http://newsfactor.com/perl/story/18409.html
.
quote:<HR>The cuts mean the company should have 93,000 employees by the end of 2003, Brown said."That's going to take time to implement, and I think it will be incremental over time," Brown said, referring also to Motorola's payment of charges associated with the restructuring. <HR>
It is possible that Motorola could actually become more efficient as a business.
A workforce of 93,000 isn't exactly tiny.
Maybe that's naive, but I think people are making too much of this. Perhaps they were too big in the first place.
At any rate, I would bet that Apple has considered all this and has all kinds of contingency plans for doing without Motorola if need be.
They have other options if they need them, even without changing chip architecture. They could farm out these operations to other chip makers.
Anyway, it's worth following the story, but business has its ups and downs. The boom is over. Get used to it.
I agree that Apple needs to devise some other strategies here, and I'm sure they are. We've all heard about OS X on Intel hardware, and you have to believe that they've created a version of such to push out the door if Moto does go tits up.
Thing is, if Moto goes down in flames, they'll try and sell off assets, including the G4, etc, so I would also ponder the possibility that even if they flop over, someone else like IBM will step in.
I just want them to do it now, so we can get some faster chips! Or call the friendly folks at AMD. Whatever it takes.
Motorola's semiconductor business isn't exactly worth a lot as it is, and its price tag may just keep dropping unless Motorola makes a turn around.
quote:<HR> Doesn't this mean that Apple would have a better chance of buying the semiconductor business from Motorola? Seriously, as Motorola cuts more jobs, and its stock price falls, this option becomes more viable for Apple.But Apple's stock price is falling as well. There's no way that Apple could buy Motorola's semiconductor unit with their own stock price languishing (unless you really believe that they do have all that CASH). Besides, Apple's not in the business of making chips. It's not what they do, nor would they be particularly good at it. Better to buy the chips from other suppliers.
Motorola's semiconductor business isn't exactly worth a lot as it is, and its price tag may just keep dropping unless Motorola makes a turn around.
<HR>
BTW - about the whole OS X on x86 thing. Does anyone really know if running OS X on a 2.5ghz P4 (or 2100+ Athlon) would be any faster than it is on the current dual G4 1ghz? Maybe Apple has a version of OS X on the x86 architecture and they haven't released it because it's a DOG.
The problem is not Apple or OS X. As a former Windows user, I will tell you the problem. OS X is a wonderful OS....that can't be over stressed. And Apple is squeezing every little drop of performance out of it that they can. Their coders are very talented to say the least. But think about this. OS X is a very graphically intensive OS with great effects. You can tighten the code only so much. Apple needs pure raw power and bandwidth to do this OS justice. That's it! WindowsXP is also a good OS and MUCH more responsive than OS X. But I promise you that Microsoft doesn't deserve all the credit. XP gets to run on very fast hardware with vast bandwidth. So it's no wonder XP is so fast and responsive....given the right hardware. I have NO doubt in my mind that if I had a x86 version of OS X to load on my AthlonXP 2000+, 1G of PC2100 DDR, and GeForce4 Ti4600 it would scream!
So it's not Apple's fault and it's definitely not OS X's fault. There comes a time that pure raw power and bandwidth makes all the difference in the world. I love PC hardware, but I hate M$. And of course I love my iBook....I think I've already commented on that before
