| |
 |
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 |
Other News: Apple Switch Survey. "Asked how Apple's decision to change chip suppliers could affect their decision to buy a new Mac in the next 12 months, a third of the 414 panelists surveyed by market-research firm Karlin Associates said they would be less likely to make that purchase." [MacInTouch]
Interesting survey. Not only does a third of those interview are less likely to buy a Mac now (what happens if Apple Mac sales are cut by a third?), but a lot of people that would buy machines now would do it to avoid transition problems. In other words, their next machine will be a PowerPC mac to put off buying an Intel Mac. Will Apple suffer three years of low sales? What would the consequences of that be? "Low sales" meaning much less than in the last quarter (which was espectacular), that is about 800 thousand or less Macs sold per quarter. I think the iPod may mean the survival of Apple, but the Mac plattform can't survive after such a slump, with market share falling into 1.3% or so. On other related news, DigiTimes has an interesting comment on the consequences of Intel's platformization which will push Intel's dominance and punish a lot of other players in the Chip market.
2:20:34 PM 
|
|
The top 500 Computer list is out. IBM is the big Winner with not one but two machines passing the Earth Simulator at the top. Intel appears at number 7 with Itanium (4096 of them) and Number 20 with Xeon (2500 of those, the highest appearance of something resembling an x86 processor). The G5 is still strong at NUmber 14 (2200 processors). Yeah, now Apple move to Intel makes perfect sense. I guess the machines were too fast for them. 
1:58:54 PM
|
|
Paul Stoddard think we are dumb. The principal of the Minardi Team, already a declared enemy of Ferrari and FIA's president Max Mosley, tries to make us think the failed US GP weekend was a fault of Mosley and Jean Todt. First of all, Todt didn't have to do anything. He couldn't change the rules, it wasn't his problem. It was Michelin's problem. Stoddard quickly talks about force-majoure. Engineering incompetence is not force-majoure. If they didn't have the right tyres it is because they are incompetent. As Bridgestone shows it is possible to make the right tyres for the circuit. He also, quickly so we don't notice, dismisses the idea that the MIchelin teams running slowly will produce an easy solution, much better than the unfair chicane. He says it would produce a "monumental accident". Why? The slow teams will take the low part of the curve (where there is less angle), while the fast teams will take the usual racing line (that takes them high). If slow cars produced monumental accidents, MInardi should be banned from F1. The only option is that Stoddard is saying that the Michelin tyres are unsafe at any speed, but in this case the chicane wouldn't be a solution either. It is clear that he is making a false story to click with the runaway series that they want to make. I would suggest to him to see what happened in Indy car racing. While the best teams and drivers went to the new Champ Series, very quickly it became clear that the Indy league was the place to be. Now the Champ series is a joke, while the IRL survives very well, thanks in part to the Indy 500. Think about this and add the ingredient that Ferrari will be staying. More people will watch twenty Ferraris running an F1 race than 20 other running a new series. Perhaps in the first few years the runaway league will have some following, but the fans will stay in F1, so will Bernie Ecclestone. Who despite his faults has made F1 what it is today.
11:57:33 AM
|
|
BMW to buy Sauber F1 Team. This is huge. BMW will set up its own teams, as I predicted independent team dependant of a motor supplier are less competitive that they use to be. Pity there isn't a german tyre manufacturer to pick up the slack at Michelin. By the way, Michelin is being accused sotto-voce of putting performance ahead of safety.
[Thanks Stefania]
10:36:30 AM
|
|
© Copyleft 2005 Alfredo Octavio.
|
Diccionario RAE (Click Here)