5 ms·

People were skeptical of Apple for a long time after Steve Jobs came back, too.

scarface74 4y ago
Intels issue is that it’s competing on technology. Jobs never really tried to compete on technology. Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. Apple didn’t become competitive on a technological basis until 2012 with the iPhone 5s. What’s Intel’s “unfair advantage”.
- ijidak 4y ago
  Wait, isn't Intel vertically integrated exactly like Apple? They own design and foundry. TSMC is mostly foundry. AMD is mostly design. Right now, vertical integration is a weakness for Intel -- just as it was for Apple during the Jobs interregnum and the beginning of his return. (e.g. the pre-Apple-on-Intel silicon years.) But the situation could quickly change and vertical integration could become an advantage again for Intel. Especially in a "challenging" geopolitical environment.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And Apple is also a bit player in each of its markets. The iPhone only has 13% market share worldwide and the Mac has around 10%. It happens to have the most profitable niches and it can ignore markets it doesn’t want to serve. The PC market is not growing. The chance of Intel overtaking Nvidia for GPUs, ARM for low power chips and making “old” chips for cars, microwaves, etc. is slim
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. The thing Apple does isn't really vertical integration. It's tying. The only thing stopping iPhone hardware from running Android is Apple. The only thing stopping iOS from running on Samsung hardware is Apple. It's not that they fundamentally require each other. Maybe some minor proportion of iOS features require some iPhone-specific hardware. If you offered iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone without those features, they would still sell. So why are they not offering combinations customers want? Because if they sold iOS for Samsung, they'd lose the margin on the hardware. If they sold iPhones with Android, they'd lose the margin on the OS/services. So if you want one you have to take both. That's not really a competitive advantage. It doesn't gain market share, it costs it, because some of the people who would buy iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone will go buy Android on Samsung. What it does is increase their margins at the expense of consumer choice. And it's a risk, because it means they have to execute well everywhere, or the thing that underperforms brings down the whole stack. Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Which means all they need for success is to get back their process advantage. They may or may not be able to do that, but it's all they need.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    A product is always a combination of features. That’s kind of the definition of a product. Do you also think Tesla should sell its battery to Ford? Is it “tying” when Nintendo doesn’t let you run “PlaystationOS” on a Nintendo Switch? When Jobs came back and introduced the iMac, Apple wasn’t exactly a behemoth in 1997. Enough users chose using their own free will to buy an integrated product (with a shitty operating system) to get Apple back to profitability. Even in 2001, when Apple introduced the iPod, Apple was going back and forth between profitability and loss. By 2003, enough users found value in the integration between iPods and iTunes and the Music Store to choose a more expensive integrated product. ios would be a worse user experience (on worse hardware) if it was running on Samsung phones. Users have a choice, they can buy an Android device with slower hardware, less updates, and a none integrated ecosystem for less money. 87% of users in the world make that choice. > Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Wow, all they have to do is getter better, I’m sure they never thought about that… And the third party they are fabbing for is MediaTek and it’s based on a 22nm process - which was stated of the art in 2012. > Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. By 2011, if Apple had completely killed the Mac, it would have still been more profitable than any computer company. Fast forward to today, and the Mac only makes up about 10% of their revenue.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      > A product is always a combination of features. That’s kind of the definition of a product. So if your product is flour or plate glass... ? Many products are combinations of things. A simple bench is lumber and screws and paint. But lumber and screws and paint are all widely available commodities. Someone who sells benches doesn't have to sell screws for them to be available in the market. They may not even manufacture the screws, so anyone who wants them can buy them from the same place they did. When it becomes tying is when there is any part of your product that customers might want to buy separately, but nobody else makes it, so it isn't available separately, from anyone. You can only get it tied to the other parts. That's tying. > Do you also think Tesla should sell its battery to Ford? I think Telsa would be happy to sell batteries to Ford. They'd build another battery factory and make a lot of money. Do you think Tesla should be able to prohibit anyone from taking the battery out of a Tesla and using it in some other car or for some other purpose? > Is it “tying” when Nintendo doesn’t let you run “PlaystationOS” on a Nintendo Switch? Obviously. What makes you think that is some kind of controversial result? Anybody who wants to should be able to install iOS on their XBOX. > When Jobs came back and introduced the iMac, Apple wasn’t exactly a behemoth in 1997. Enough users chose using their own free will to buy an integrated product (with a shitty operating system) to get Apple back to profitability. Buying an integrated product isn't the same thing as buying a product because it's integrated. By definition if they want any of the parts that isn't available separately, they have to buy the whole thing. And as shitty as MacOS Classic was, it wasn't as shitty as Windows ME. > ios would be a worse user experience (on worse hardware) if it was running on Samsung phones. Not compared to the same Samsung phone running Android, presumably. > Wow, all they have to do is getter better, I’m sure they never thought about that... You asked what their competitive advantage would be. For years it was superior process. It's not physically impossible for them to do that again. We just don't know if they will yet. > And the third party they are fabbing for is MediaTek and it’s based on a 22nm process - which was stated of the art in 2012. Because their problem was caused by their existing process being a mess. They have to be able to do state of the art in volume before they can sell it to somebody else. The more significant development was Arc on TSMC. > By 2011, if Apple had completely killed the Mac, it would have still been more profitable than any computer company. Fast forward to today, and the Mac only makes up about 10% of their revenue. How does that affect the state of their integrated product just before the Intel switch when they didn't have a competitive PowerPC processor?

