5 ms·

> I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken -

> I'm not sure how you calculated that but they sell about 20m macs per year not 5m Quarterly numbers come in between 4.5-5m units these days but point taken - I recalled numbers for the wrong timeframe. > I also doubt the chips cost them 50$ per unit. The savings may worth few billions so it's not really like nothing. The true cost of this move is reflected in more than the R&D. This is a long multi-year effort involving several parties with competing interests. People are talking here as if they just flipped a switch to save costs. Let me make this clear. In my view, this is an offensive/strategic move to drive differentiation, not a defensive move to save costs (though if this works, that could be a big benefit down the road). Apple has a long history of these kinds of moves (that don't just involve chips). This is the same response I have to people peddling conspiracy theories that Apple loves making money off of selling dongles as a core strategy (dongles aren't the point, wireless is; focusing on dongles is missing the forest for the trees).

lazysloth 6y ago
You aren't making anything clear, just straw man arguments. Apple switches architecture when it suits them, you think they switched from powerpc to intel was for differentation? Nope, it was cost and performance aka value.
- askafriend 6y ago
  > Apple switches architecture when it suits them The question isn't whether it suits them. The question is: "Why did they choose to take on the level of risk in this portion of their business and what is the core benefit they expect?" If the the main reason was cost savings, this would be a horrible way to go about it. There's a better answer: Intel can't deliver the parts they need at the performance and efficiency levels Apple needs to build the products the way they want to build them. This is not a secret. There is a ton of reporting and discussion around this spanning a decade about Intel's pitfalls, disappointments, and delays. Apple might also want much closer alignment between iOS and MacOS. Their chip team has demonstrated an ability to bring chipsets in-house, delivering performance orders of magnitude better than smartphone competition on almost every metric, and doing it consistently on Apple's timelines. It only seems natural to drive a similar advantage on the Mac side while having even tighter integration with their overall Apple ecosystem.
  - lazysloth 6y ago
    Oh, so we are talking about value now? Please stick to an argument after you fail to defend it. You already used your dongle argument no one asked for.
    - askafriend 6y ago
      > Oh, so we are talking about value now? If you want to boil this conversation into one dimension, I'm not your guy - you'd be better suited by finding someone else to talk to. Cheers!
      - lazysloth 6y ago
        Then don't go on a tangent, when the point the parent was talking about potential savings and big oof when you get your numbers wrong then try to strawmen about points no one is arguing against. No one was arguing about vertical intergration bonuses Apple gets by their own SOC. You wanted to boil it into one dimension by dismissing the value Apple can provide with their own chip.
        askafriend 6y ago
        1. I stated quarterly numbers off the top of my head instead of yearly numbers. This mistake doesn't change my point at all at Apple scale - it's a negligible amount of savings relative to the risk. Companies of this scale don't make ecosystem level shifts without a reason far far better than "we can _maybe_ increase yearly profits by 1% (1/100 * 100) sometime in the future". It's just not relevant to bring that up as a primary motivation given what we're talking about. 2. I think you actually missed the point of the conversation. OP said "that's still an insane amount of additional profit per unit to be extracted" and followed that up with "amazing for Apple and its shareholers." It is not insane at all. And not amazing. It just comes off as naive to anyone who's worked in these kinds of organizations and been involved in similar decisions. I think it's hard for some people to comprehend that trying to save $1b a year for its own sake at the scale of an org like Apple can in many cases be a terrible decision.

lazysloth 6y ago

You aren't making anything clear, just straw man arguments. Apple switches architecture when it suits them, you think they switched from powerpc to intel was for differentation? Nope, it was cost and performance aka value.

askafriend 6y ago
> Apple switches architecture when it suits them The question isn't whether it suits them. The question is: "Why did they choose to take on the level of risk in this portion of their business and what is the core benefit they expect?" If the the main reason was cost savings, this would be a horrible way to go about it. There's a better answer: Intel can't deliver the parts they need at the performance and efficiency levels Apple needs to build the products the way they want to build them. This is not a secret. There is a ton of reporting and discussion around this spanning a decade about Intel's pitfalls, disappointments, and delays. Apple might also want much closer alignment between iOS and MacOS. Their chip team has demonstrated an ability to bring chipsets in-house, delivering performance orders of magnitude better than smartphone competition on almost every metric, and doing it consistently on Apple's timelines. It only seems natural to drive a similar advantage on the Mac side while having even tighter integration with their overall Apple ecosystem.
- lazysloth 6y ago
  Oh, so we are talking about value now? Please stick to an argument after you fail to defend it. You already used your dongle argument no one asked for.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    > Oh, so we are talking about value now? If you want to boil this conversation into one dimension, I'm not your guy - you'd be better suited by finding someone else to talk to. Cheers!
    - lazysloth 6y ago
      Then don't go on a tangent, when the point the parent was talking about potential savings and big oof when you get your numbers wrong then try to strawmen about points no one is arguing against. No one was arguing about vertical intergration bonuses Apple gets by their own SOC. You wanted to boil it into one dimension by dismissing the value Apple can provide with their own chip.
      - askafriend 6y ago
        1. I stated quarterly numbers off the top of my head instead of yearly numbers. This mistake doesn't change my point at all at Apple scale - it's a negligible amount of savings relative to the risk. Companies of this scale don't make ecosystem level shifts without a reason far far better than "we can _maybe_ increase yearly profits by 1% (1/100 * 100) sometime in the future". It's just not relevant to bring that up as a primary motivation given what we're talking about. 2. I think you actually missed the point of the conversation. OP said "that's still an insane amount of additional profit per unit to be extracted" and followed that up with "amazing for Apple and its shareholers." It is not insane at all. And not amazing. It just comes off as naive to anyone who's worked in these kinds of organizations and been involved in similar decisions. I think it's hard for some people to comprehend that trying to save $1b a year for its own sake at the scale of an org like Apple can in many cases be a terrible decision.