Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Now World's Largest Semiconductor Buyer

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the newton-would-be-so-proud dept.

HP 92

Lucas123 writes "Apple has leaped two spots to become the world's largest consumer of semiconductor technology, including NAND flash, NOR flash and microprocessors. Apple spent $17.5 billion on semiconductors in 2010, an increase of 79.6% over 2009. Sixty-one percent of Apple's semiconductor budget in 2010 was spent on wireless products such as the iPhone and iPad, while second place HP spent 82% of its semiconductor budget on computer products like desktops, notebooks and servers."

cancel ×

92 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

surprising (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410410)

it is surprising how hard it is for slashdot posters to click one link further to the real article instead of linking to the one with adds.

http://www.isuppli.com/Semiconductor-Value-Chain/News/Pages/Apple-Becomes-Worlds-Largest-OEM-Semiconductor-Buyer-in-2010.aspx

Re:surprising (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410448)

Can you link me to the one with subtracts?

Re:surprising (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411192)

For what it's worth, that's the only thing I've seen editors change. They may not fix the title, or check the summary (sometimes even typos), but for sure, they will try to fix the URL to point to what I believe is one of their "partners".

Re:surprising (1)

Relayman (1068986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412020)

it is surprising that a few slashdot posters still don't know how to code links: Click Here! [isuppli.com]

SAMSUNG (3, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410474)

And Samsung is the world's second largest semiconductor MANUFACTURER, after Intel.. including providing a lot of chips to Apple.

Meanwhile, Apple is in the middle of a giant lawsuit against Samsung for it's mobile phone division, which is starting to seriously make a run for crown of the Android market, and is eating away at Apple's business.

Fun times ahead.

Re:SAMSUNG (4, Insightful)

papasui (567265) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410638)

Well I think Apple's kinda got Samsung by the balls. Yeah Samsung is probably pissed about the lawsuit, but on the other hand if they say fuck Apple they just lost one of their largest customers. Granted Apple would need to get a new supplier but one thing I've learned in business is you never want the vendor thinking they are your only option. Hell I imagine Apple probably could start manufacturing the parts they want, I believe there sitting on around 60 Billion in cash.

Re:SAMSUNG (4, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410682)

I'm guessing Samsumg's VP of mobile considers the VP of manufacturing to be an enemy, as both of them are in competition for the CEO postion. If hitting Apple hurts manufacturing, that's two birds with one stone.

Re:SAMSUNG (0)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411466)

How is this flamebait? Someone at samsung has mod points?

Re:SAMSUNG (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413276)

Wow really ? The guy that presided over a 14% drop in phone sales [electronista.com] is in line to become CEO and is willing to piss of the biggest customer of the profitable part of business to do so ? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:SAMSUNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36416220)

In a large company like Samsung, it's very common to have a sister division have your competitor as their customer.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36416346)

Let's be honest, first rule of business kill the middle man, unless of course you're the middle man, in which case bullshit remains supreme.

From the consumer standpoint, getting as close as possible to the manufacturer saves a lot of empty pointless profit margins. From the manufacturers standpoint getting as close as possible to the consumer saves a lot of pointless on costs.

Of course Samsung can cripple Apple by attacking it's supply chain and tying it up in court. After all Apple is not Samsung's competitor, Apple's supply chain is Samsung's competitor. Of course Apple's supply chain also has to consider whether Apple is a burden or a benefit on profits (doing a whole lot of turnover with crap margins can get pretty pointless after a while).

Apple is pretty vulnerable to it's supply chain, they simply have to bugger around with supplies to make Apple look really bad to it's customers and make those customers much more accessible.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411898)

No matter how many women you have working in parallel, you cannot make a baby in less than 9 months. $60B means nothing when you make one-of-a-kind items which need fab plants operational right now. Apple may have the cash to build what they need, but there's a lot of strategy around planning a 2-3 year fab plant construction and staffing schedule without cmopletely alienating your current vendors.

Re:SAMSUNG (0)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411032)

Apple really needs to open up its phones like it did from the beginning with iPad. Currently, I think the US is one of the few countries they are unwilling to sell it unlocked for whatever reason.

I know several international (small) business travelers that would love to have an iPhone the past years, but as long as they aren't allowed to swap sims (for a local sim once they get into that country, much cheaper than ATT ass-raping intl rates), it's a no go. And they aren't about to carry two phones and maintain info on both of them, plus paying montly rates.

Re:SAMSUNG (2, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411374)

Blame US carriers for lock in, not Apple.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412260)

You could import an unlocked iPhone from Europe, but it would still only work on AT&T, because they are the only US phone company that use the same technology as the rest of the world.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412750)

You could import an unlocked iPhone from Europe, but it would still only work on AT&T, because they are the only US phone company that use the same technology as the rest of the world.

It will work on T-Mobile. Granted it will only connect via EDGE, but ATT's 3G is mostly only as fast as EDGE anyway. :-)

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411050)

Is it eating away at Apple's business? Marketshare doesn't = profitshare. I think Apple are more interested in the latter.

