Steve Jobs on P.A. Semi, love for Intel; 3G Blackberry delayed

[AppleInsider]

Apple chief executive Steve Jobs in a new interview dispels rumors that the company's recent acquisition of chipmaker P.A. Semi was a result of some kind of discord with Intel. Meanwhile, RIM will reportedly delay the release of its 3G BlackBerry handset in a move that could play to Apple's advantage.

Jobs loves Intel

In speaking to the Wall Street Journal following Apple's second-quarter earnings report Wednesday, Jobs reaffirmed that his company's relationship with its Mac microprocessor supplier Intel Corp. was as strong as ever, adding that he hopes it remains that way indefinitely.

"We have a great partnership with Intel,” he said. “We expect that to continue forever."

Though some have speculated that Apple's recent acquisition of P.A. Semi would in some way detract orders for future Intel chips, Jobs explained that the purchase was mainly driven by a liking for the firm's intelligence, rather than its existing products.

Corroborating a recent report by the EETimes, Jobs said Apple has long been involved in custom designing chips for iPhones and iPods and suggested that the company would rely on P.A. Semi’s expertise primarily for the forward development of those handheld products which were never based on Intel designs.

Although P.A. Semi is known for chips based on IBM's Power technology, from which Macs recently defected, there's absolutely no plans to ressurect a PowerPC-based Mac offering.

"I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over that,” he said. “We’re very happy with Intel."

3G BlackBerry delayed

Meanwhile, it appears Apple will have at least a month or two head start on rival smartphone maker Research In Motion should it debut is 3G iPhone in the expected June timeframe.

Reuters reports on a story originally published over at Fortune which notes that the high-speed wireless version of the company's BlackBerry smartphone for AT&T is facing delays. The report cites unnamed sources in saying that the US wireless carrier is concerned with the quality of calls made using pre-production units of the next-generation handset, which could push its introduction back as far as August from June.

AppleInsider notes, however, that the original piece over at Fortune was authored by Scott Moritz, who during his tenure at TheStreet.com was repeatedly accused of intentionally spreading misinformation on Apple to drive the down the company's share price. As such, his claims should be treated with caution.

In yet another twist, BoyGenius appears to be backing claims that the 3G BlackBerry is facing delays, but alleges that the information for the Fortune report was sourced from his website without accreditation. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=3998)

[backtomac]

Well you can spin it any way you want but that reads as a blow to Intel IMO.

Intel make no bones about it. They see Moorestown and subsequent Atom cpus as viable for the iPhone. This certainly makes it appear that Apple don't see it that way. The fact that Apple have bought expertise in cpu design make it appear that they have no intention in adopting Atom for the iPhone/iTouch.

[SpamSandwich]

Steve's just being coy as usual... that sly fox.

[SpamSandwich]

Well you can spin it any way you want but that reads as a blow to Intel IMO.

Intel make no bones about it. They see Moorestown and subsequent Atom cpus as viable for the iPhone. This certainly makes it appear that Apple don't see it that way. The fact that Apple have bought expertise in cpu design make it appear that they have no intention in adopting Atom for the iPhone/iTouch.

Although it seems unlikely, PA Semi IP may be used to develop next-gen iPads or whatever else Steve has up his sleeve.

[backtomac]

Steve's just being coy as usual... that sly fox.

I don't know. That *was* a quarter of a billion dollar investment after all.

It seems to me they are moving in a different direction with respect to handhelds.

Desktop/Laptop/Server---->Intel

iPod/iPhone/iTouch/?------> In house custom ARM chips

[GQB]

Read Dilger's take on this... very insightful...

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/24/why-did-apple-buy-pa-semi/

Apple is unlikely to give up the economies of scale that Intel gives them for the core processors, but are likely doing this to develop custom supporting chips that give them differentiation that can't be stolen by anyone with an Intel internals manual.

[NasserAE]

BlackBerry still don't have 3G?!!! LOL

Thats what how many years?! Apple iPhone is less than 8 months old and people are very upset about not releasing a 3G yet!! This is funny.

[dr_lha]

BlackBerry still don't have 3G?!!! LOL

Thats what how many years?! Apple iPhone is less than 8 months old and people are very upset about not releasing a 3G yet!! This is funny.

To be fair, the Blackberry's main use is push email, which you don't need 3G for.

[Denton]

BlackBerry still don't have 3G?!!! LOL

Thats what how many years?! Apple iPhone is less than 8 months old and people are very upset about not releasing a 3G yet!! This is funny.

My thought as well: it seems odd that RIM hasn't already implemented 3G given the level of iPhone-3G-whining that has gone on for the past year. Apparently, Apple's not behind the game...

[Denton]

To be fair, the Blackberry's main use is push email, which you don't need 3G for.

A reasonable point -- I guess as they begin incorporating better web browsing, they're beginning to wish they had more speed...

[Denton]

<explicative deleted>

Kasper: uh... banned?

[melgross]

Well you can spin it any way you want but that reads as a blow to Intel IMO.

Intel make no bones about it. They see Moorestown and subsequent Atom cpus as viable for the iPhone. This certainly makes it appear that Apple don't see it that way. The fact that Apple have bought expertise in cpu design make it appear that they have no intention in adopting Atom for the iPhone/iTouch.

I don't think so. This says nothing. For all we know, Apple is doing this to make customized versions of Intel's own chips, on Intel's own process lines.

It tells us nothing useful,. we know that Apple won't go back to PPC in any form.

[melgross]

MOD NOTE: You just had to quote it, didn't you?
What is that supposed to mean?

[techno]

Ya Fuckin $%@@s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh, yeah, I think a quick explanation is in order. Are you just an idiot or what?

[Foo2]

Fortune has picked up Scott Moritz? How unfortunate for them!!:lol:

[SpamSandwich]

Uh, yeah, I think a quick explanation is in order. Are you just an idiot or what?

That guy is just an idiot, nothing but an idiot.

[Solar]

My thought as well: it's seems odd that RIM hasn't already implemented 3G given the level of iPhone-3G-whining that has gone on for the past year. Apparently, Apple's not behind the game...

I believe they're talking about the specific 3G Blackberry for AT&T. I think blackberries have been 3G at least since the curve came out.

