There are costs associated with a company like Apple changing chipsets and suppliers, and those costs would need to be weighed against the benefits. Some are easy to see, like the costs to redesign/engineer the computer systems and to have suppliers re-tool their manufacturing processes to use the new parts. But as I mentioned before there are also costs in marketing and sales. Having to build entire new ad campaigns, marketing materials, brochures, etc to use the new company's stuff, as well as educating the public on why this is a good move.
Yes, you're right to a certain extent that the public doesn't care about what's inside as long as it works, but there is a reasoning companies spend billions on marketing and branding. Like it or not, Intel and AMD have public perceptions of their brands that are largely independent of actual performance. That's why companies have marketing, and it's true across many domains. Then there is also all the legal issues from the contracts and relationships, as well as the intellectual property concerns. For example, if the Apple/Intel relationship resulted in Apple getting access to technology in Intel's pipeline or access to Intel's long range strategy, Intel might have a legal case if Apple suddenly shifted to AMD. ----------- Brian Follow Me [image: LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/brianweeden> [image: Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/brianweeden> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Mini Me <[email protected]> wrote: > As I said it's just a rumor being reported and you make a good point about > PowerPC hardware. If AMD can make a competitive part then why wouldn't Apple > use it? They surely don't have any great love for any hardware manufacturer. > I'm glad Motorola is still around. You know, if Brazos is as powerful and > energy efficient as has been reported then why not use it in the iPad? > > > > > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:33:08 -0600, Brian Weeden <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Perhaps you missed the massive uproar from the Apple fan community (and >> developers) when they ditched PowerPC? >> >> Part of that was Apple's own doing of course, in that they spent years >> convincing the public that Intel was inferior and then had to come out and >> say exactly the opposite. And part of it was the change in architecture >> to >> X86, which would not be as much of an issue going from Intel to AMD. >> >> Still, I am highly skeptical. They already got Nvidia to make a custom >> graphics chip for their MacBook Pros, and now Apple is going to ditch them >> for AMD/ATI? Again, that would mean a huge marketing cost. >> >> The only device I could possibly see Apple using Brazos in is the Macbook >> Air, where weight and power is at a premium, but they just refreshed that >> so >> I wouldn't expect to see another refresh until the end of 2011 at the >> earliest. >> >> --------- >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Thane Sherrington < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> At 02:22 PM 21/12/2010, Brian Weeden wrote: >>> >>> Source? I find that highly unlikely, except as a bargaining chip to >>>> drive >>>> a >>>> better price from Intel. >>>> >>>> >>> I've seen a couple of reports on this recently. >>> >>> >>> Apple has spent an enormous amount of marketing resources re-branding to >>> >>>> Intel from PowerPC, and would have to sink an even larger amount of >>>> resources in any switch to AMD. Like it or not, AMD does not have the >>>> same >>>> mindshare and brand power among consumers as Intel. >>>> >>>> >>> I very much doubt Apple buyers care what CPU is in the machine. Why would >>> they if they get the performance they want? >>> >>> T >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >
