| ▲ | aurareturn 4 days ago |
| I think if Cook had vision, he could have started something called Apple Enterprise and sold Apple Silicon as a server and made AI chips. I agree he’s too conservative and has no product vision. Great manager though. |
|
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I was pleasantly surprised Apple Silicon came out at all. Someone has their eye on long term vision at Apple at least, they just didn't do this on a whim. |
| |
| ▲ | flutas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Or someone told Tim "we can save $XYZ per phone if we switch to custom designed silicon, and potentially expand it to Mac as well so we no longer have Intel overheating our Macbooks." He was after-all more of an operations guy than a product guy before moving into the CEO role. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The unified GPU and unified memory design was pretty important. They just didn’t go and replace intel, they replaced AMD/NVIDIA also. The GPUs in high end Apple silicon are even good enough for mid model inference, and unified memory makes it somewhat cost effective…that advantage probably wasn’t planned and comes from just a lot of good execution and smart R&D. | | |
| ▲ | jychang 4 days ago | parent [-] | | To be fair, Apple HATES Nvidia after the 8400M and 9400M debacle. They probably saw replacing Nvidia as a bigger benefit than replacing Intel. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mrexroad 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They did have Xserve back in the day. As great as Apple silicon is for running local llms along with being a general-purpose computing device, it’s not clear that Apple silicon have enough of a differentiating advantage over a rack of nvidia gpus to make it worthwhile in enterprise… |
| |
| ▲ | Miraste 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Strange to be saying this about Apple products, but its advantage is that it's way, way cheaper. | | |
| ▲ | renmillar 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Would probably be different if NVIDIA viewed it as competition for data center market share |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nxobject 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think that would spread Apple’s chip team too thinly between competing priorities - and require them to do E2E stuff they’d never be interested in doing. What’s always happened, even during Jobs, is that Apple would do something nice and backend-y, and then not be able to keep it up as they’d pour resources into some consumer product. (See: WebObjects, Xserve, Mac OS Server.) |
| |
| ▲ | wpm 2 days ago | parent [-] | | WebObjects was from NeXT. The Xserve saw regular updates until 2010. Mac OS Server was a GUI for a bunch of open source tools, and where it wasn’t (Workgroup Manager), they replaced with the MDM. Apple had more money when they killed these than they did when these products were introduced. It’s not a resources issue. It’s a care issue. Same reason they fired the Mac OS Automation team. Same reason their documentation sucks hot diarrhea and all their good stuff is in the “documentation archive”. Penny pinching. “Shareholder value”. New blood destroying shit they didn’t understand. |
|
|
| ▲ | alt227 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple silicon does not compete well in multicore spaces. People seem to think that because it can run single core things really well on a laptop, it can do anything. Servers regularly have 100-200 cpu cores maxing out of rapid fire threads. This is not what Apple silicon excels at. On top of that, it only performs so well on consumer devices because they control the hardware and OS and can tune both together. Creating server hardware would mean allowing linux to be installed on it, and would need to run equally well. Apple would never put the development time into linux kernel/drivers to make this happen. |
| |
| ▲ | wpm 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Both Intel and AMD sell server CPUs with fewer than 100, hell, fewer than 32 cores. There is of course a market for that. Not everyone needs a $4000 electric bill. Apple just can’t take the typical lions share of the profits in that market so they don’t bother. | |
| ▲ | packetlost 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I know off the top of my head at least 3 places that would happily purchase a couple of XServers (one of which probably still has one) running MacOS Server. Linux isn't as hard of a requirement as you think. | | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Hell... I can think of loads of places running servers on WINDOWS (namely all of my employers, including F500 companies) I am not surprised that someone would run macOS as a server. At least MacOS is Unix based ;) |
| |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is not what Apple silicon excels at Not at the moment, no. I feel like the Apple silicon team probably would rise to that challenge though | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Apple silicon does not compete well in multicore spaces. Can you elaborate on this? Maybe with some useful metrics? |
|
|
| ▲ | brookst 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is expansion to all possible markets really a sign of product vision? Windows is in everything from ATMs to servers to cheap laptops, and I am not sure it’s a better product for it OR that Microsoft makes more money that way. Certainly the support burden for a huge number of long tail applications is huge. And I suppose we’re giving credit to other people for Watch, AirPods, Vision Pro? |
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It doesn't just end with AI, but it seems the most blatant. At a bare minimum, he could assign someone to fulfill that vision for AI. Google has their own chips which they scale. Apple doesn't need to rebuild ChatGPT, but they could very much do what Microsoft does with Phi and provide Apple Silicon trained and optimized base models for all their users. It seems they are already doing something for XCode and Swift, but they're just barely scratching the surface. I remember when the iPhone X became a thing, it was because consumers were extremely underwhelmed by Apple at the time. It's like they kicked it up less than a notch sadly. If Tim Cook decided to be a little more of a visionary, I would say keep him. I would at least prefer he would delegate someone to do the visionary work, he will eventually need a successor. |
|
| ▲ | alexashka 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | saagarjha 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | By calling everyone who buys Apple products 80 IQ, you are lowering the quality of the discourse here. Please don't do that. | | | |
| ▲ | xanderlewis 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anyone who doesn’t happen to do exactly what I do and have the same interests as me is ‘80 IQ’ — whatever that means. Got it. | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doesn't Google sell $2000 phones? I really dont get the argument here. | |
| ▲ | pmarreck 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh look, it's a poor, green-text Google apologist who thinks phones with preinstalled crapware, an energy management model that doesn't stop any app from saturating your bandwidth, CPU or battery draw, and a security model that ensures you stand a good chance of becoming part of a crypto farm or botnet just because you downloaded an emulator from a third-party app store, means you have above an 80 IQ! LOL, way to virtue-signal your poverty, bro. These are tough times, I get it... But the first 2 Android phones I ever tried, I crashed within 5 minutes just by... get this... turning on their fucking Bluetooth. WHAT QUALITY. More like "what Chinese shovelware," amirite? (How does it feel? Literally turning around your inane opinion back onto you.) | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It feels like you are particularly insecure and didn't need to spout that any more than the parent did. | | |
| ▲ | pmarreck 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Nope. I just want to show a douche what it looks like. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, good. Your comment was materially indistinct from someone who took the "iPad and Vision Pro are toys" thing a bit too personally. |
|
|
|
|