Aluminium or Titanium?
Over the last few days, there have been conflicting rumours around the choice of material for Apple’s next iPhone. Some reports have suggested a return to aluminium across the product range, while others suggest that Apple’s Pro phones will retain their Titanium construction. It all started when last month, Macrumors shared a report from The Information. The report alleged that as part of a bigger redesign effort, Apple would transition its entire line back to aluminium. The objective being to simplify the production process and create a unified product line. Today, this report has been rebuffed by Instant Digital.
According to a Weibo post from Instant Digital, Apple is sticking with Titanium for its Pro line. Citing the more premium Titanium construction as an important differentiator over the standard models. The report claims that if Apple sticks with aluminium, it would make it harder to upsell customers to the Pro. Personally, I disagree. As long as there is clear feature differentiation, I’m not convinced that customers care all that much what material the phone is made of. Provided it still feels premium, lightweight, and durable. Qualities that aluminium absolutely does have.
Take these reports with a pinch of salt. We’re in the early innings of the iPhone 17 rumour mill. We’re bound to see more conflicting ‘leaks’ in the coming months. Once we’re within a month or so of the release, leaks tend to get more accurate. For now, we’re in the phase of ‘throw it at the wall to see what sticks’.
Retired…or pushed?
Today Intel announced that its CEO Pat Gelsinger retired on the 1st of December. This follows a 40 year career in the industry including multiple stints at Intel. Most recently returning in early 2021 as CEO. When he returned, Gelsinger made some bold statements, claiming that in the wake of Apple Silicon, that Apple was merely a ‘lifestyle’ company. Not a serious competitor to the technological heritage of Intel.
“We have to deliver better products to the PC ecosystem than any possible thing that a lifestyle company in Cupertino can do. We have to be that good.”
Intel was under serious pressure. Apple ditched Intel processors in favour of its own custom silicon. Apple Silicon offers vastly superior performance per watt. Macs running on Apple Silicon run cooler, quieter, and have vastly superior graphics than older Intel Macs. Apple Silicon has been so transformative that it has enabled completely new form factors. Like the tiny new Mac mini. And the iPad Pro with M4. Just a few years ago, the level of performance offered by Apple’s M4 chip in such small devices would have been unthinkable.
Things didn’t work out in quite the way Gelsinger wanted. He hoped to win back Apple by offering new, superior products. That didn’t materialise. Instead, Apple Silicon has continued to advance. And when that didn’t work, he tried to focus on Intel’s fabrication business, offering to make Apple’s chips for them. That also didn’t work. Apple didn’t trust the reliability of Intel’s manufacturing processes and stuck with its trusted supplier, TSMC.
Intel’s stock is down 50% year on year. Not just because of pressures from Apple Silicon, of course. They’re also facing stiff competition from Nvidia and AMD and losing customers fast. Given the state of the business, it’s no wonder Gelsinger wanted out. But three years is a pretty short stint for a CEO of a tech giant, especially for a CEO with very loft ambitions to win back Apple. I’d be willing to bet that he took retirement to save face, rather than face the indignity of being forced out.
P.S…remember this dumpster fire? Thanks Intel!
Comments