CDMA2000 EV-DO, is considered 3G right?

[NasserAE]

To be fair, the Blackberry's main use is push email, which you don't need 3G for.

Maybe. But the attitude of most people here and other sites, Europeans in particular, is this "iPhone sucks because it is not using 3G". No one said the same thing about RIM.

[Kasper]

Kasper: uh... banned?

Yeah -- He's gone. Banned for at least 10 days or unless he can explain himself, which is doubtful.

K

[Denton]

I believe they're talking about the specific 3G Blackberry for AT&T. I think blackberries have been 3G at least since the curve came out.

CDMA2000 EV-DO, is considered 3G right?

Then is the point that RIM hasn't implemented 3G on a GSM network?

Well, I did say that it "seems odd," not that it actually is.

[TenoBell]

I don't think so. This says nothing. For all we know, Apple is doing this to make customized versions of Intel's own chips, on Intel's own process lines.

I wonder how much more expensive would that be than just using Intel's general chips?

How would Apple deal with an architecture split for the iPhone after 200,000 - 300,000 developers have made apps for ARM?

[federmoose]

Maybe. But the attitude of most people here and other sites, Europeans in particular, is this "iPhone sucks because it is not using 3G". No one said the same thing about RIM.

Granted. But RIM is a email/business machine, not meant for consumers. Their comparing the iPhone to phones like Nokia N95. Consumer phones have a different standard than business phones.

Nevertheless, I cant argue that it isn't funny to watch RIM users complain about iphone lack of 3G.

[shanmugam]

may be we will see ...

Designed by Apple (PA Semi) Manufactured by Intel

[melgross]

I wonder how much more expensive would that be than just using Intel's general chips?

How would Apple deal with an architecture split for the iPhone after 200,000 - 300,000 developers have made apps for ARM?

Well, Apple could want to ad a few functions that others wouldn't have. Intel could license them to do that. If the chips are small, and the mods small, it might not cost too much.

Certainly far less then designing an entire chip.

Supposedly everything is portable. These apps are much smaller than normal OS X apps, a move would be much less wrenching, and the developers would likely prefer working on x86 anyway. Future apps would be easier.

[thrang]

The purchase may be insurance as well as a reminder to Intel to not take things for granted - if things continue work out with Intel, fine - if not, Apple will have been pursuing parallel internal development to protect its business interests (not unlike the secret Intel development for years while publicly remaining a PowerPC platform)

[JeffDM]

Maybe. But the attitude of most people here and other sites, Europeans in particular, is this "iPhone sucks because it is not using 3G". No one said the same thing about RIM.

Maybe RIM isn't even on the radar in Europe? I can't tell. I really don't know. Maybe they're just devices that just don't appeal to anyone that wants a device for personal use.

[hmurchison]

I still tend to think there's a lucrative product that sits between the iPhone/iTouch and a Laptop.

I think UMPC have the right idea but wrong delivery.


Give me a mini tablet with a widescreen 6" screen and a bit more power. Give me external connectivity (USB/Video/Expresscard) and continue to work on the OS X stack and Core Touch or whateva they call it.

I'd buy one. Make it affordable. Gimme GPS options and more.

What if PA Semi begins to work on multicore SoC options tailored precisely for Apple's needs? It could be a huge hit.

[TenoBell]

Well, Apple could want to ad a few functions that others wouldn't have. Intel could license them to do that. If the chips are small, and the mods small, it might not cost too much. Certainly far less then designing an entire chip.

Also it doesn't appear PA Semi engineers have much if any experience with x86. They were very strong advocates of Power.

I think you are reaching for the less probable outcome rather than the more probable.

Supposedly everything is portable. These apps are much smaller than normal OS X apps, a move would be much less wrenching, and the developers would likely prefer working on x86 anyway. Future apps would be easier.

It seems highly unlikely Apple would build a fresh SDK, API's, and developer community only to soon throw in an architecture change. Its more crucial to get the platform stable right now.

Possibly in a few years. But not right now.

[solipsism]

Well you can spin it any way you want but that reads as a blow to Intel IMO.

Intel make no bones about it. They see Moorestown and subsequent Atom cpus as viable for the iPhone. This certainly makes it appear that Apple don't see it that way. The fact that Apple have bought expertise in cpu design make it appear that they have no intention in adopting Atom for the iPhone/iTouch.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think a large part of the switch to Macs is because of the potential for Boot Camp and visualization of Windows. I doubt Intel is scared of this deal in relation to Apple's Mac line.


Yeah -- He's gone. Banned for at least 10 days or unless he can explain himself, which is doubtful.
A form of Tourret Syndrom?


The purchase may be insurance as well as a reminder to Intel to not take things for granted - if things continue work out with Intel, fine - if not, Apple will have been pursuing parallel internal development to protect its business interests (not unlike the secret Intel development for years while publicly remaining a PowerPC platform)
Cringely mentions that Apple producing it's own chips could create faster, more efficient chips that are smaller as they wouldn't need to waste precious real estate for unused hardcoding. This makes sense and the best position for this would be in PMPs, MIDs and cell phones. I think we need to look at potential new product lines for Apple, not the current ones.

[melgross]

Also it doesn't appear PA Semi engineers have much if any experience with x86. They were very strong advocates of Power.

I think you are reaching for the less probable outcome rather than the more probable.

I don't think so. After all, we don't know what the relationship between them an Apple was over the past few years. They could have been doing some work at the time Apple moved to Intel.


It seems highly unlikely Apple would build a fresh SDK, API's, and developer community only to soon throw in an architecture change. Its more crucial to get the platform stable right now.

Possibly in a few years. But not right now.


This is all just speculation. No one except a very few at Apple and PA Semi know, and they ain't talking.

Again, we don't know.

Remember that all those years, Apple kept their new OS current on Intel.

They could be doing that here as well. I wouldn't be surprised. The phone SDK and all the rest is not more than a good sized add-on to Apples current work, They could be ready to move over in a month.

I suppose that Apple could be using them for more ARN related work. But Apple, doesn't, as far as I know, currently own any relevant ARM API's. I think they gave all of that up when they sold out their shares. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But, otherwise, they would need to get a license. If PA Semi had done so already, it would have been news.

