Re: Why Apple should let HP build its workstations

[Ronald Lindeboom] "It wouldn't be hard to do and Apple is already doing it with the iPad and the iPhone. They are even in court fighting their very own supplier, Samsung, so it's not even like it's a marriage made in heaven. But I could easily see where Apple would keep many more of us years longer by letting HP build the machines we need."

Do you think they aren't working like crazy to get away from Samsung as a supplier? And do you think they have any interest in stepping on that rake again? Plus, it isn't even an analogous situation with Samsung. Samsung is huge- they are a semiconductor manufacturer and a consumer electronics marketer. HP is just a marketer. There isn't an HP chip foundry. HP outsources all their manufacturing same as Apple, so there isn't some sort of manufacturing advantage.

So let's forget that Apple has nothing to gain from outsourcing a product they supposedly don't want to make themselves. Let's say they do it. What does an HP Z800 running OS X look like?

• It still has the same old OpenGL (this is an OS X problem, not a hardware problem)
• It still has the same limited options for GPUs (if we are assuming EFI instead of BIOS for OS X)
• It still won't support Blu-Ray drives (not any more than a Mac Pro will today)
• Same number of PCIe slots, same distribution of PCIe lanes as the Mac Pro today
• Same number of HDD bays as the Mac Pro today
• Same number of built-in NICs
• More RAM slots (12 on the Z vs 8 on the Mac Pro)
• One additional external 5.25" bay vs today's Mac Pro

That doesn't look so compelling to me. Honestly, what do you get from a Z800 running OS X that you don't get from a Mac Pro? 50% more RAM? A third optical drive bay? I don't get it.

Best,
Andy

Edit: Oops, totally misread the number of PCIe slots. That's 2x16 and 2x8 and 2x4. Those extra two x8 are a big deal.