Re:SAMSUNG (5, Informative)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411716)

Meanwhile, Apple is in the middle of a giant lawsuit against Samsung for it's mobile phone division, which is starting to seriously make a run for crown of the Android market, and is eating away at Apple's business.

Apple:

1. Generates more revenue than any other company in the world selling cell phones (yes they generate more revenue than Nokia)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20056289-248.html [cnet.com]

2. Has 50% of the worldwide profit in cell phones compared to 13% for all Android manufacturers combined:

http://www.asymco.com/2011/05/16/iphone-share-of-phone-market-in-q1/ [asymco.com]

3. The iOS app market is more than 17x bigger than Android's by revenue:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/ [techcrunch.com]

Android from a business perspective isn't really doing that great.....

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427368)

Great post. And news flash: closed, proprietary systems generate massive profits for their owners.

So true. Jim Whitehurst from RedHat said this to me last year -- RedHat as an OS is installed in 20% of the enterprise servers in the world (remember his stats as told to me verbally). RedHat makes 2% of the profits of the enterprise server vendors. So the other 80% of the servers' OS's are generating 98% of the profit in the industry. He also said that if you look at all the $100B+ valued companies in the world, you see a large number of software / enterprise companies b/c it's just so darned profitable. Apple it appears has cracked that same nut in the consumer electronics space (which Microsoft had done to a large extent on the home computer market which is now a fading industry it appears).

Anyway - great food for thought - thanks for sharing those links and idea.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429222)

Great post. And news flash: closed, proprietary systems generate massive profits for their owners.

Well, common "Slashdot Wisdom" was that "open always wins" and that Apple's closed proprietary nature was going to end up making the iPhone/iPad like the Macintosh (which also generates more profit than any other computer maker. ) and relegate it to a niche player.

Re:SAMSUNG (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36429672)

Apple may just be the DEC of this decade? But since this decade is just getting started, they may make a whole pile of money before "open wins." and I don't think DEC had to go out of business and Apple will have history to help them guide their future decisions.

Apple has been smart by not being tied down to a particular "layer" in the profits (the "value chain" as I think Geoff Moore calls it). So they've made a pile on their laptops for awhile, and now they're making an even bigger pile on their consumer electronic products. All with relatively closed ecosystems. Maybe that's a permanent win and closed will beat open, but I do suspect that open will continue to chase Apple and others up the value chain. Which is great since we'll get more and more great products from Apple as they innovate. And we'll get lesser (quality and profit) open products underneath them for the foreseeable future?

Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid... (2, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410522)

Apple strength in hardware sales lies in its device and media ecosystemâ"every Apple product is connected through iTunes/iOS and is synergetic with all other Apple products.
As a result, committed users of the Apple ecosystem derive more value from each additional Apple device they buy, and users have little interest in leaving the Apple realm.

In other words, through a common ecosystem, Apple leverages each device to sell other devices. Rising device sales to consumers then leads to increased semiconductor purchasing by Apple.
.
.
A buyer that once purchased a Hewlett-Packard PC would just as likely purchase a Dell PC next if the price was better, given that there is little or no value in purchasing another Hewlett-Packard.

Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed".
Also, HP (and Samsung) buys almost as much semiconductors as Apple (even without all those pricey touchscreens) - but it sucks ass.
While Apple rocks.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410648)

Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed".
(...)
While Apple rocks.

Funny that, since Apple is the IBM of cell phones while Android is the Microsoft. If you invest heavily in Android apps, you can switch between any number of clones. If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iPhone myself because it has features ahead of its time - but so did OS/2. But unless they keep moving they'll end up just like IBM did, overrun by cheap clones doing pretty much the same at a much lower cost.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411046)

It suggests to me they need a cheaper version of the iPhone (I think offering 3GS this long was the idea behind that) but also cheaper plans or just offering it unlocked, cheap, so I can have the carrier of my choice.

Who knows, maybe they'll start offering the 3GS for $229 or some such with the pre-paid cell phone plans out there is Apple smartens up.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412782)

It suggests to me they need a cheaper version of the iPhone (I think offering 3GS this long was the idea behind that) but also cheaper plans or just offering it unlocked, cheap, so I can have the carrier of my choice.

The Verizon/ATT duopoly doesn't want you to have any choice.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36411696)

Yeah, and IBM is just a hollow shell now...wait, no, it's one of the largest IT consulting firms in the world. Last year, IBM had revenues of nearly $100 Billion (for comparison, Apple "only" pulled in $65 Billion). Loss of one market does not mean that a company will die. I wouldn't have a problem with Apple ending up "just like IBM did". Hopefully, they would adapt and move on to dominate different markets.