As current engineering, as far as we know, in PA SEmi is involved in PPC, the question is just how much do the currently know about ARM? More than about x86?

Who knows?

[solipsism]

Also it doesn't appear PA Semi engineers have much if any experience with x86. They were very strong advocates of Power.
Their staff also seems to be very well versed in ARM and StrongARM, too.

[echosonic]

MY BIG-TIME PREDICTION #1 ON RECORD HENCEFORTH:

Within 5-8 years, Apple will be developing their own CPUs, and will leave intel much they way they left Motorola.

This will put them into a position to fully control every aspect of Mac design and production from Chip to Chassis, and remove their need to rely on any other company less well-run or secure than they are.

It will also remove for another 10-15 years the possibility of Apple suffering the same stability and hacker fates that Windows has suffered, as well as prevent companies like Psystar from knocking off cheap clones.

If you can't get a proprietary Apple CPU, how can you possibly build a clone?

In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple was already developing a new OS to run on their own proprietary CPU platform as we speak.

[Joe_the_dragon]

MY BIG-TIME PREDICTION #1 ON RECORD HENCEFORTH:

Within 5-8 years, Apple will be developing their own CPUs, and will leave intel much they way they left Motorola.

This will put them into a position to fully control every aspect of Mac design and production from Chip to Chassis, and remove their need to rely on any other company less well-run or secure than they are.

It will also remove for another 10-15 years the possibility of Apple suffering the same stability and hacker fates that Windows has suffered, as well as prevent companies like Psystar from knocking off cheap clones.

If you can't get a proprietary Apple CPU, how can you possibly build a clone?

In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple was already developing a new OS to run on their own proprietary CPU platform as we speak.
and how will apple get video cards make there own chips or use ATI or NVIDIA? also it may be hard to get apps to more to a new chip.

[Solar]

Maybe. But the attitude of most people here and other sites, Europeans in particular, is this "iPhone sucks because it is not using 3G". No one said the same thing about RIM.

That's because RIM makes 3G products, this report is specifically talking about the new Blackberry 9000, for AT&T's new HSDPA 3G network, on which the iPhone will also be running. The phrasing in the AI article kind of makes it sound like it's RIM's first 3G product, when it's really their first HSDPA 3G product. (I think)

RIM have been shipping 3G models for at least the last 4 years. I think since the 7200 series..

I have a 3G 8830, because it's what I could get on my corporate account. Compared to an iPhone, I'd say the only thing that's really better, is the email (debatable), and the 3G speed. The browser sucks, but I do have unlimited phone as modem, so it connects via bluetooth to my macbook. As a media player it's a complete joke. RIM shouldn't even bother trying, it's just embarrassing. I was shocked when I realized it only had a usb 1 port on it. I think if the iPhone wasn't exclusivly on AT&T, RIM would be totally shitting their pants right now. They probably should be anyways..

[TenoBell]

There staff also seems to be very well versed in ARM and StrongARM, too.

Yeah I've mention that before. I only stated Power in that sentence because it and x86 are more direct competitors.

[bsenka]

In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple was already developing a new OS to run on their own proprietary CPU platform as we speak.

I would be shocked if Apple did not already have Macs running on PWRficient chips at Cupertino. If they DIDN'T, that would be a story all by itself.

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. Any questions about "how will they do this" are irrelevant since we don't know what Apple's plans for those chips might be. For all we know, Apple might get PA Semi design a chip that operates in ways we have no frame of reference for at this time.

[solipsism]

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. Any questions about "how will they do this" are irrelevant since we don't know what Apple's plans for those chips might be. For all we know, Apple might get PA Semi design a chip that operates in ways we have no frame of reference for at this time.

I disagree. There is too much benefit to Macs on x86. But personal computers are not the future of technology, embedded devices are. I foresee a version of OS X running on a slew devices in markets we have never seen from Apple.

[Solar]

I would be shocked if Apple did not already have Macs running on PWRficient chips at Cupertino. If they DIDN'T, that would be a story all by itself.

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. .

That just sent a shiver down my spine, I can't help but think of the whole SGI/MIPS debacle. Though really it wasn't a debacle until intel entered the picture.

[GregAlexander]

Although it seems unlikely, PA Semi IP may be used to develop next-gen iPads or whatever else Steve has up his sleeve.

Absolutely.
That doesn't mean it'd be PWRficient either - they have enough ARM expertise, apparently.

In fact, everything Steve said could be said while simultaneously demonstrating a next-gen iPad (or whatever). Look at this:

Jobs loves Intel...

"We have a great partnership with Intel,” he said. “We expect that to continue forever."

... there's absolutely no plans to ressurect a PowerPC-based Mac offering.
"I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over that,” he said. “We’re very happy with Intel."


All could be said while releasing anything slightly smaller than a MBA.

edit: Actually, trying to read into what Steve didn't say (as he is often quite precise in his choice of words)...
The paraphrase didn't say "there's absolutely no plans to resurrect a PowerPC-based offering"
the paraphrase said "there's absolutely no plans to resurrect a PowerPC-based Mac offering".
... I wonder what Steve himself said.
(remember though that eeTimes says that PA Semi is getting rid of the PWR chip entirely!)

Intel make no bones about it. They see Moorestown and subsequent Atom cpus as viable for the iPhone. This certainly makes it appear that Apple don't see it that way. The fact that Apple have bought expertise in cpu design make it appear that they have no intention in adopting Atom for the iPhone/iTouch.

Yeah it does doesn't it. At least at this surface level, and I don't know enough about PA-semi to know what it is that's worth so much to Apple.

It could really be that $300million is small change for Apple to get some great designers to push future iPod/iPhone design in amazing directions - quite independent of whether it's Intel or Arm (or PWR)... and simply planning for the future.

Or Apple could be hedging their bets.

[nacnud]

I think this is more about embedded devices, think apple tv or time capsule. Things that just plug in and work.

[federmoose]

I would be shocked if Apple did not already have Macs running on PWRficient chips at Cupertino. If they DIDN'T, that would be a story all by itself.

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. Any questions about "how will they do this" are irrelevant since we don't know what Apple's plans for those chips might be. For all we know, Apple might get PA Semi design a chip that operates in ways we have no frame of reference for at this time.

