[geeks] this is where the mac should be

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, James Fogg wrote:
>
>> Remember that one of Apples big concerns was the need for a low power
>> consumption chip for laptops. IBM still hasn't addressed that issue.
>
> Apple's concerns were:
>    1) No low-power laptop part, which IBM had out within the year, in
>       a dual core variant, no less.
>    2) No 3.0GHz G5, which IBM had out within a month of the 
> "transition"
>       announcement.
>    3) Better MIPS/watts on the Intel side than in PPC's future.  It 
> looks
>       like POWER6 is going to blow a big smoking hole in that argument,
>       too.
>
> I suspect the real reasons Apple switched platforms was something like
> this:
>    1) Intel's core logic has DRM (TPM), which makes Hollywood happy.

Would be trivial to add DRM to any motherboard.  CPLD's anyone?

>    2) It gave Apple the opportunity to outsource their hardware design 
> to
>       other companies, so that Apple could save its desig engineers' 
> time
>       for more profitable ventures (such as overpriced lossy portable
>       music players).
>    3) Apple wanted to keep tiny inventories (ie: like Dell) with niche
>       processors, ASICs, and boards, and got tired of IBM and Freescale
>       telling them exactly where to stick that argument.
>
Much more likely are #2 and #3.  Small inventory = much larger cash 
flow.

> So, now Apple doesn't design any of their hardware, uses commodity 
> parts
> so that they can play Dell's product-chain game, and have the DRM 
> switch
> ready to throw whenever Hollywood buys the right politician.
>

I would be curious to know if Apple leaving hurt IBM/Freescale/whoever 
in any way.  It may have given them more momentum on Cell in that Cell 
is the only arrow with any wood behind it at this point.

--Patrick