Insatiable Bloated Machinations (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36417784)

but customers are waking up to IBM's methods, selling needlessly complex products that require the lock-in money-sewer of IBM consulting

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36411712)

I guess every post with the word Apple in it will be reduced to a IOS vs Android cock fight in the comments. I'll bite anyway, since TFA is boring and inaccurate. I mean... the word semiconductor refers to basically every IC and component based on a transistor. TFA seems to refer to only flash memory and microprocessors... Apple was, at several times (perhaps mostly due to Apple's irregular and controversial purchasing patterns) the largest buyer of Flash memory. Besides... these numbers seems to be based on $$, not components. In 2009, isuppli claimed apple was the larges purchaser of NAND flash based on the number of chips they ordered (not per meg or per dollar). Apple receives huge discounts on components, which skews any $-based results (as does exchange rates). The industry production in the same article is measured by Exabytes, not $$ or components. iSuppli (which, from it's name, seems Apple biased), doesn't seem interested in talking about common units, rather a mix of units. Furthermore, many reporters from many sources don't seem to understand the data and have taken the liberty of making things up.

Stupid PC buyers... buying according to their needs and monetary abilities. Why can't they learn that it is much better to be "committed".
(...)
While Apple rocks.

Funny that, since Apple is the IBM of cell phones while Android is the Microsoft. If you invest heavily in Android apps, you can switch between any number of clones. If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.

Don't get me wrong, I have an iPhone myself because it has features ahead of its time - but so did OS/2. But unless they keep moving they'll end up just like IBM did, overrun by cheap clones doing pretty much the same at a much lower cost.

Maybe it's different elsewhere in the world, but in the NE US a low end iPhone is cheaper or the same price as a low end android phone. A high end iPhone is the same price or cheaper than high end Android handsets. There are some models in between on the Android side, but I wouldn't go so far as to say price differential has a large effect on consumer buying habits. Clearly iPhones outsell any single line of Android phones (not that that fact necessarily makes the iPhone better).

IOS vs Android would only be comparable to the os/2 vs windows war if Google was coding iOS (and realized they would benefit greatly by sabatoging the software and throwing in the towel). That is not the case. The current smart phone market is perhaps better analogized as Android being the Linux, and Apple being the Apple.

Of course Android is also like the Dell of smart phones. Maybe it's just Verizon, but every Android set I have seen requires you to root it just to get the bloatware off. If we're rooting these devices, and hence, to be fair, rooting the iPhone, we can negate most complaints about the iPhone. If you don't root an Android phone it's not really open (well it is to developers and hackers, but not to you).

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (2)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412772)

If you invest in iApps, you're committed to Apple hardware which comes with a heavy premium.

Huh? Apple's phones at worst are marginally more expensive than Android phones from the same carriers (especially discounting the two-for-one giveaway deals that are now cropping up on Android phones because otherwise the carriers couldn't move the things). We're talking $200-$300 over 2-3 years. For most people who can afford a smartphone at all, that doesn't even approach a "heavy" premium.

And in exchange for the extra couple hundred dollars, you get world-class support - everything from prompt OS updates to a wide range of peripherals to the best in-store experience in the industry. I had an out-of-warranty iPhone die on me, and Apple swapped it out free of charge. That kind of service alone is worth way more than any "premium" they charge.

You also get a phone with a much better user interface, and deeper app support.

The only reason why Android is doing as well as it is: the carriers need something to keep Apple from becoming a monopoly and bossing them around. That's it. Android is still a junky knockoff, but it's a better knockoff than any of the idiots at RIM or Microsoft could come up with. It's serviceable. So, the carriers push it to keep from becoming beholden to Apple.

It'll be interesting to see what'll happen over the next decade as wifi networks become ubiquitous and the carrier's networks won't matter as much for many folks (especially city dwellers). I'm sure the cable companies would love a slice of the mobile telecom pie too, which could accelerate the migration. I think the carriers are going to lose the ability to dictate which devices people use for telecommunications, and at what price. Apple is uniquely positioned to benefit from such a trend. The other makers all seem to depend upon the carriers to plug their junk. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the gatekeepers are no longer directing traffic their way.

Re:Never has consumer savviness sounded so stupid. (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412844)

And in exchange for the extra couple hundred dollars, you get world-class support - everything from prompt OS updates to a wide range of peripherals to the best in-store experience in the industry. I had an out-of-warranty iPhone die on me, and Apple swapped it out free of charge.

Lucky you, I had a broken home button (just that and yet the phone was completely useless), no warranty and it cost me 100 euros to get it fixed (a refurbished phone btw).

And? (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410544)

You have to understand that apple might as well be the biggest gadget manufacturer in the world. They do desktop computers, notebooks, netbooks and phones (Not to mention iPod lines with touchscreens, for example).

And unlike android or windows, they do manufacture everything themselves, so the load is not spread between every company that decides to produce a windows laptop or android phone.

Re:And? (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410582)

Apple manufacturers very little themselves, they contract out to folks like Foxconn for the actual manufacturing. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with contracting out the actual manufacturing, I just think that it's important to keep in mind that the contractors hardly work just for Apple.

Re:And? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411054)

I think he meant design. From motherboards to the exterior.

Re:And? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411988)

Apple manufacturers very little themselves, they contract out to folks like Foxconn for the actual manufacturing.

While HP, Dell etc. have everything build by Foxconn - big difference.

Re:And? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414082)

While HP, Dell etc. have everything build by Foxconn - big difference.