Intels issue is that it’s competing on technology. Jobs never really tried to compete on technology. Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. Apple didn’t become competitive on a technological basis until 2012 with the iPhone 5s. What’s Intel’s “unfair advantage”.

ijidak 4y ago
Wait, isn't Intel vertically integrated exactly like Apple? They own design and foundry. TSMC is mostly foundry. AMD is mostly design. Right now, vertical integration is a weakness for Intel -- just as it was for Apple during the Jobs interregnum and the beginning of his return. (e.g. the pre-Apple-on-Intel silicon years.) But the situation could quickly change and vertical integration could become an advantage again for Intel. Especially in a "challenging" geopolitical environment.
- scarface74 4y ago
  And Apple is also a bit player in each of its markets. The iPhone only has 13% market share worldwide and the Mac has around 10%. It happens to have the most profitable niches and it can ignore markets it doesn’t want to serve. The PC market is not growing. The chance of Intel overtaking Nvidia for GPUs, ARM for low power chips and making “old” chips for cars, microwaves, etc. is slim
AnthonyMouse 4y ago
> Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. The thing Apple does isn't really vertical integration. It's tying. The only thing stopping iPhone hardware from running Android is Apple. The only thing stopping iOS from running on Samsung hardware is Apple. It's not that they fundamentally require each other. Maybe some minor proportion of iOS features require some iPhone-specific hardware. If you offered iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone without those features, they would still sell. So why are they not offering combinations customers want? Because if they sold iOS for Samsung, they'd lose the margin on the hardware. If they sold iPhones with Android, they'd lose the margin on the OS/services. So if you want one you have to take both. That's not really a competitive advantage. It doesn't gain market share, it costs it, because some of the people who would buy iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone will go buy Android on Samsung. What it does is increase their margins at the expense of consumer choice. And it's a risk, because it means they have to execute well everywhere, or the thing that underperforms brings down the whole stack. Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Which means all they need for success is to get back their process advantage. They may or may not be able to do that, but it's all they need.
- scarface74 4y ago
  A product is always a combination of features. That’s kind of the definition of a product. Do you also think Tesla should sell its battery to Ford? Is it “tying” when Nintendo doesn’t let you run “PlaystationOS” on a Nintendo Switch? When Jobs came back and introduced the iMac, Apple wasn’t exactly a behemoth in 1997. Enough users chose using their own free will to buy an integrated product (with a shitty operating system) to get Apple back to profitability. Even in 2001, when Apple introduced the iPod, Apple was going back and forth between profitability and loss. By 2003, enough users found value in the integration between iPods and iTunes and the Music Store to choose a more expensive integrated product. ios would be a worse user experience (on worse hardware) if it was running on Samsung phones. Users have a choice, they can buy an Android device with slower hardware, less updates, and a none integrated ecosystem for less money. 87% of users in the world make that choice. > Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Wow, all they have to do is getter better, I’m sure they never thought about that… And the third party they are fabbing for is MediaTek and it’s based on a 22nm process - which was stated of the art in 2012. > Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. By 2011, if Apple had completely killed the Mac, it would have still been more profitable than any computer company. Fast forward to today, and the Mac only makes up about 10% of their revenue.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > A product is always a combination of features. That’s kind of the definition of a product. So if your product is flour or plate glass... ? Many products are combinations of things. A simple bench is lumber and screws and paint. But lumber and screws and paint are all widely available commodities. Someone who sells benches doesn't have to sell screws for them to be available in the market. They may not even manufacture the screws, so anyone who wants them can buy them from the same place they did. When it becomes tying is when there is any part of your product that customers might want to buy separately, but nobody else makes it, so it isn't available separately, from anyone. You can only get it tied to the other parts. That's tying. > Do you also think Tesla should sell its battery to Ford? I think Telsa would be happy to sell batteries to Ford. They'd build another battery factory and make a lot of money. Do you think Tesla should be able to prohibit anyone from taking the battery out of a Tesla and using it in some other car or for some other purpose? > Is it “tying” when Nintendo doesn’t let you run “PlaystationOS” on a Nintendo Switch? Obviously. What makes you think that is some kind of controversial result? Anybody who wants to should be able to install iOS on their XBOX. > When Jobs came back and introduced the iMac, Apple wasn’t exactly a behemoth in 1997. Enough users chose using their own free will to buy an integrated product (with a shitty operating system) to get Apple back to profitability. Buying an integrated product isn't the same thing as buying a product because it's integrated. By definition if they want any of the parts that isn't available separately, they have to buy the whole thing. And as shitty as MacOS Classic was, it wasn't as shitty as Windows ME. > ios would be a worse user experience (on worse hardware) if it was running on Samsung phones. Not compared to the same Samsung phone running Android, presumably. > Wow, all they have to do is getter better, I’m sure they never thought about that... You asked what their competitive advantage would be. For years it was superior process. It's not physically impossible for them to do that again. We just don't know if they will yet. > And the third party they are fabbing for is MediaTek and it’s based on a 22nm process - which was stated of the art in 2012. Because their problem was caused by their existing process being a mess. They have to be able to do state of the art in volume before they can sell it to somebody else. The more significant development was Arc on TSMC. > By 2011, if Apple had completely killed the Mac, it would have still been more profitable than any computer company. Fast forward to today, and the Mac only makes up about 10% of their revenue. How does that affect the state of their integrated product just before the Intel switch when they didn't have a competitive PowerPC processor?