of change in the meantime.

Selling products at high margin isn't some kind of new "iPod profit model". It's what all companies do when they're not in a cut-throat commodity market. It's the only way you can fund your own R&D, to allow future generations of new innovative products.

The instant you're forced into slim margins, you lose all ability to develop anything new, and are forced into just slapping together other people's products (like what all the PC makers do today.)

As for using AMD, why not? If, in the future, AMD's products better fit Apple's needs than Intel's, why shouldn't they switch?

And because AMD is software-compatible with Intel, Apple could continue to use both without clobbering themselves.

Whatever keeps Apple in business is a good thing.

 

[Evangelion]

Here are a few things...

I like Mac because...

1.OSX

2.PPC-it really set it apart from Windows

3.The apps

I don't know about you, but I would have thought that it's the OS X (the operating system) that sets it apart from Windows (the operating system). PPC would set it apart from x86, not Windows, IMO.

 

[kingstontown]

Hey Steve, if you read this:
I WANT THOSE BL**DY 7448 POWERBOOKS with better graphics and better screens... AND I WANT THEM NOW !!!

I switched to Mac 3 years ago but I might switch back to a Vaio if this doesn't happen soon. I definitly wont buy an A rev. "Pentiumbook"...

 

[willyjsimmons]

AMD is crap

AMD is crap.
AMD compatible boards are crap.

And that's all I really have to say about that.

 

[shamino]

AMD is crap.
AMD compatible boards are crap.

And that's all I really have to say about that.

OK everybody, out of the pool! All you millions of PC owners who are using AMD systems, stop right now and throw it all away. It's all crap, because willyjsimmons said so. No, I can't tell you why, but he said so, so you all have to obey.