Don't be an idiot.

HP & Dell have their own design people just like Apple do, else Foxconn would just be churning out identical black boxes that would just be re-badged by Dell and HP.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about (or are too busy worrying about whether your computing device matches your pullover) else you would know, if you look back at the product catalogues of both companies, that a "Dell Inspiron" notebook has a certain look about it, as does an "IBM/Lenovo ThinkPad".

Just because the design aesthetic may not appeal to your snooty outlook on life does not mean it's not there.

Re:And? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36416976)

While HP, Dell etc. have everything build by Foxconn - big difference.

Don't be an idiot.

HP & Dell have their own design people just like Apple do, else Foxconn would just be churning out identical black boxes that would just be re-badged by Dell and HP.

Foxconn CEO: Apple products “very difficult” to make [9to5mac.com] - you can spare us the "that's because Apple engineers are idiots and make them overly complicated to build when they could just make the not-quite-the-same PCs everyone else does".

Re:And? (1)

errandum (2014454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412784)

Obviously. It's my non-english upbringing :P. Obviously they don't assemble the thing, they just design it and make someone else do it. Still, they have to buy/own all the parts that are used, so the argument stands :)

Re:And? (3, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410604)

You're comparing wrong.

Apple is larger than HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, HTC, RIM, etc. And not by just a little bit either.

Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.
Think how many phone models/tablet models HTC sells. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410730)

Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.

Do these statistics exist somewhere?

The HP Revenue is twice that of Apple. (Profits might not) So I'm guessing your're just pulling these from your backside.

You're entirely correct about HTC however.

And why didn't you compare Apple to Samsung? Samsung also makes Laptops, mobile phones and tablets.

Re:And? (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411368)

The HP Revenue is twice that of Apple.

Your numbers are out of date. For the quarter ending in February (HP) and April (Apple) of 2011, HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion, and almost all of that difference comes from HP's printer division. In fact, if you subtract out printers, the HP services group (IT support, etc.), and the HP financial services group, HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36411844)

HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion...if you subtract out printers...HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.

So what you're saying is, HP did indeed bring in far more revenue than Apple, but if you just start subtracting arbitrary line items from HP's revenue, Apple "wins"?

Stop being so stupid.

Re:And? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412368)

HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion...if you subtract out printers...HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.

So what you're saying is, HP did indeed bring in far more revenue than Apple, but if you just start subtracting arbitrary line items from HP's revenue, Apple "wins"? Stop being so stupid.

So counting the revenue HP makes as a bank, fixing their broken products and selling printer ink isn't stupid in a discussion about semiconductors?

Re:And? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412924)

HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion...if you subtract out printers...HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.

So what you're saying is, HP did indeed bring in far more revenue than Apple, but if you just start subtracting arbitrary line items from HP's revenue, Apple "wins"?

Stop being so stupid.

So counting the revenue HP makes as a bank, fixing their broken products and selling printer ink isn't stupid in a discussion about semiconductors?

It doesn't make sense backing out those divisions when you're still including the revenues Apple makes from their iTunes and App stores.

Re:And? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36417114)

HP's revenue was about $32.2 billion, and Apple's was about $24.67 billion...if you subtract out printers...HP would have brought in only $16.42 billion net in that same quarter.

So what you're saying is, HP did indeed bring in far more revenue than Apple, but if you just start subtracting arbitrary line items from HP's revenue, Apple "wins"?

Stop being so stupid.

So counting the revenue HP makes as a bank, fixing their broken products and selling printer ink isn't stupid in a discussion about semiconductors?

It doesn't make sense backing out those divisions when you're still including the revenues Apple makes from their iTunes and App stores.

If you subtract them, Apple is still ahead.

Re:And? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412370)

He was clear in that he was talking about the computing devices HP was selling, printers not included.

Re-read his original post and take your own advice.

Re:And? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414400)

Then you better remove all apples non computring devices like ipods, Itunes, the app store and the revenue they make from OSX upgrades etc etc. simple fact is the OP was wrong. apple have a higher profit, they have less revenue overall and less on purely computing devices.

Re:And? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414738)

Talk to him. I am pointing out that he isn't moving the goalposts.

Re:And? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415586)

You might want to go look at the actual numbers. And by the way, most ipods are computing devices - they run the same OS as the iPhone/iPad.

Apple - PCs,iPods, iPads, iPhones - $20Billion
HP - Servers&Network, PCs - $15Billion

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q211data_sum.pdf [apple.com]
http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1564466&highlight= [hp.com]

Re:And? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36416366)

printers are also computing devices, but he wanted to exclude those too.

Re:And? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36420522)

From a user's perspective, no, they really aren't. Yes, they have a CPU, but no, it isn't under the user's control in any useful fashion. I can't download applications and run them on my printer. I can't write notes to myself with my printer. And so on. A printer is a dumb device from a user's perspective, regardless of how much actual computing power is under the hood.

That's not at all like an iPod (Touch), iPhone, or iPad, all of which are basically general-purpose computers.

