The golden gigaflop: Apple’s shrinking performance sweet spot
medium.com
medium.com
Also, the article mentions Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma focussing specifically on his disk drive manufacturer story, which was already outdated and wrong when he first published it (the "disrupted" companies went on to dominate and extinguish their "disruptors").
I'd be happy to update the article with a link to discussion about the disk drive studies being wrong.
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-useful-is-the-theory-...
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-...
'In fact, Seagate Technology was not felled by disruption. Between 1989 and 1990, its sales doubled, reaching $2.4 billion, “more than all of its U.S. competitors combined,” according to an industry report. In 1997, the year Christensen published “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Seagate was the largest company in the disk-drive industry, reporting revenues of nine billion dollars.'
and later in the same article:
'As striking as the disruption in the disk-drive industry seemed in the nineteen-eighties, more striking, from the vantage of history, are the continuities. Christensen argues that incumbents in the disk-drive industry were regularly destroyed by newcomers. But today, after much consolidation, the divisions that dominate the industry are divisions that led the market in the nineteen-eighties.'
and, finally, this gem:
'On March 10, 2000, Christensen launched a $3.8-million Disruptive Growth Fund, which he managed with Neil Eisner, a broker in St. Louis. Christensen drew on his theory to select stocks. Less than a year later, the fund was quietly liquidated: during a stretch of time when the Nasdaq lost fifty per cent of its value, the Disruptive Growth Fund lost sixty-four per cent.'
So he wrote a book on disruptive innovation, where his main exemplar was how Seagate et al were felled by small, agile innovators, and published it the year Seagate crushed the small, agile innovators.
The book is full of wrong (it's basically fairly accurate about how innovation gets stifled in companies that fundamentally aren't innovative -- companies driven by sales commissions for example -- but those aren't the interesting cases; Apple, Kodak, Polaroid, AT&T, Xerox -- the companies which ought to be the best examples of his case -- don't follow his storyline at all).
Now, in 1985 you might have written a story about how Commodore (say) had disrupted Apple. But that didn't go too well.
DEC certainly grabbed a lot of market from IBM in the 70s but, um, look who's still in business (selling mainframes no less)? DEC had its lunch eaten by Compaq et al, but who absorbed both of them? HP, a powerhouse from the 1970s. Oh yeah, and then IBM and DEC got "disrupted" by Sun.
It actually looks a lot like the hard disk story -- small innovators come out with a new thing and quickly gain success but ultimately can't sustain it and fall by the wayside or get acquired by a big established player -- with the far more recent exception of Apple which came and ate the lunches of a whole bunch of companies some of whom had "disrupted" it a decade or so earlier.
And Christensen's theories are absolutely useless for explaining anything Apple or Steve Jobs did.
Yes it was! I remember in 86/87, when I upgraded my original IBM PC from having two 5.25" floppies to having one floppy and a 40MB hard drive. All of a sudden my word processor, with 11 floppies, could be loaded on the drive and I didn't have to switch disks to spell check and it opened in seconds instead of minutes!
Back then the upgrade from two floppies to one floppy and a hard disk was way bigger than going from spinning disk to SSD (and that was a huge jump too)
This was the deck:
https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+tc+fx+410
The storage capacity was horrible, but it did work after a fashion.
I just checked out the wikipedia entry on the DECtape, yes, that was pretty much it, only much much slower and not as nicely integrated.
My sister and I would put a cassette tape into an original Sony cassette player/recorder hooked up to an Apple II+ and wait 30 minutes for "Little Brick Out" (Breakout clone) to load up so we could play.
In 1987, Apple also invested in a Cray XMP 48 super computer which enabled our engineers to experiment with what real time manipulation of multidimensional objects on a screen would look and feel like many years before such computational power would be available on general purpose personal computers.
You can buy the book or download a PDF of it for free here: http://vpri.org/pov/
While I agree with you in principle, consider that a unit that ends in the letter 'S' is inconvenient because then you can't easily refer to a quantity of one. For this article, the recurring appearance of the 1-gigaflops performance level in Apple's various form factors was the central point, and "gigaflop" makes it that much easier to discuss.
Yes, you can. The quantity of "1" is easily referred to be specifying the number of units as "1", e.g., 1 gigaflops.
Its prone to incorrect intuition about the singular form being different from the plural, but even among English nouns, "units of measurement ending in 's'" aren't the only case where the plural and singular are the same.
> "gigaflop" makes it that much easier to discuss.
It doesn't make it any easier to discuss; if someone knows what the acronym stands for, its obviously clear in its original and correct form, and if someone doesn't, you need to explain what it means anyway, at which point the incorrect form becomes disconnected from the expansion and less mnemonic, whereas the correct form is (as acronyms tend to be) a mnemonic device for the expansion.
The incorrect form may make it more convenient as completely opaque jargon, but I'm not sure making that more convenient is in anyone's interest.
One flops
Two giga- floating point operations per second
Two gigaflops
When the pluralization happens in the middle of the acronym it becomes weird -- one FLOPS, two FLOPsS?
Anyway, you're right, they would all get an S at the end either way.
A better example would be "captcha." You'd say "two captchas," not "two captcha" or "two captscha."
For a less polite example that works the same way, consider MILF.
Two gigaflosps?
Fairly recently, someone near me was talking about "megaflops per second". I made a joke about computing while falling into informational singularities. It did give me a fun mental diversion, trying to imagine a physics where computational speed was tied to some sort of data density, and then I realized that Vernor Vinge sort of got there first, with _Fire Upon the Deep_.
It would have been more honest and accurate just to have discarded the point for the ipad.
I'll edit the sentence to make this more clear.
http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/ardent-titan
The Apple products do line up at tidy intervals, and there aren't any more of those.
A self-driving car will have to start a new graph. A few meagre teraflops won't be nearly enough for that application, I think!
It's an extremely cool idea to start thinking about making an interface with a gigaflop budget and a size estimate. You didn't hit on it, but there are bandwidth budgets that generally follow a curve as well. I'm not sure what the curve is, but it's probably straight-ish (up) on a logarithmic graph.
So if I combine a gigaflop in an earring with 1gigabit of low energy wireless, what do I get for an interface, or use cases?
Maybe instead Apple could do a commercial GUI on top of a "proper" Linux core.
Now the production stuff that runs on Linux anyway, sorta kinda works on mac for local development most of the time, with Homebrew etc.. (Homebrew is great, I just installed ag today, I think it even compiled it from source)
There aren't much real alternatives to Linux for servers, but there are to macs for desktop. Business people are using Windows anyway, and technical people could switch to Linux if they can forgo Office. They would need professional Linux support though.
Or then Apple could help create a good package system.
Before Steve Jobs returned, Apple was working on MkLinux[2], but that effort seemed to fizzle out, and it seemed like in later years, the idea of using Linux as a starting point was a non-starter[3]. Even Airport devices typically have run either VxWorks or - more recently - NetBSD.
0 - http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fap... 1 - http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Pixar_Big_on_Linux_Cl... 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux 3 - http://www.wired.com/2008/11/the-iphone-coul/
Now fast forward 2015, Apple is focused on its mobile cash cows. Pink gold iPhone 6S. Gold Apple watch worth $10k. But they seem to forget what made them successful in professional environments initially.
I need XCode (for iOS development), but I see more and more librairies developed for Ubuntu. So you are right, maybe it's the time to think about Linux.
sniff
My favorite PC design ever, so sad. RIP!