One of the ironies of my technical career is that when I first went to work for a tech company, I specifically wanted to work for a firm that was breaking the mold — not representative of it. So, in my initial interview, I was concerned that IBM was going to buy the firm because it was the mold at that time. I was promised it wasn’t, and that there was a contract that said it couldn’t. Then, six months later, it did. IBM nearly failed six years after that, largely due to two strategies Apple now has embraced.
You undoubtedly are not aware of Apple's A-series chips and their performance compared to competing products. In many ways, A-series chips outperform the best from Qualcomm. Why would Apple put an inferior chip in their products?
Also, your link regarding Apple switching to Intel doesn't show any such claim that Apple is leaving ARM behind. It just shows them possibly using an Intel chip for LTE compared to the Qualcomm chip currently used. But the main CPU will most likely still be an A-series chip (likely an A10), especially given how superior it is to other chips available. Your failure to understand that article has me questioning your knowledge in the rest of the topics discussed in your piece.
I'm confused!
Apple has bested the rest of the ARM chip developers for the past 6 years even without the R&D budged of other chip developers, so how can they compete in the future. Hell, Apple looks to threaten the performance of Intel chips with the A9X chip in the iPad pro and it is not like it can't put more into chip development if it needs to.
Oh wait, you were not talking about performance! You were talking about how it's current chips don't have protections that no other chips have ether but may have some time next year. So to mitigate what was a minor breach that was dealt with quickly Apple ether needs to abandon it's excellent chips or it could implement the same technology into it's future chips too.
You sort of end this by saying that If Apple starts to screw over it's customers for short term profits it could kill the company but Apple isn't doing that and it looks unlikely that they would. So your point is?
Loading ...
Two Risky Strategies Could Threaten Apple’s Long-Term Survival
Posted by: Rob Enderle September 28, 2015 05:00 AMOne of the ironies of my technical career is that when I first went to work for a tech company, I specifically wanted to work for a firm that was breaking the mold — not representative of it. So, in my initial interview, I was concerned that IBM was going to buy the firm because it was the mold at that time. I was promised it wasn’t, and that there was a contract that said it couldn’t. Then, six months later, it did. IBM nearly failed six years after that, largely due to two strategies Apple now has embraced.
Also, your link regarding Apple switching to Intel doesn't show any such claim that Apple is leaving ARM behind. It just shows them possibly using an Intel chip for LTE compared to the Qualcomm chip currently used. But the main CPU will most likely still be an A-series chip (likely an A10), especially given how superior it is to other chips available. Your failure to understand that article has me questioning your knowledge in the rest of the topics discussed in your piece.
Apple has bested the rest of the ARM chip developers for the past 6 years even without the R&D budged of other chip developers, so how can they compete in the future. Hell, Apple looks to threaten the performance of Intel chips with the A9X chip in the iPad pro and it is not like it can't put more into chip development if it needs to.
Oh wait, you were not talking about performance! You were talking about how it's current chips don't have protections that no other chips have ether but may have some time next year. So to mitigate what was a minor breach that was dealt with quickly Apple ether needs to abandon it's excellent chips or it could implement the same technology into it's future chips too.
You sort of end this by saying that If Apple starts to screw over it's customers for short term profits it could kill the company but Apple isn't doing that and it looks unlikely that they would. So your point is?
Cute.