3 ms·

I think that’s what he’s trying to say? It doesn’t make sense though because having your own architecture isn’t that useful if no one else wants to use it. The

I think that’s what he’s trying to say? It doesn’t make sense though because having your own architecture isn’t that useful if no one else wants to use it. The goal is to 10X your profits by licensing out your designs. Designing your own architecture is a 1X move if only you use it and that’s not counting the cost of maintenance and marketing. Counterpoint: Apple has sunk an incredible amount of money into an architecture that provides very few tangible benefits to the consumer. It looks unlikely that they’ll ever recoup costs. They could have put that money toward their own fab and received infinite US government money instead.

dasil003 5y ago
What you are saying is antithetical to the entire Apple strategy, which is to create the best vertically integrated hardware and software and charge a premium for it. The strategy you're suggesting is to commoditize yourself, which they already tried (do you remember the Mac clone era), and is also the same reason IBM lost the PC market to Microsoft and none of the resulting hardware OEMs have even a fraction of Apple's market cap. Also, to suggest that Apple Silicon has very few tangible benefits is laughable. The power / performance are incredible, and the deep integration provides tons of optimizations that no other manufacturer can match. This ranges from seemingly simple things like M1 Macs waking up faster than you can open the lid, to long-term strategic advantages such as cross-compiling single binaries to both Mac OS and iOS, or adding custom silicon to cover software features with unprecedented efficiency with a guarantee that every single machine running it will have access to that hardware (over time).