Re:And? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36420552)

Users perspective? WTF?? They are discussing semi conductor usage and company profits/size, where the fuck does a users perspective come into it?

Re:And? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36422096)

It has nothing to do with how many components the manufacturer buys. However, I never said that it did.

Re:And? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36426434)

If you had read the links, you'd see that HP combines the printer financial statement line as printers, paper, ink, etc. So no idea how much they actually make on printers (ie semiconductors) vs other things.

Re:And? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415566)

Compare last quarter's hardware sales of Apple vs HP:

Apple - PCs,iPods, iPads, iPhones - $20Billion
HP - Servers&Network, PCs, Printers - $21Billion

But really, the printer part includes software, paper, etc.

HP's hardware revenues are going down, Apple's are going up. Guess where it will be next quarter?

Re:And? (1)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412790)

How long before Apple gets back into the printer business? The margins there are still insane, and the products are universally shit. Every HP printer I've ever owned, used or helped a friend try to work has been a festering pile of crap. Don't even get me started on ink that "expires" a week after you've put it in the printer.

Re:And? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414120)

And even taking all that out how does that make apple bigger than HP by "A LOT", The OP claimed Apple were bigger than HP, They aren't, they are bigger than a certain portion of HP, but even by chopping out a whole lot of areas it is only a small difference. Basically the OP was full of shit and got called on it.

Re:And? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415548)

I didn't say revenue.

Count the number of iPhones/iPads/laptops/desktops that Apple sells - about 35M units.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q211data_sum.pdf [apple.com]

Count the number of tablets/laptops/desktops/servers that HP sells - about 25M units.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410800)

Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.

Er, no. Apple do not ship more desktops, laptops and servers than HP. Walk into large data centre and it'll probably be HP. Google? HP. Amazon? HP. Microsoft (E.g. Bing)? HP. Apples new data centre in NC? Not Xserves.

For the corporate desktop and laptop market, there are three players: IBM, Dell and HP. Dell and HP are far bigger than IBM in that market, too.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36413166)

You think large data centers make the majority of the market. Plus not every data center uses HP. For insance Apples data centers have no HP equipment what so ever.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36413206)

Large data centres are indicative of the market at large. I've worked in small companies who relied on HP. I've worked at large companies who relied on HP. I know work for HP. The fact that HP sells a buttload of servers, and sells more than their competitors, isn't a secret.

See also: Storage (Both disc & tape), Networking (ProCurve, H3C).

The breadth of products is why HP outclass almost everyone else. Including Apple.

Re:And? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415598)

Go look at the actual numbers. I've posted them above.

BTW, there are a LOT more consumers buying computers than there are data centers buying computers.

Re:And? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414106)

Think how many laptops/desktops/servers/soon-to-be-tablets HP sells worldwide. Apple is bigger than that, by a lot.

Are you getting this? Can you hear me? You can? Great!

Listen, there was an accident in the lab, you were knocked unconscious, then you disappeared... but we've found you now.

You're in a parallel universe to ours, where our laws of counting servers by manufacturer are diametrically opposite to theirs where you are now. So stay calm, don't say anything stupid, and we'll open up a dimensional portal to get you back within the next 30 minutes.

Re:And? (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415020)

Who marked this informative? Yes, Apple is bigger than companies that specialize in one specific area, no shit. This is like pointing out that Microsoft is bigger than Nintendo, so what? Dell competes against Apple in desktop and laptop (does Dell make tablets?), and there are a hell of a lot more Dell's in the world than Macs. Dell doesn't compete in smartphone, music stores, portable music players, or anything else Apple is doing other than desktops and laptops. It doesn't matter how big Apple is to the competition, any more than it matters to Oracle how big IBM is (know anyone using DB2? But by your argument IBM is bigger so it should crush Oracle right?)

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410710)

You have to understand that apple might as well be the biggest toy manufacturer in the world.

FTFY

Re:And? (2)

dloose (900754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410956)

you say that like it's a bad thing

Re:And? (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411584)

hah...every time I get home and there is a newegg box there I say toys!!!!!

That was fast... (3, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410574)

About ten years ago, before the iPod and OS X, I suspect very few of us suspected anything like this from Apple. As much as I don't agree with their walled garden approach to software, it's hard not to be impressed with what they have accomplished.

And yet, we're very much in a transformative age in computing. Desktops are increasingly rare for mainstream computing, tablets are on the rise, and there are billions of people who are getting their first taste of the Internet not through a traditional computer, but instead a smartphone. Everyone is searching for the holy grail, the next big thing.

It's gonna be an interesting next ten years. I for one is staying idealistic and hoping for open standards and interoperability across devices, platforms, and operating systems. Sorry, Apple.

Re:That was fast... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410636)

You're right: desktops are dying. Smartphones and iPads are the choice of younger people now, and using those they can stay in touch via social networking wherever they are, rather than being tied to a desktop and a power cord. That's why this line from TFS was telling:

> iPhone and iPad, while second place HP spent 82% of its semiconductor budget on computer products like desktops, notebooks and servers.

