Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

acsmars t1_itj2rwc wrote

Reply to comment by IrreverentHippie in Apple testing Apple Silicon Mac Pro with 24-core CPU, 76-core GPU, 192GB of memory by prehistoric_knight

Every sale of a high end GPU would mean one less entire workstation sale they could’ve forced into their camp.

It’s like asking them to sell their iphone software or SoC. They can make more money selling the whole phone, it’d cost them sales to sell it piecemeal . If you’ve got a killer market leading feature and an industry leading product you’re selling, you don’t sell the secret sauce to your competitors.

7

MrChip53 t1_itjbtiz wrote

And don't forget that when you buy the whole device they now have you locked in on software sales too.

3

IrreverentHippie t1_itjqbpq wrote

Think of it like this, they sell an accelerator card, people go “hey, this apple GPU is awesome”. then apple tells them it works even better in their own computers, because it does, and people go “I guess I should buy an apple computer, I can run my video editing software even faster.”

And then you have people both. Buying your accelerators, and entire systems. Now the ecosystem caters to a wide variety of users, not just “Pros, and facebook scrollers”.

Now apple would have to directly compete with AMD, Nvidia, and Intel. But this competition should potentially help drive innovation, which would help rapidly accelerate the growth and development of computer technology in a 4 way arms race.

0

acsmars t1_itjtg4y wrote

Apple does not benefit from increased competition or innovation. Competitive markets are bad for business. GPU chip making is also less profitable than their current markets. This is also why they don’t manufacture their products in house, device manufacturing is a much less profitable business than the product design and software services that they currently operate in.

Apple’s play is and always has been total design and control of the user experience. That’s their differentiator. They’ve no incentive to release a less profitable product, in a competitive market segment, that they can’t fully control, and which is less compatible with their software/services businesses. They will continue to cater to their demographic: people who want their wholistic designed experience and are willing to pay up to get it. That’s how they became the most valuable company.

3

IrreverentHippie t1_itkl0ra wrote

Not entirely. They became the most valuable company by having hardware and software that work well together

1

acsmars t1_itlkxhq wrote

Which you get by selling complete platforms, not oem parts or components.

1