I'm missing something here. Mac sales BOOMED partially as a result of moving to intel, or moreover their ability to run Windows OS. That ability is a key feature for switchers, and Apple would be throwing that away if they were to move to their own chips.

I've used Macs for as long as I can remember, and the move to intel was a great day for me; I would be pissed if apple were to move to their own chips. As a developer, the ability to run multiple OS's (I have Windows XP Pro SP2 and Ubuntu Client 64-bit installed) allows me to use a Mac as my work computer. I'd hate to see that feature go.

[Mr. H]

MY BIG-TIME PREDICTION #1 ON RECORD HENCEFORTH:

Within 5-8 years, Apple will be developing their own CPUs, and will leave intel much they way they left Motorola.

This will put them into a position to fully control every aspect of Mac design and production from Chip to Chassis, and remove their need to rely on any other company less well-run or secure than they are.

It will also remove for another 10-15 years the possibility of Apple suffering the same stability and hacker fates that Windows has suffered, as well as prevent companies like Psystar from knocking off cheap clones.

If you can't get a proprietary Apple CPU, how can you possibly build a clone?

In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple was already developing a new OS to run on their own proprietary CPU platform as we speak.

Nope. They already tried that. You do know that PPC was co-designed by Apple? PPC failed. The reasons it failed are twofold:

1.) Manufacturing. Motorola and IBM couldn't keep up with Intel on the manufacturing side of things. Intel were always at least one feature-size node ahead, and that's very significant. It takes billions and billions of dollars of investment to stay on the bleeding edge of die manufacturing, and that is beyond Apple's financial capability.

2.) Code optimisation. The PPC architecture was superior to x86. But that means nothing if people write shit code for it. Most major pieces of third-party code were ported from x86-based codebases for Windows. Ported badly. Resulting in poorly-optimised code that ultimately resulted in the Mac platform being "slower" than the Windows platform despite the Mac having superior hardware*.

It's clear that x86 has conquered mainstream computing for good.


* Toward the end of PPC, equally speedy hardware despite it being one feature-size node behind Intel.

[GregAlexander]

Hey, does anyone know how important hardware is for real-time machines?

I mean - a real time system responds instantly (in real time). Very useful for nuclear power plants to be able to shut down a problem instantly, rather than after they finish calculating whatever else they were working on.

Similarly, Apple's iPhone responds very quickly and naturally when you touch the screen (not instant, but fast)

I'm wondering, with PA Semi's military experience, to what degree Apple would look to hardware to continue to make an incredibly responsive iPhone or other mobile wifi device.

[murphyweb]

I am sorry to disappoint everyone BUT blackberry have had a 3G handset for two years now. The 8707g supports 3G, though from reading this story am guessing that maybe it just never suported 3G on the US version. The Blackberry Curve that was released last year also has 3G. I used the 3G 8707g myself last year in Australia, though now have the 8120 Pearl which is not 3G but is edge & wifi.

I have got no idea why someone would write this article to make it seem that there is an issue with Blackberry releasing a 3G handset when they seemed to have done fine with it outside of the US.

[IQ78]

Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?

Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs? A Trojan horse method of getting a huge spike in OSX users while still trying to protect their hardware sales. They wouldn't have to be seen as "crippling" OSX on PCs because it would be merely that PCs don't have the coprocessors in place that OSX supports.

Nah, probably not. But certainly, if there would be a time for Apple to try to take control of the OS war, the time would be soon. Apple's growth has been great lately, and they have a potential to be huge in the mobile market. If there was anytime for people to jump ship away from Microsoft and towards Apple, now would be the time. Getting people to install OSX on their current PC hardware (without a new purchase) would help Apple as long they could grab a huge percent of these users next time they purchased hardware. Is there a way that Apple could distinguish their hardware to grab enough of the market to justify licensing their OS to other vendors?

Probably not... They will probably want to distinguish themselves in hardware to lure people WITHOUT having to license their OS. But I'm just throwing the thought out there.

I AM IQ78

[Mr. H]

Hey, does anyone know how important hardware is for real-time machines?

I mean - a real time system responds instantly (in real time). Very useful for nuclear power plants to be able to shut down a problem instantly, rather than after they finish calculating whatever else they were working on.

Similarly, Apple's iPhone responds very quickly and naturally when you touch the screen (not instant, but fast)

I'm wondering, with PA Semi's military experience, to what degree Apple would look to hardware to continue to make an incredibly responsive iPhone or other mobile wifi device.

Real-time stuff generally doesn't hinge on specialist hardware. But I guess it depends what you mean by "specialist".

If you are designing a real-time system, you generally use a real-time operating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_time_operating_system), unless you can get away with no OS at all. The software design needs to go hand-in-hand with the hardware design, including choice of CPU. Obviously there are limits on what software can achieve, you do need to make sure your CPU is fast enough to do what you want to do. Depending on what you want to do, a mainstream CPU like an x86 or PPC might be the right choice, alternatively it might be a specialist DSP such as a Texas Instruments TMS320xxxx series, or Analog Devices Blackfin, or a specialist chip with an ARM core, etc. etc.

OS X's kernel does have a few clever tricks up its sleeve to deliver low latencies for time-sensitive stuff such as audio, but it's not a real-time OS or a real-time kernel.

The iPhone is responsive simply due to a decent kernel and decent code optimisation.

[solipsism]

Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?

Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs? A Trojan horse method of getting a huge spike in OSX users while still trying to protect their hardware sales. They wouldn't have to be seen as "crippling" OSX on PCs because it would be merely that PCs don't have the coprocessors in place that OSX supports.

Nah, probably not. But certainly, if there would be a time for Apple to try to take control of the OS war, the time would be soon. Apple's growth has been great lately, and they have a potential to be huge in the mobile market. If there was anytime for people to jump ship away from Microsoft and towards Apple, now would be the time. Getting people to install OSX on their current PC hardware (without a new purchase) would help Apple as long they could grab a huge percent of these users next time they purchased hardware. Is there a way that Apple could distinguish their hardware to grab enough of the market to justify licensing their OS to other vendors?

Probably not... They will probably want to distinguish themselves in hardware to lure people WITHOUT having to license their OS. But I'm just throwing the thought out there.