Apple's share is in devices with explosive growth - they're positioned well for the post-PC world (and no matter what some people think, it IS coming - not 100%, but a world where the PC has little relevance to most people's lives). But HP's share is in the old world: desktops, notebooks, and so on. Servers will continue to be important, but one out of three is not a good thing for HP's future.

Apple has managed to transform personal computing to something that people are excited about again. It's no surprise they have the biggest market cap of any tech company right now.

The iPads are to small for real work and smal caps (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410720)

The iPads are to small for real work like cad, excel, call centers, photo shop like work, stuff where you need more then one app open side by side, codeing, lots more as well and the small caps make cloud based work cost alot / in some areas 3g is to slow for big files.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36410766)

Apple devices don't scale well for "work" in general. It doesn't matter if it's a higher degree of interactivity or just handling more "use".

They are also intentionally limited in terms of "play".

The new input devices certainly hold a lot of promise but the current devices that tend to employ them are overhyped. It's the inputs that are interesting not so much the devices they happen to be attached to today.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36410812)

> The iPads are to small for real work like cad, excel, call centers,... codeing,

Right. Because those things matter to almost everybody.

See, Slashdot have this weird thing where they think the 0.2% of the market they are in matters in some way. It doesn't. Normal people don't use CAD programs or code. They watch videos, they use social networking, they IM. That's the vast majority of the market. And guess what? Increasingly, people are finding they prefer iPads and smartphones rather than desktops.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36411726)

So... most people don't have jobs...?

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36412274)

No .. they stopped used computers for work . Accountants use now an abacus App . They also don't use computers ( desktops/laptops) in home either . They watch videos on some tiny screens (instead of a display or TV) , IM ,email , docs using touch keyboards ( you can type as hell on them ), listen music at a mono very small speaker , soon they will start playing shouters on IPads too =)))

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36412330)

I don't understand why these discussions usually devolve into an implied impending total destruction of the desktop form-factor at the hands of smartphones and tablets.

I got a tablet recently and have noticed that for 95% of my casual use it is perfect. It's convenient, it's always on, I can (and do) use it on the couch or in the truck...It's fantastic for web browsing. The remaining 5% is, well, I'm doing it right here. Typing anything longer than a sentence or two.

Then there is the heavy lifting. I do a lot of media production. Professional level audio work--recording, mixing, mastering, etc--as well as video production. Additionally at the office I deal with a lot of spread sheets and Photoshop and multiple email accounts and a second dedicated desktop for a custom image processing application....for that I cannot foresee the desktop being dethroned. For a very very long time. Barring a completely revolutionary UI shift that eclipses the current smartphone/tablet format--and I cannot rule that out. Even then it will still take 5-10 years (at best) for every application to transition over....10-15 year for (almost) every business to adopt it.

I understand that the thought of a 'no desktop' world is scary to those of us who do more (and in some circumstances FAR more) with our general computing devices than facebook and angry birds...but that is simply foolish. Though I wouldn't rule out a hybrid transitional form-factor...Atrix and ilk I'm looking at you....

My only concern given this inevitable progression is that the "traditional" desktop hardware is likely to skyrocket in price--or simply not exist. Sure, running your desktop on real server hardware has always been a nice extension on the e-peen...but being forced to pay the additional price for nothing more than lack of commodity hardware, that'll suck. But it won't be the end of the world....

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36412810)

Desktop hardware will go the way of the dinosaur. Tablets and smartphones will soon be more than capable of driving multiple monitors when docked (possibly even wirelessly). Their operating systems and UI's will evolve to work with keyboards and mice when available.

For the handful of people who require workstation-class performance - maybe 0.5% of the overall market - those systems may remain, or much of that work may migrate to the cloud, with tablets and other devices simply functioning as clients.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413478)

I really think this talk about docking a tablet is backwards. I don't think anyone will want to dock their tablet.

My vision of the future is basically everything doing wireless syncing, and a lot of one-off devices that don't meaningfully connect in any manner other than being sync clients. The syncing could be more significant than just file sharing. In many ways it is kind of like docking without any actual docking occurring.

Convergence makes sense when you want to stuff more and more functionality into your pocket. And to a lesser extent convergence can help with things like desk space in a cramped urban apartment, etc. But there's very little reason to have a desktop setup that's completely useless unless you sacrifice your tablet. Docking is just one more pain in the ass, one more little token you have to carry around, and it doesn't need to happen.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414874)

Devices already need (and have) interfaces which allow them to charge and communicate with other devices. Docking isn't going anywhere. It's a really convenient way for new devices - like tablets and smartphones - to connect to and utilize legacy peripherals, everything from monitors to printers to hard drives.

Longterm that may all go wireless, but at the moment things like wireless HDMI are expensive and an enormous power suck. That isn't likely to change in the next decade. Your portable gadget needs to be charged. Might as well get some use out of it while it's charging.

But there's very little reason to have a desktop setup that's completely useless unless you sacrifice your tablet.

