My guess, and that's all it is, is that Intel has been outspending Motorola by similar amounts for years. But MOT has still produced the better chip. I'm not technically proficient enough to discuss the merits of RISC vs CISC, or to properly address the technological hurdles facing INTC as it tries to push its future designs to just match the performance of MOTs current designs. But I do feel that MOT can continue to be a player in the desktop market if it wants to, assuming Apple begins to grow its market share next year.
Motorola can help with PPC vs Pentium advertising. In fact it should have been helping all along. No doubt this is just one of the many sore spots in the MOT-AAPL relationship.
As far as MOT's break-even for the chips, I can't say whether your numers are right or not. I do know Apple has been asking for a price break. Some of the wire service coverage of this issue indicates MOT is annoyed at Apple's effrontery. Of couse, as an Apple shareholder, I'd like to see the company be able to either lower its prices or increase its margins, so I think Jobs request is perfectly logical.
One of the more intriguing rumors spread all over the Mac universe is that Apple will be building "Intel Inside" boxes next year (in addition to its PPC offerings) as part of its Rhapsody strategy. If so, just one more potential customer for Intel.
Anyway, if part of your overall thesis is that INTC is a superior investment, I agree. I've owned the stock in the past and suspect I'll own it again. Andy Grove is my kind of paranoid asshole. Have a good weekend.
Bob |
