Andrush

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
comments1
  • Positive ratings 0
  • Negative ratings 0
  • Net rating 0
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:

Latest Comments
1 Comment

    • Fri Nov 25th 14:10 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Apple Instant-on Computers? Not Likely, But Here's Another Idea (AAPL)
      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.
      View article »