There's very little reason to have both devices if one can effectively function as both. You physically can't use a desktop and tablet at the same time. If the tablet - with the help of a keyboard, mouse and monitor - can function as a desktop, why own a desktop? We've seen the same thing happen with laptops largely supplanting desktop PCs over the past decade. Now you can expect to see the tablet and smartphone largely supplant both form factors.

There will always be a teeny tiny market for desktops and traditional laptops, in the same way there's still a small market for workstations. But desktops - and eventually laptops I suspect - are going to become niche products.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415042)

Glad I'm not in your world where laptops are supplanting PCs. Everyone I work with, including the secretaries, would be very pissed to lose easy dual screens, fast use of outlook with gigs of emails and huge attachments (ideal, no. Useful, yes), and the ability to have spreadsheet macros run in seconds rather than minutes. Laptops are nice for what they're good at, being mobile and pretty close to desktop speeds, but they're no replacement for desktops, even for the jobs you don't understand.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413380)

I imagine the larger, heavier high-def Android tablets are on the way. Probably Christmas. They'll also have some way to use multiple HDTVs as wireless monitor extensions I imagine - which would solve all of your problem except the keyboard and Wacom tablet. We're almost there.

Re:The iPads are to small for real work and smal c (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414418)

There has been a slew of changes in Android 3.1 - such as full support for mice (on app level - the ability to handle mouse hover and drag events, trackpad scroll etc) - that clearly hint at Android being geared towards netbooks and above.

Meanwhile, Apple is rapidly updating OS X to be more and more like iOS - app store, fullscreen apps etc.

Will tablets kill laptops/desktops? No. But I'm pretty certain that the latter two will run software which looks much more like what we see on tablets today in 4-5 years.

Future is just like startrek/stargate (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36416506)

Loads of servers everywhere, with terminals to login, or access to the server 'cloud/internet' via portable devices such as mini tablets/phones, or larger 10"+ tablets.

Phone/tablets will grow closer to desktop cousins, as in more storage/local apps. And desktops converted to more home servers, so pretty much later there will be ONLY laptops / tablets to buy, and big box 'Home Servers' that handle shit loads of backups/media servers/PVRs/VMs.

Re:That was fast... (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411128)

There has to be closed-garden companies like Apple to make new paradigms. They control the OS, they can make it do what they want. They're also not afraid to do away with tradition that has no use anymore.

Unlike PC manufacturers, who with Microsoft, can only design computers with what Microsoft had in mind. Tweaking can be done, but nowhere near the level needed that went from OS X -> iOS. They had PC tablets from 2001, and guess what, they were just junk. Just like the Windows phones, which had the same start button on bottom left mentality - give me a break!

Even after 15 years of Linux, I haven't seen the open approach yield much in productive innovation on the desktop front. Design by committee is the worst. Or a 100 comittees in this case. And Microsoft has that same problem. And PCs have design by tradition. It took Apple to get rid of the floppy and some legacy ports that 99% of people don't use.

And even after Apple is gobbling up the notebook market, I don't see many of the PC manufacturer so much as even copy them. Same plasticky, gimmicky shit notebooks as ever. Sure, Dell make copy MacBook Air with Adamo or whatever it's called (as useless as either were), and they may also make the shiny screens, or chicklet keyboards - but the bodies, the very first impression of a notebook on PCs has remains the same plasticky, unwiedly, fugly crap that they've been pushing out in 1998. No clean lines or anything like the Power Mac or moreso MacBook Pro. Boggles my mind.

And I say this as someone that would like to see nice computers on the PC front as I work on a PC desktop. I recently got a hand me down desktop and it was fucking gaudy - LED lights and gauges everywhere, like a poor man's F1 racer in computer case form. Tried to find something minimalistic, and the nicest thing I could find was a black case version of das keyboard.

*(I do love open source and open standards, but keep them the hell away from the GUI :D)

Re:That was fast... (2)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36411482)

There has to be closed-garden companies like Apple to make new paradigms. They control the OS, they can make it do what they want. They're also not afraid to do away with tradition that has no use anymore.

While you're right that controlling the whole stack does make it easier do throw away tradition, I have to disagree with the "has to" part. You're also right that a lot of the design work that goes on in the open source world is rather abysmal. But to assume that the open source approach in incapable of moving away from tradition or can never produce a decent GUI is just ignorant.

For the most part I do agree that Apple does produce much nicer hardware than the average PC. But even in this case the exeptions justify the rule.

Re:That was fast... (1)

skadacl (199126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36416630)

Perhaps not incapable, but at the very least _currently_ unwilling. FOSS is still gaining traction and staying with the status quo makes the transition easier for people. There are pros and cons to that: easier transition, yet innovative stagnation. Perhaps what's really needed is a radical paradigm-shift, something new and amazing that will draw people to it. If you build it, they will come ; )

Re:That was fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36412748)

Sure this is off-topic, but this is 100% accurate. Many times I wanted to give up on Apple. G4 speed limits, G4 => G5 transition, lack of G5 notebooks, lack of USB 2, selling essentially the same low-end macbook for 4 years at the same price point, regressing OS X to iOS ... the list goes on.

