Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is America's semiconductor problem

semiconductor-digest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–246 of 246 posts

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#241

Post by zamadatix »

Arn_Thor wrote: post #163
zamadatix wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think chip design conversation, particularly for mobile, really have much to do with the semiconductor production conversation. Sticking with that theme when Apple was doing their own mobile CPUs with ARM Intel's semiconductor fab capabilities were industry leading. I think Intel probably deserves a mention in the article but that line of question feels like the wrong angle of approach for it.

You say Intel’s semiconductor fabbing was leading when Apple started to do their mobile processors on ARM. In wafer tech that is probably true, I don’t know. But clearly Intel wasn’t making power efficient mobile chips. Either because they didn’t have the design capability or didn’t consider the segment worth it. There’s an interesting article in that alone. My only point is that the story of Intel’s disorganized ret…

This is, again, the difference between an article talking about chip design problems (which America certainly doesn't have) and semiconductor production problems (which America does have).

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#242

Post by paulmd »

Y_Y wrote: post #196
paulmd wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an even spicier take: GPL has accelerated/worsened this trend, imo. Not out of anything they really did wrong, but actually just by well-intentioned success. It’s about “code revenue” vs “services revenue”. If I can’t sell you a copy of Office 97, well, obviously that pushes things to the Office 365 model. And the unfortunate reality is that a huge amount of important code is now GPL, which means a huge amount of…

Overall great comment, I wanted to highlight the part about "dumping". A huge amount of dumping-equivalent behaviour guess on in the software industry, I sometimes wonder what kind of market we'd see if it were prevented.

It's one of the biggest problems with "sustainable software" if you will. How is honest software supposed to outcompete "free", especially for key "platform" things like email, where "getting platformed" (in the sense your mail delivers) is non-trivial?

things like that really need to cost money, because they cost money to deliver. and "I get it with my ISP" isn't a satisfying answer either.

SMS 2FA is another similar problem. It's basically an identifier token at this point and you have very little choice over it etc. I actually have been denied for credit cards twice (I think, microcenter told me why it usually fails for them and it makes sense) because my phone number is in my parents' name... (I pay them for a line on a family plan as an additional line). It's obviously not the same problem but it's getting at the problem of these "bundled" services having become de-facto identity providers.

Cause it's not adobe making photoshop free, right? It's bundled search, mail, identity provider, as a free service (you don't pay with money).

But there are many many smaller places it happens etc. I don't quite know how to draw the line of "this is a feature that's bundled" vs "this is actually a separate service" but like, in the large picture there are places where it's not really questionable, right?

"Free as in freedom" is obviously on the clear side of the line. I don't quite know how to draw it for everything, because again, you can see ways where "free MS windows" could be exploitative even if it were free. I guess that falls into the "actual damages" sort of regulatory scenario.

I haven't exhaustively developed the concept but yeah, I mean, "dumping" seems obviously problematic in a market-fairness sense.

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#243

Post by necovek »

acdha wrote: post #153
necovek wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, iPod touch was not much of a difference maker, and I am likely misremembering the dates.

You also missed that Macs were becoming pretty popular before iPhones existed. There were multiple reasons for this but the timeline is nowhere near as simple as you portrayed it.

They were becoming more popular when they switched to Intel CPUs (was it a year before iPhone: 2006?) and with original Air, but really, this was only felt in the US. With M1 they really went ballistic globally.

But sure, it is a simplistic look: for the purposes of the commentary here, I did not want to pretend this is the full analysis, even if I could do one (and I probably couldn't).

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#244

Post by Kirby64 »

windexh8er wrote: post #240
Kirby64 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The choice of these manufacturers is either take the volume order from Apple at lower margins and with stipulations or deal with market volatility. It's the stipulations aspect of what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive and generally horrible for consumers. Do you happen to work for Apple? Seems to be a very Apple-apologetic post for no good reason. I don't, I just work in the industry. These aren't an either-…

> I get that repair shops 'just want to buy the chip', but that's really not what making parts available on the market means. This is where your argument breaks down at the fundamental level because this is flat out incorrect. Organizations like Digikey, and many others, do exactly this. They've been around a long time and they cater to low volume buyers at reasonable margins. Unfortunately your argument seems rooted…

Did you overlook the rest of my comment? Digikey et al can handle distribution, yes, and in some cases can offer minor applications assistance, but they are not the manufacturer and therefore do not have the domain expertise required to adequately support the product. Especially complicated products. I can tell you I've worked with distribution FAEs directly, and they're more-often-than-not just messengers used to shuttle information from the customer to the actual manufacturer FAE or direct applications engineer.

They also don't produce any documentation, nor produce any application boards, collateral, drivers, etc.

Market segments that a company (a semiconductor company) wants to service all have different needs. General market/distribution is a very different business from custom/large customer business. Just like it's very different from industrial. Or automotive.

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#245

Post by _djo_ »

cryptica wrote: post #234
_djo_ wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That says more about you than about those making those decisions. Have you ever spent the time to figure out why those tech companies might prefer to issue Macs? To look at their total cost of ownership numbers, at the availability of configuration management and security software, at levels of support, and at overall reliability and machine lifespan? I've been involved in a few exercises to decide what type of machi…

One of the companies I worked for (a non-profit), the product I was working on was 100% open source and 100% running on Linux, but they still forced me to used a company-supplied Apple Macbook instead of letting me use my personal computer which would have cost them nothing. In the 2 other companies, I started work with my personal Linux computer but they forced me to switch to a company-supplied Macbook later. It's…

Every company I've worked for in recent years has blocked people using their personal computers for work, for compliance reasons. Unless you could prove that the personal devices are under the same compliance regime you'd fail any audit.

Even non-profits often have to abide by the same compliance requirements, often insisted on by their funders.

Issuing a standard computer with a standard managed configuration just removes a ton of headaches for IT.

Re: Apple is America's semiconductor problem

#246

Post by necovek »

rbanffy wrote: post #214
e44858 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why we need tariffs, to make Apple suffer financially if they refuse to move production back to the US.

As a shareholder, I wouldn't be impressed. As a supporter of a more just and equal planet, I'd be in. Be mindful that such tariffs wouldn't hit Apple alone.

"For a company with a market valuation of over 2T dollars at the time of import, import tariffs ..." :)
Post reply on HN