I AM IQ78

That is a pretty interesting idea.

[mdriftmeyer]

Raise your hand if you thought PA was going to be used as the CPU for existing Macs?

I better see no hands raised.

Steve Jobs just reinforced that relationship.

Raise your hands if you think Steve Jobs just reinforced this relationship for products other than Macs?

[solipsism]

Raise your hand if you thought PA was going to be used as the CPU for existing Macs?

I better see no hands raised.

Steve Jobs just reinforced that relationship.

Raise your hands if you think Steve Jobs just reinforced this relationship for products other than Macs?

1) How will you know if our hands are raised?

2) How do you know question we are answering with our raised hands?

[Mr. H]

Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?

Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs? A Trojan horse method of getting a huge spike in OSX users while still trying to protect their hardware sales. They wouldn't have to be seen as "crippling" OSX on PCs because it would be merely that PCs don't have the coprocessors in place that OSX supports.

That's a nice idea and I'd like to see Apple do it, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I remember in 1995 or so, before Steve returned to Apple, Apple were somewhat more open about what they were working on for the future, and I read in an Apple-published magazine that they were working on PowerMacs with co-processors for media acceleration. It never saw the light. I'll see if I can dig anything up online...

[solipsism]

That's a nice idea and I'd like to see Apple do it, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I remember in 1995 or so, before Steve returned to Apple, Apple were somewhat more open about what they were working on for the future, and I read in an Apple-published magazine that they were working on PowerMacs with co-processors for media acceleration. It never saw the light. I'll see if I can dig anything up online...

Cringely has been saying it's going to happen for years now.

Also in Cringely's prediction portfolio: Complete WiMax coverage, portable and numerous Google data centers built into shipping containers, and free super-highspeed internet from Google from all the dark fiber they've bought up.

[Mr. H]

I remember in 1995 or so, before Steve returned to Apple, Apple were somewhat more open about what they were working on for the future, and I read in an Apple-published magazine that they were working on PowerMacs with co-processors for media acceleration. It never saw the light. I'll see if I can dig anything up online...

Ah ha! It was a couple of years later than I thought, but the co-processors were called "TriMedia". Here's a few pages for those that are interested:

CNET news article (http://www.news.com/2100-1001-262502.html)

Page with lots of details of a prototype TriMedia card (http://www.forcedperfect.net/hardware/cards/firedrillprototype/)

See bottom of this page (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45)

[solipsism]

Page with lots of details of a prototype TriMedia card (http://www.forcedperfect.net/hardware/cards/firedrillprototype/)

That link is worth a look.

[noirdesir]

Maybe. But the attitude of most people here and other sites, Europeans in particular, is this "iPhone sucks because it is not using 3G". No one said the same thing about RIM.
That's because RIM makes 3G products, this report is specifically talking about the new Blackberry 9000, for AT&T's new HSDPA 3G network, on which the iPhone will also be running. The phrasing in the AI article kind of makes it sound like it's RIM's first 3G product, when it's really their first HSDPA 3G product. (I think)

Maybe missing GSM 3G support (if that is correct) or missing HSDPA support was not as important to RIMs main customers: corporations, ie, customers who care about actually useful feature like great e-mail service.

Companies targeting the consumer market might have had to please more the 'armchair' analysts who analyse products on specs alone and not on the actual usefulness of features.

[bsenka]

I'm missing something here. Mac sales BOOMED partially as a result of moving to intel, or moreover their ability to run Windows OS. That ability is a key feature for switchers, and Apple would be throwing that away if they were to move to their own chips.

I've used Macs for as long as I can remember, and the move to intel was a great day for me; I would be pissed if apple were to move to their own chips. As a developer, the ability to run multiple OS's (I have Windows XP Pro SP2 and Ubuntu Client 64-bit installed) allows me to use a Mac as my work computer. I'd hate to see that feature go.

We do not know what any new chip will or will not be able to do, OS support included.

I don't believe for a second that Apple's recent successes have anything whatsoever to do with whether Macs can run Windows.

[Mr. H]

I don't believe for a second that Apple's recent successes have anything whatsoever to do with whether Macs can run Windows.

:no: (there needs to be a smilie with eyes popping out of the head).

You think Apple's huge uptick in sales has nothing to do with Macs now being able to natively run Windows? That's bananas.

Do you agree that it's got something to do with x86? Do you agree that if they had stuck with PPC, the Mac would be doing much worse than it is now?

[mdriftmeyer]

1) How will you know if our hands are raised?

2) How do you know question we are answering with our raised hands?

Just use your textual imagination.

Did you hear me ask the question?

:Raising hand high over here:

That was tough.

[SpamSandwich]

MY BIG-TIME PREDICTION #1 ON RECORD HENCEFORTH:

Within 5-8 years, Apple will be developing their own CPUs, and will leave intel much they way they left Motorola.

This will put them into a position to fully control every aspect of Mac design and production from Chip to Chassis, and remove their need to rely on any other company less well-run or secure than they are.

It will also remove for another 10-15 years the possibility of Apple suffering the same stability and hacker fates that Windows has suffered, as well as prevent companies like Psystar from knocking off cheap clones.

If you can't get a proprietary Apple CPU, how can you possibly build a clone?

In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple was already developing a new OS to run on their own proprietary CPU platform as we speak.

It's possible that for Apple's future plans involving nano-scale engineering this is the quickest route for Apple to get an "in"... In another 5 to 10 years, nano-tech will be far more advanced and there will be more MEMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS) integration in handheld devices.

[GregAlexander]

You think Apple's huge uptick in sales has nothing to do with Macs now being able to natively run Windows? That's bananas.

I know that's not directed at me - but let me add my voice to yours in saying the Windows compatibility concept has been very important in Mac mindshare.

I do think that Apple could easily technically go down a dual architecture track if they felt like.... have some PPC models in the mix - MacBook Air PPC or a 5Ghz Power server if they felt like it. I don't think they will, I don't think it's worth it.

It's possible that for Apple's future plans involving nano-scale engineering this is the quickest route for Apple to get an "in"... In another 5 to 10 years, nano-tech will be far more advanced and there will be more MEMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS) integration in handheld devices.