I'll see a shiny metal mac-clone on Amazon with amazing specs and price and insist that will be my next laptop. Then when I inspect these laptops first hand, it's always a joke. Either chrome-plated ABS plastic or what I like to call anodized plastic (those cheap-ass candy colored Dells), cheap fans that wobble and hit the bottom case, batteries that last less than an hour, accents in the cases (i.e.. unnecessary fender flares, unused air vents, two-tone color schemes consisting of two entirely different kinds of plastic snapped together like legos). I'm sure there's a market for these things, just as there is a market for 1990 Honda Accord body kits and plastic film window tints, but isn't there a much larger potential market for computers that won't crack in half when lifted with one hand? What is with the indicators? What does the flashing hard drive light tell you that the OS doesn't?

If there was a PC laptop at any point in the history of portables ('portable' specifically referring to the powerbook titanium G4, not any 4" thick 20 pound monsters before it), that looked and felt presentable, I would have gladly bought it. Windows 7 isn't even that bad of an OS, and anyway OS X can be run on a number of laptops with a tiny bit of tweaking... it's not even a software issue anymore.

This extends to android phones. The Droid Charge especially looks like a plastic Chrysler and gets a good 4 hours of battery life when not in use (unless the 4G mode is switched off, negating the point of phone entirely). It seriously looks like a 3com Palm... except probably bigger.

Re:That was fast... (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413474)

And even after Apple is gobbling up the notebook market, I don't see many of the PC manufacturer so much as even copy them. Same plasticky, gimmicky shit notebooks as ever. Sure, Dell make copy MacBook Air with Adamo or whatever it's called (as useless as either were), and they may also make the shiny screens, or chicklet keyboards - but the bodies, the very first impression of a notebook on PCs has remains the same plasticky, unwiedly, fugly crap that they've been pushing out in 1998. No clean lines or anything like the Power Mac or moreso MacBook Pro. Boggles my mind.

And I say this as someone that would like to see nice computers on the PC front as I work on a PC desktop. I recently got a hand me down desktop and it was fucking gaudy - LED lights and gauges everywhere, like a poor man's F1 racer in computer case form. Tried to find something minimalistic, and the nicest thing I could find was a black case version of das keyboard.

*(I do love open source and open standards, but keep them the hell away from the GUI :D)

Apple seems to be the only esthetic [wikipedia.org] company in IT today. The thought that making a computer or device look and feel good could help people feel more comfortable and so help them to better use those devices seems wholly foreign to the rest of the industry. Other companies can copy some aspects of the designs but they can't seem to grasp the philosophy behind it that makes it work.

Re:That was fast... (2)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414020)

Apple seems to be the only esthetic [wikipedia.org] company in IT today. The thought that making a computer or device look and feel good could help people feel more comfortable and so help them to better use those devices seems wholly foreign to the rest of the industry. Other companies can copy some aspects of the designs but they can't seem to grasp the philosophy behind it that makes it work.

Thank you.

Exactly what I have been saying for years, nice to hear it from the mouth of a fanboi.

"Apple makes fashion accessories."

And for those of us with our sanity still intact:

"Who gives a shit if a tool matches the colour of my man-bag."

Re:That was fast... (1)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414888)

Why chose something that looks like a piece of shit when something beautiful costs $50 more? That's barely the cost of a meal out in San Francisco or Manhattan for a device you're going to be stuck using every day.

You can also bet if the manufacturer was too idiotic to make their gadget even look halfway decent, they forgot a bunch of other stuff as well. I mean, if you can't even design a case that's not an eyesore, what about the really difficult engineering and design?

Re:That was fast... (2)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415060)

Because the cheap one costs $1, and I don't want to pay the 5000% markup for pretty plastic that still breaks? OK, Apple's markup isn't quite that bad, but it's significant for what you're getting. I'm writing this on a macbook on which the plastic has warped enough that the super-sexy DVD drive can no longer eject DVDs without some help from a screwdriver. It was fixed twice while this mac was under warranty, and the fact that they don't actually solve the problem with the part just tells me that Apple doesn't care about quality any more than those other companies that charge far less.

Re:That was fast... (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36415630)

Thank you.

Exactly what I have been saying for years, nice to hear it from the mouth of a fanboi.

"Apple makes fashion accessories."

And for those of us with our sanity still intact:

"Who gives a shit if a tool matches the colour of my man-bag."

First off, grow up and cut that "fanboi" shit out. It makes you sound like a twelve year old.

Second, you missed my point which was that good design can add to a product (follow that link in my previous post to the wikipedia entry for applied esthetics.) Since you talk about fashion let's make a fashion analogy. Pants are pants but you can buy pants with a fashionable cut that are nicer to look at and feel more comfortable. The fashion has added to both the utility (comfort) and the enjoyment (looks nice.) Apple doesn't make fashion accessories, they make devices in which they have also invested time and effort to make them attractive and easy to use. It may not present an added value to you but it does for a lot of people.

No, Actually the Chinese Factory (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413414)

where Apple has all its stuff made is the world's largest consumer of semiconductors.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>