Apple Instant-on Computers? Not Likely, But Here's Another Idea (AAPL)

This article has 6 comments:

•  
  notmart

  Nov 25 02:47 AM
  What do I think? Very unlikely - more so than instant-on computers. The reason? Flash memory actually "wears out" much faster than magnetic media - making it unsuitable for replacing a hard disk drive. Flash memory, under hard-disk-like I/O loads, would die in under a year...
•  
  Andrush

  Nov 25 02:10 PM
  Carl,
  
  I have thought about this too. I think you are correct, that the quantites of flash chips involved mean more than huge quantities of iPods. I also agree with you that Seth Jayson at the Motley Fool's speculation overlooks the fact that "instant-on" or even "instant re-boot" is not much of a big deal for users of OS X, whose computers, even PowerBook laptops, remain on for days, weeks or months.
  
  However, looking at the numbers, it is hard to see how realistic a "Flash-memory only" laptop might be right now. As it happens, "My First Computer" was a Zinclair ZX88, which was an A4 laptop with a B&W screen about 200mm x 40mm, about 128kb of memory and no hard drive. So such a thing is possible, but over 15 years every advance on the solid state storage side has been matched by advances on spinning drives.
  
  Today, I can buy a 4GB iPod with solid state storage and a 60GB iPod with spinning storage (and I have recently bought both). The video-capable iPod obviously uses some flash for its "instant-on"... but still relies on a spinning drive for the music and vids. My OS X system software takes up about 6-8MB. It wouldn't take too much work on Apple's part to put the important stuff of OS X onto a smaller, say 2MB chip, but there still wouldn't be enough room for data. Having your 60GB iPod along might help, but then it wouldn't be a "solid-state"... PowerBook.
  
  I can think of three reasons why Apple should want to make this Flash Memory deal:
  
  1. Apple really wants to secure a supply of chips for iPods. For three possible reasons (without knowing the details of the deal):
  a): it is quite possible that, while they are 6GB chips today, 5 years down the line they will be 60GB chips to power those Video-capable iPods.
  b): It may simply be financial: the present value of that $1.25 billion makes those future chips a good deal. or
  c): it is a spoiler: owning those chips now just makes it harder for any other MP3 player maker to produce their players.
  
  2. The supply of chips is required for a completely different Apple product. The next Airport Express, that will feed your TV as well as your sound system, perhaps, with a need for video streaming?
  
  3. Apple has read the Intel small print and seen how flash memory can improve Windows, with the "instant-on" feature in case Windows crashes or if Windows laptop makers want to improve start-up or re-start times. And if Apple or Steve Jobs are Macchaivellian enough to see an opportunity for spoiling their opponent's chances by buying up the chips they would need.
  
  Whatever the reason, I am sure that the decision was taken by people working for Apple who have a track record of success financially or commercially. If there was any design or technology component of this decision, I have no reason to doubt that a billion and a quarter bucks would not have been shelled out if the numbers did not add up.
•  
  ajb

  Nov 25 05:27 PM
  PowerBooks are already effectively instant on.
  
  At work, I set my wintel laptop to standy rather than hibernate, but it still takes a minimum of 40 seconds, and often over 2 minutes to come to the "this computer locked" screen for a three finger salute (which doesn't always work from the external keyboard because it takes another few seconds to initialise) to be able to type in the password. Even if all I have done is close the lid and later reopen it. Once the password is entered, it takes another long time for the external screen to initialise, and for windoze or the apps to be useable.
  
  At home, with my powerbook, no matter what environment changes (network location / interface / external peripherals), I open the lid, and in less than two seconds I have a password dialogue box, and as soon as I enter the password, my machine is ready to use, responsive, network up, everything as it should be.
  
  Why would Apple waste time, effort, and money on flash RAM when they already have effectively "instant on"?
•  
  cdhowe

  Nov 25 08:55 PM

  My Website
  As I noted in the article, I agree with you about Powerbooks being instant-on already, which is why I'm looking for another reason they did this deal. No matter what products you plan to develop, $1.25 billion is not chump change. You don't spend that kind of money without a plan. The question for us is, "What's the plan?"
  
  Keep thinking, though; we should be able to figure this out.
  
  -Carl
•  
  notmart

  Nov 26 12:54 PM
  Well, here's where we are currently...
  
  Instant-on computers? Not likely because Apple doesn't need flash memory to do that...
  HDD-less Macs using flash for storage? Even less likely because flash makes a TERRIBLE hard disk (it dies in under a year)
  
  I suggest that the mundane, boring option may be true - they are simply securing a large supply of flash for future iPods. Either it's that or it's someting totally insane. Thoughts?
•  
  StephN

  Nov 27 12:20 PM
  I think your intuition is right on: Apple will want to imitate its iPod success with an appliance-like laptop. I am typing on an iBook right now, and my iMac looks suspiciously like a dishwasher from the rear. But I am guessing this purchase is meant to secure Apple's competitive grip on the chip supply. Chip supply, as much as design, has contributed to the iPod's success.