I have to say that's the most intelligent speculation on this purchase that I've read on this or any blog. Thank you.

[backtomac]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think a large part of the switch to Macs is because of the potential for Boot Camp and visualization of Windows. I doubt Intel is scared of this deal in relation to Apple's Mac line.


I think you misunderstand me.

I don't think Apple will abandon Intel cpus fro laptops/desktops/server products.

It does appear to me that they may not adopt Atom and its line of cpus for the iPhone/iTouch product lines. Many felt that it was only a matter of time, and a die shrink to 32 nm, before the iPhone would begin using Atom.

That seems to be seriously in question now.

[solipsism]

It does appear to me that they may not adopt Atom and its line of cpus for the iPhone/iTouch product lines.

Then I wholeheartedly agree with you. Atom power output can not compete with ARM at this point. I believe the slowest Atom chip in the works is 800MHz, which is almost double the current under-clocked speed of the iPhone at 412MHz.

Even if the iPhone was clocked to it's 620MHz maximum it would still be slower. But more importantly, it would be much more power efficient that the Atom chip which still killing the battery. I have to agree with AnandTech that it's 5-10 years before Intel would be able to have anything that can compete with ARM.

[monstrosity]

It's possible that for Apple's future plans involving nano-scale engineering this is the quickest route for Apple to get an "in"... In another 5 to 10 years, nano-tech will be far more advanced and there will be more MEMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS) integration in handheld devices.

Yep, that was my guess the moment I heard of apple buying this company. Apple seriously need to be on the forefront of the nano revolution we are on the brink of, this is hopefully a step in the right direction.

Behold the new Mac Quantum....

[Marvin]

I mean - a real time system responds instantly (in real time). Very useful for nuclear power plants to be able to shut down a problem instantly, rather than after they finish calculating whatever else they were working on.

:lol: "The power plant could not be shut down because Microsoft Word 2008 cancelled the process. Would you like to force quit the application?"

Could it be possible that Apple is looking for a way to distinguish it's hardware from typical PC hardware by adding co-processor technology that would be fully supported by OSX, making it scream on Apple hardware?

Once the distinction between running OSX on Apple hardware (with co-processors) and running it on non-Apple hardware is made, it could open the doors to license a non-coprocessor supported version of OSX on PCs?

I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.

On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.

Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.

Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?

Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.

[melgross]

Ah ha! It was a couple of years later than I thought, but the co-processors were called "TriMedia". Here's a few pages for those that are interested:

CNET news article (http://www.news.com/2100-1001-262502.html)

Page with lots of details of a prototype TriMedia card (http://www.forcedperfect.net/hardware/cards/firedrillprototype/)

See bottom of this page (http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=45)

That was something we were all excited about, but the usual happened.

We were all excited about the idea that the Cell might also be used as a co-processor, but the same thing happened there as well.

I really don't expect much from this purchase.

It think the engineers will be, to a certain extent, dispursed amongst the different engineering groups at Apple, with a core looking a new, interestng technologies, and improvements.

I simply DON'T see Apple designing their own processor. And anything they may do for the ARM here will be short term at best. Once Intel gets up to speed with Atom, it will be all over.

I'm pretty confident that Apple has the SDK running on x86 right now, and that it has been from the very beginning, as has the rest of the development.

We all know that Apple, along with at least Intel's other big clients, has had knowledge about this development (Atom) from the very beginning.

Remember that we couldn't understand why Jobs got up that June afternoon, a time that now seems to be so very long ago in the past, and pointed to a chart showing Intel's performance per watt compared to IBM. That was when the Prescott was the big joke, and when we were all still deriding Intel.

Well, Apple, and others, were given the scoop on Core long before we had any idea.

The same thing is true here

I doubt if Intel would have even come up with these new chips if they didn't have good assurance from their biggest likely customers of strong interest and the likelihood of adoption.

Don't forget that it's the PPC based designs from PA that's garnered interest, not ARM designs!

If Apple abandons the PPC line, which they seem to want to do, then there is no real advantage to this purchase, expertise or not. There are several very competent companies working on ARM designs, and it's not likely that a team from PA can do anything with them that's not already being done.

[melgross]

Then I wholeheartedly agree with you. Atom power output can not compete with ARM at this point. I believe the slowest Atom chip in the works is 800MHz, which is almost double the current under-clocked speed of the iPhone at 412MHz.

Even if the iPhone was clocked to it's 620MHz maximum it would still be slower. But more importantly, it would be much more power efficient that the Atom chip which still killing the battery. I have to agree with AnandTech that it's 5-10 years before Intel would be able to have anything that can compete with ARM.

That's nonsense.

As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.

Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.

Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.

[wizard69]

We do not know what any new chip will or will not be able to do, OS support included.

Actually we might know. It is not impossible to get info about new chips. Yeah some stuff is under NDA but a lot of hardware gets released that eventually makes its way into Apple products months later.

I don't believe for a second that Apple's recent successes have anything whatsoever to do with whether Macs can run Windows.

Then yo are living in a very rarefied would colored Rose. The evidence is very clear and frankly overwhelming. If it wasn't for Intel hardware I would have never purchased my mew MBP. There is no way to get around my need to run MS OS'es and software from time to time. The Mac gives me the ability to stay as far away from MS OS'es as is possible but still have immediate access when needed.

That is just me. A lot of other people have switched to the MAC for the same reason. Better to ask around to find out why many people have switched to a Mac recently.

[melgross]

:lol: "The power plant could not be shut down because Microsoft Word 2008 cancelled the process. Would you like to force quit the application?"



I don't see it. The distinction media acceleration would make would be negligible. I can already play HD movies on a Mac Mini, co-processors add nothing meaningful. This would have mattered when CPUs were too slow to do these things.

On the subject of the PPC chip, isn't it possible for them to use the intellectual property they have acquired to improve Intel's Atom chip? P.A Semi is a fabless semiconductor company meaning they have to outsource the actual chip development.

Who would Apple outsource this development to? IBM? I don't think so.

Apple have acquired chip design engineers, some of whom worked on Intel's chips too, not a company that builds processors. If they can design a power efficient PPC chip, what's to stop them designing a better Atom chip that is outsourced to Intel for fabrication and exclusive to Apple's mobile devices?

Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.

This is basically what I've been saying.

[wizard69]

Whatever they do, I think that if PPC or x86 is in the next iphone revision, it surely opens up the possibility for Flash on the iphone.

I can excuse the garbage prior to this but what they hell does PPC or X86 have to do with running Flash? Let me point out, it has nothing to do with it!!!!! It is the number one issue when it comes to Browser reliability on browsers of all types on all platforms. Beyond that it burns CPU cycles and wastes memory.

Let me just say I'm a bit frustrated by it not being on the iPhone but I understand and respect Apples decision to draw a line in the sand and kept the platform as stable as they can. That line has nothing to do with the processor at the center of the iPhone though. If need be ARM can run Flash just as well as any other processor.

Dave


Flash isn't on the iPhone because it SUCKS!

[solipsism]

That's nonsense.

As soon as 32 nm is out, Atom will leap over ARM. Intel is capable of doing more than any other company in the field. I respect Anand for what they do, but this prediction is one for the trash.

Atom already has several performance advantages. Intel has shown that it can move much more quickly than its competitors when it feels it must.

Remember that Intel sold off its own previous mobile processor family. At the time, people thought that Intel wasn't interested in the category, but these new chips show that Intel had a better idea. This is a first generation product, a "tick" so to speak. We'll see what happens when 2009 rolls around.

I hope you are right, even just to push competition from ARM developers. Intel certainly has the money, aptitude and drive to make Atom a worthy contender.

[bsenka]

You think Apple's huge uptick in sales has nothing to do with Macs now being able to natively run Windows? s.

Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.

Do you agree that it's got something to do with x86? Do you agree that if they had stuck with PPC, the Mac would be doing much worse than it is now?

Yes. because Moto and IBM were not keeping up with mobile chips and the iBook/Powerbook lines were falling too far behind. The switch to x86 allowed Apple to bring their laptops back to current specs. Macbook and Macbook Pros were finally worth buying, so there was an obvious surge in sales.

[JeffDM]

I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.

Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.

[bsenka]

Wouldn't that be Redmond Kool-aid? While a sale of a Mac to run Windows is still a sale, if there were a lot of Mac owners running Windows most of the time, then I don't think the company or its fans would want to admit that.

Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.

[addabox]

Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.

It's not about "running Windows" in the way you seem to mean-- buying a Mac to serve primarily as a Win box.

It's about providing a comfort factor for switchers-- it's now trivially simple to install and use Windows apps, in an environment that barely disturbs the sense of being in OS X.

Even if a potential user never uses the functionality, it's a great selling point-- yes, you can use that PC only app that would have been a deal breaker.

Being able to buy one machine that can run everything is no small incentive.

[solipsism]

Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.

I certainly can't account for all switchers but every single switcher I personaly know felt that the piece of mind knowing that the option for Windows was always in reach in case they didn't like OS X as much as thought they would or if they needed an app that wasn't available.

While the Apple Stores are great for trying out a Mac it's not common for most people to invest in a higher-end computer that they may later find to be unsuitable. Don't overlook peace of mind as a selling point.

If you search for comments on the pre-Boot Camp, dual boot challenge you'll find many plenty of excited people who disagree with your assesment.


edit: Pipped by Addabox. What he said. iPhone slows down my typing.

[Mr. H]

Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it.

What you originally said was that you thought that Macs' newfound ability to run Windows has nothing to do with their increase in sales.

What you've said above is something different and I agree with you. The number of people buying Macs just to run Windows on them (and never OS X) is very, very small.

But that the Mac can now run Windows natively brought down a huge barrier to adoption. People can now switch without fear; they need that one Windows-only app? No problem. They're not sure they'll really like OS X? No problem, they can always install and use Windows instead if necessary.

[JeffDM]

Doesn't matter either way, because it's a fantasy.

I think it does matter given that you're trying to tie a motive to the one with the fantasy. If the motive doesn't fit, then your explanation doesn't fit either.

[federmoose]

Being able to buy one machine that can run everything is no small incentive.

I second that. Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise needs to pull their head out of (as TBS censors like to say) the grass.

[anantksundaram]

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27rim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).

[SpamSandwich]

Nothing whatsoever. I know there are a few people who were already Mac users who are now using Windows on their Macs, but there is no chance in hell that any statistically significant number of PC users have bought a Mac to run windows on it. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been drinking too much of the Cupertino Kool-aid.

Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.

[solipsism]

Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.

Could you clarify? Your response backs up bsenka's statement if it's because of the switch to X86 and not the later option to run Windows if need be.

[solipsism]

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27rim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).

There a lot of quotable sentences in that article. I've said this before, even if you hate the iPhone and Apple the affect it is having is good for every consumer that owns a cell phone, especially a smart phone.

Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?


PS: I wonder how long before RiM clashes their exorbitant PUSH subscription fees.

[melgross]

Think again. Of the few people I know, all of them switched to Apple because they heard about Apple adopting Intel chips. All of them.

And one of the reasons for that could very well be that they can now run Windows in some usable form or another.

My daughter wants to run Windows under the Boot program so that she can run games.

Others would have different reasons.

[melgross]

Is there any truth to the claim that RiM devices are much more secure than the iPhone?

Yes. Cisco's scheme uses double encryption, which is good, but can be broken.

RIMs scheme uses triple encryption, which can't be broken.

It's also more secure going through RIM's one point servers than thousands of individual unprotected servers and MS's software directly.

Lastly, RIM has complete encryption of all phone data, passwords, etc, while the iPhone still won't have that.

[JeffDM]

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27rim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).

The market share graph is misleading because as the article says, the market grew by leaps in bounds, so a slight decline in market share is more than offset by a huge increase in the market. RIM still grew a lot in the last year, actually, they doubled their revenue over the previous year.

[JeffDM]

oops.

[murphyweb]

Wow... take a look at this story in NYT today.... actually, forget the story, just click on the graphic that says "A Narrower Lead."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27rim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

All I can say is, iPhone-haters can yap all they want, but under any reasonable set of scenarios, competitors such as RIM are pwned in this space (of course, only if your horizon extends longer than that of a gnat).


