3 ms·

Was it really that risky? If anything this seemed like a pretty sure-fire bet by bringing in various operations in-house when partnerships would prove to go sou

Was it really that risky? If anything this seemed like a pretty sure-fire bet by bringing in various operations in-house when partnerships would prove to go sour. I think Apple knew these limitations back with Jobs too. At least that's what I understood from reading various biographies on the many Apple characters & partnerships. Now that Apple has paved the way, you'll likely see this with other big computer companies like Microsoft for their mainline products & development. I think Steve Jobs would regularly quote Alan Kay on this idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfTXYa36f4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfTXYa36f4 I think that given Intel has recently changed leadership (for the better ridding the culture of MBAs), we may even see unique partnerships as well that may act as this "in-house" hardware providers.

bombcar 5y ago
People overestimate the risk. If the M1 had not worked out they’d stick it in an iPhone and try again. They’re still selling Intel processors so it’s not like Intel would tell them to F off either, so the real risk is whatever costs they incurred making it. Like the Intel transition before, they controlled risks well and were able to develop the iPhone processor until it could run a Mac. Just because something is daring and amazing doesn’t mean it was a huge risk.
scarface74 5y ago
Microsoft doesn’t sell hardware in enough volume to design its own competitive chips.
- thenerdhead 5y ago
  Yeah but will they in 5-10 years? https://towardsdatascience.com/microsofts-bright-future-8c75f2e4dd38 https://towardsdatascience.com/microsofts-bright-future-8c75...
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Even if you take that article at face value (I don’t). Let’s look at chip volumes 1. Apple uses the same processors (the Mx series) on Macs and high end and midrange iPads. 2. Looking more broadly, Apple uses slightly modified versions of the same ARM chip in Macs, iPads, iPhones, set top boxes and monitors (yes the newest Apple monitor has the same processor as an iPhone 11) Just taking 1 and two into account, Apple probably sells between 250 - 300 million computing devices with high end ARM chips. Now let’s add the processors that Apple sells in the Watch and AirPods that are also ARM variants.

bombcar 5y ago

People overestimate the risk. If the M1 had not worked out they’d stick it in an iPhone and try again. They’re still selling Intel processors so it’s not like Intel would tell them to F off either, so the real risk is whatever costs they incurred making it. Like the Intel transition before, they controlled risks well and were able to develop the iPhone processor until it could run a Mac. Just because something is daring and amazing doesn’t mean it was a huge risk.

scarface74 5y ago

Microsoft doesn’t sell hardware in enough volume to design its own competitive chips.

thenerdhead 5y ago
Yeah but will they in 5-10 years? https://towardsdatascience.com/microsofts-bright-future-8c75f2e4dd38 https://towardsdatascience.com/microsofts-bright-future-8c75...
- scarface74 5y ago
  Even if you take that article at face value (I don’t). Let’s look at chip volumes 1. Apple uses the same processors (the Mx series) on Macs and high end and midrange iPads. 2. Looking more broadly, Apple uses slightly modified versions of the same ARM chip in Macs, iPads, iPhones, set top boxes and monitors (yes the newest Apple monitor has the same processor as an iPhone 11) Just taking 1 and two into account, Apple probably sells between 250 - 300 million computing devices with high end ARM chips. Now let’s add the processors that Apple sells in the Watch and AirPods that are also ARM variants.