3 ms·

I think you're completely wrong.. My reasoning: - Highly energy efficient non-mobile computers (mini, pro, etc). - They already run a huuuuuuuge server park o

I think you're completely wrong.. My reasoning: - Highly energy efficient non-mobile computers (mini, pro, etc). - They already run a huuuuuuuge server park on AWS for themselves - They've been (successfully) transitioning their revenue towards "services" for almost a decade - I suspect they want a piece of the LLM market as well. - They acquired Fleetsmith for device management in the enterprise - They implemented nested virtualization in the M2+ - The cloud is highly profitable, and I suspect they want a piece of that cake - They spent a lot of resources creating a boot policy that allows booting other/unsigned operating systems on Apple Silicon. (asahi). This is not present on iOS - They already offer "cloud runners" for XCode (cloud). This is a very contained service, to start offering cloud services - The timeline for iCloud platform: - 2016: Azure -> Google. 2018/2019: Google -> AWS. This $1.5B contract will end this year. It seems like a prefect moment to switch from AWS to their own platform and later-on offer more generic services to companies. - They need to 4T or 5T marketcap somehow. Options are - LLMs, Cloud servers, the Enterprise, (Vision), or something completely new, but the Vision Pro is the last major category under Tim Cook, so I don't think anything new will happen for consumers. All in all, it seems like Apple will go back in the (cloud) server business.

refulgentis 3y ago
They're wrong, for a simple reason: my build jobs that can run on a Mac finish faster on a Mac. As far as the complex list of reasons: - Correct. - Do they run the server park, or AWS? - "Services" is a word Apple uses as shorthand for Wall Street types to mean "monthly subscriptions to consumers", it doesn't mean "things we charge for", because at that point it has 0 meaning - Why would anyone run an LLM on an M-series server? - Why would Fleetsmith help manage servers? It's MDM. You don't need or want provisioning profiles on servers. - Nested virtualization makes sense. - Cloud isn't highly profitable, it's highly revenue-able. Profits are declining as the titans bash it out. - They didn't spend a "lot of resources" - Xcode Cloud is in the cloud - but they're already offering it. - The timeline for iCloud elides a whole lot of time. - They don't need a 4T or 5T marketcap and those aren't the only options. You know too much about Apple and it's blinding you because you can connect all the info you know about it to any other arbitrary trend. Been there, that's why I'm comfortable being overly concise about it.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  AWS for "iCloud", not sure what else they run. I meant a "cloud server park" Services is anything software as far as I know. If they run their own servers, they'll have a large number of gpu core which could be used for LLMs. From what I understood is that M* is pretty good at them. That way they're not helping NVIDIA grow more as a competitor. My point with Fleetsmith is that they're looking at corporate use. Maybe not a lot of resources for them (boot loader), but they deliberately allow booting other operating systems. I firmly disagree about cloud profitability. I read numbers between 30% and 60%, although I also found 2.6% for GCP and -8% for Azure. Not sure why they're so far apart. Amortization shouldn't be the issue. Perhaps "R&D" Last part, you might be right ;-)
smoldesu 3y ago
Counterpoint; Apple is still just as greedy as they were when Xserve failed the first time. Cloud customers want good prices and well-supported hardware. On the server, Mac is neither of those really. Apple's hardware pricing would need a complete revision to stay competitive, and their software policy would need to open up even more to enable better API coverage, proper virtualization and compelling hardware compatibility. Even if Apple did that, it would merely be enough to keep MacOS a second-class citizen in the world of server OSes. The existence of OpenBSD and Linux almost obsoletes any real-world application of a licensed server OS. Apple can go back into the server business if they want, but the server business isn't begging for more overhead or grudge matches between vendors. Apple cannot turn the server industry into a trillion-dollar opportunity without reversing policy entirely, on both the hardware and software side of things.

refulgentis 3y ago

They're wrong, for a simple reason: my build jobs that can run on a Mac finish faster on a Mac. As far as the complex list of reasons: - Correct. - Do they run the server park, or AWS? - "Services" is a word Apple uses as shorthand for Wall Street types to mean "monthly subscriptions to consumers", it doesn't mean "things we charge for", because at that point it has 0 meaning - Why would anyone run an LLM on an M-series server? - Why would Fleetsmith help manage servers? It's MDM. You don't need or want provisioning profiles on servers. - Nested virtualization makes sense. - Cloud isn't highly profitable, it's highly revenue-able. Profits are declining as the titans bash it out. - They didn't spend a "lot of resources" - Xcode Cloud is in the cloud - but they're already offering it. - The timeline for iCloud elides a whole lot of time. - They don't need a 4T or 5T marketcap and those aren't the only options. You know too much about Apple and it's blinding you because you can connect all the info you know about it to any other arbitrary trend. Been there, that's why I'm comfortable being overly concise about it.

jbverschoor 3y ago
AWS for "iCloud", not sure what else they run. I meant a "cloud server park" Services is anything software as far as I know. If they run their own servers, they'll have a large number of gpu core which could be used for LLMs. From what I understood is that M* is pretty good at them. That way they're not helping NVIDIA grow more as a competitor. My point with Fleetsmith is that they're looking at corporate use. Maybe not a lot of resources for them (boot loader), but they deliberately allow booting other operating systems. I firmly disagree about cloud profitability. I read numbers between 30% and 60%, although I also found 2.6% for GCP and -8% for Azure. Not sure why they're so far apart. Amortization shouldn't be the issue. Perhaps "R&D" Last part, you might be right ;-)

smoldesu 3y ago

Counterpoint; Apple is still just as greedy as they were when Xserve failed the first time. Cloud customers want good prices and well-supported hardware. On the server, Mac is neither of those really. Apple's hardware pricing would need a complete revision to stay competitive, and their software policy would need to open up even more to enable better API coverage, proper virtualization and compelling hardware compatibility. Even if Apple did that, it would merely be enough to keep MacOS a second-class citizen in the world of server OSes. The existence of OpenBSD and Linux almost obsoletes any real-world application of a licensed server OS. Apple can go back into the server business if they want, but the server business isn't begging for more overhead or grudge matches between vendors. Apple cannot turn the server industry into a trillion-dollar opportunity without reversing policy entirely, on both the hardware and software side of things.