Yes of course, what a great suggestion. "Hey, don't bother to read all the boring facts just click on the graph that makes it look better for Apple" .

The reason why RIM's market share is slightly down is because the market has grown so much and the biggest section of growth has been the consumer entertainment based devices that the iPhone is owning at the moment. But Blackberry's sales are still growing in a huge way. To be honest Consumer targeted smartphones and business targeted smartphones should be two separate markets. Blackberry already had the corporate world sewn up and with the Pearl they are taking Window's mobile customers left right and centre. They are only just starting to target consumers (though unlike the article suggests the Pearl and the Curve are still not consumer devices by any stretch of the imagination, most buyers are still corporate).

If you did bother to read the story you would see that it is about what work RIM needs to do to be able to crack the consumer market but also the hard job Apple are going to have if they want to crack the business market.

I think that each will have some success but see no real reason for RIM to steal too much marketshare from iPhone with future devices and I do not ever see the iPhone being a business class device to rival the Blackberry. Each to their own successful markets I would think. The article is right about one thing, the keyboard on the blackberry is much better for an email machine (which all the Blackberry essentially is, and a good one at that) and it will always have that in it's favor.

I use Apple computers at home but honestly would not dream of swapping my Pearl for an iPhone, it is without doubt the greatest little phone I have ever owned.

[Marvin]

what they hell does PPC or X86 have to do with running Flash? Let me point out, it has nothing to do with it!!!!!

Binary compatibility? Even if it does have to be recompiled, it makes Adobe's job easier.

It is the number one issue when it comes to Browser reliability on browsers of all types on all platforms. Beyond that it burns CPU cycles and wastes memory.

People who use it incorrectly burn CPU cycles and memory. Flash itself is a very good product and makes up for areas where the Web standards are lacking. Reliability and security are issues I agree but no more than any other software product.

Without Flash, youtube would not be accessible to everyone like it is now.

[randian]

That just sent a shiver down my spine, I can't help but think of the whole SGI/MIPS debacle. Though really it wasn't a debacle until intel entered the picture.
How was that a debacle? The debacle was SGI believing Intel's promises regarding Itanium's roadmap. Not surprisingly, Intel didn't deliver. What's Itanium stuck at, 1.8 GHz? Pathetic!

Not much different, really, from SGI believing Microsoft's promises regarding their graphics API partnership, which Microsoft basically used to steal from SGI and develop DirectX.

MIPS was doomed anyway, it would inevitably have become too expensive to develop new revisions at such low production volumes. PPC was doomed for much the same reason. MIPS is pretty popular in the embedded space, though. I'd love to see what you could do with a MIPS design on Intel's 45-nm process (I'm sure it would smoke Nehalem), but sadly that will never come to pass.

[anantksundaram]

If you did bother to read the story ....

Of course I did.

[anantksundaram]

The market share graph is misleading because as the article says, the market grew by leaps in bounds, so a slight decline in market share is more than offset by a huge increase in the market. RIM still grew a lot in the last year, actually, they doubled their revenue over the previous year.

No one claimed that RIM did not grow in absolute terms. I saw the article as really being about relative growth (which is what market share measures). Obviously, not everyone may feel that graph is impressive, and that's perfectly OK: I happen to think it's a stunning achievement, given that the product is less than a year old, and has zero percent of the corporate market. And, the fact that "non-corporate smartphone" was practically an oxymoron a couple of years ago.

[JeffDM]

No one claimed that RIM did not grow in absolute terms. I saw the article as really being about relative growth (which is what market share measures). Obviously, not everyone may feel that graph is impressive, and that's perfectly OK: I happen to think it's a stunning achievement, given that the product is less than a year old, and has zero percent of the corporate market. And, the fact that "non-corporate smartphone" was practically an oxymoron a couple of years ago.

I didn't say the iPhone uptake was unimpressive, but the way I saw what you wrote, it looked as if you were vaguely suggesting that the competitors should just pack up their bags and leave. Without much context, and you telling us to only look at the graph, that leaves a lot of the context out.

[TednDi]

I would be shocked if Apple did not already have Macs running on PWRficient chips at Cupertino. If they DIDN'T, that would be a story all by itself.

I'm inclined to think your take is a pretty accurate indication of what Apple is doing; gearing for an eventual move to their own chips. Any questions about "how will they do this" are irrelevant since we don't know what Apple's plans for those chips might be. For all we know, Apple might get PA Semi design a chip that operates in ways we have no frame of reference for at this time.


I would think if this premise is correct, then that would be about the time of ....

OS 11 !!!


That could usher in a new chipset and radically redesigned OS.

Perhaps the current roadmap from Intel won't give them the ability to go where Apple wants to go and only some very custom chipsets will.

As an aside, we have not heard anything about the 10.6 OS revision. This year's WWDC should be a smoker!

[NasserAE]

That's because RIM makes 3G products, this report is specifically talking about the new Blackberry 9000, for AT&T's new HSDPA 3G network, on which the iPhone will also be running. The phrasing in the AI article kind of makes it sound like it's RIM's first 3G product, when it's really their first HSDPA 3G product. (I think)

RIM have been shipping 3G models for at least the last 4 years. I think since the 7200 series..

I have a 3G 8830, because it's what I could get on my corporate account. Compared to an iPhone, I'd say the only thing that's really better, is the email (debatable), and the 3G speed. The browser sucks, but I do have unlimited phone as modem, so it connects via bluetooth to my macbook. As a media player it's a complete joke. RIM shouldn't even bother trying, it's just embarrassing. I was shocked when I realized it only had a usb 1 port on it. I think if the iPhone wasn't exclusivly on AT&T, RIM would be totally shitting their pants right now. They probably should be anyways..

Based on RIM website, they only have Edge Capable 8830 Blackberry, no 3G.

http://www.rim.com/products/handhelds/index.shtml

[solipsism]

Based on RIM website, they only have Edge Capable 8830 Blackberry, no 3G.

http://www.rim.com/products/handhelds/index.shtml

I am suprised. I figured you were only looking at a N. America and/or CDMA version but I can't any of that nodel that are 3G.

[backtomac]

^^^^

It's coming boys. Link (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080512-bold-new-blackberry-9000-to-take-on-expected-3g-iphone.html).