Apple's new Israel chip R&D center rumored to open by end of February
Apple is said to have received hundreds of resumes from engineers who are seeking employment at a new research and development center in Israel rumored to open by the end of February.
The new center may be located in Haifa, in the industrial area south of the city Matam, according to Hebrew-language publication Calcalist ( Google Translate). The report said Apple is looking to hire engineers who will develop new chips for the company's devices.
Specifically, Apple is said to be looking for engineers who have expertise in electrical circuits, as well as hardware testing and verification. The proposed location for the research center would be near similar facilities from Intel and Microsoft, among others.
The same publication claimed last month that Apple was planning to open a semiconductor development center in Israel. It has been said that the facility would be headed by Aharon Aharon, who is a veteran in Israel's technology industry.
If the project becomes a reality, it would be Apple's first strategic development center located outside of the company's Cupertino, Calif., headquarters. Any activities outside of the company's campus have to date been related to marketing, sales and support.
The rumored chip development center would be separate from any work done in Israel by Anobit, the flash memory company that was recently acquired by Apple for as much as $500 million. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook spoke of the Anobit purchase during his company's quarterly earnings conference call on Tuesday, and stated: "Anobit has fantastic technical talent. We're really fortunate to have them join us."
Comments
I also read Brazil just agreed to let Foxconn open with tax incentives. So Apple are diversifying their manufacturing more globally. Maybe here one day too!
If you read the NYTimes article "Why Apple Doesn't Make iPhones in the USA", you'll know that's never gonna happen.
If they do R&D in Israel, what happens to "Designed by Apple in California"?
If you read the NYTimes article "Why Apple Doesn't Make iPhones in the USA", you'll know that's never gonna happen.
If they do R&D in Israel, what happens to "Designed by Apple in California"?
Probably nothing, since Johnny designs the cases there still.
Interesting. Apple seems intent on becoming even more vertically integrated than they are now: from silicon to final product to retail to post-sale experience (such as iCloud and Siri). I wonder what this will net them in the future...
The A class SoC have been a runaway success.
Sooner or later we will see A class computers from Apple.
Apple have loads of 4G patents. They have ARM license + own a bit of PowerVR graphics.
Anobit have a great NAND flash controller that enables Apple to buy cheap flash memory and make their own NAND Flash. If Apple released it today it would be the fastest flash device on the market (670 megabyte read/write).
Apple spent over 500 million on Sharp LCD plant.
A few more companies/parts and Apple could design their own total SoC with CPU, Graphics, Flash controller, 4G baseband, Thunderbolt I/O and Sharp Screens. This would give Apple an unique advantage over all other vendors.
The A class SoC have already given Apple a huge advantage since they can design it for iOS + it can be 30% larger then competing ARM SoCs and be bought at the same price.
Great times ahead.
If Apple just buys a foundry so they can manufacture everything themselves.
If you read the NYTimes article "Why Apple Doesn't Make iPhones in the USA", you'll know that's never gonna happen.
If they do R&D in Israel, what happens to "Designed by Apple in California"?
You can bet that the essential design and component parts of this will be dictated by Apple in California.
The A class SoC have been a runaway success.
Sooner or later we will see A class computers from Apple.
I'm not to sure ARM based CPUs will be in "computers" anytime soon from Apple. Performance isn't there and frankly even the current Intel powered stuff leaves a lot to be desired. What I do expect is more iOS devices in many forms. IOS has been a great success story, its acceptance will be leveraged in new devices.
Apple have loads of 4G patents. They have ARM license + own a bit of PowerVR graphics.
Anobit have a great NAND flash controller that enables Apple to buy cheap flash memory and make their own NAND Flash. If Apple released it today it would be the fastest flash device on the market (670 megabyte read/write).
I suspect that that Anobit tech will be integrated into Apples "A" series SoC. that is where the rupture lies.
Apple spent over 500 million on Sharp LCD plant.
A few more companies/parts and Apple could design their own total SoC with CPU, Graphics, Flash controller, 4G baseband, Thunderbolt I/O and Sharp Screens. This would give Apple an unique advantage over all other vendors.
they come pretty close to doing that now. For various reasons though some functionality will remain in discrete chips.
The A class SoC have already given Apple a huge advantage since they can design it for iOS + it can be 30% larger then competing ARM SoCs and be bought at the same price.
Great times ahead.
If Apple just buys a foundry so they can manufacture everything themselves.
If A6 comes in at the 28/32 nm nodes it will be one impressive chip. What is interesting is seeing how Apples havests that real estate to get the performance and power savings they want. There is an endless array of options they could leverage on that silicon and frankly we have yet to see Apple really put their mark on their SoCs.
The A class SoC have been a runaway success.
Sooner or later we will see A class computers from Apple.
Apple have loads of 4G patents. They have ARM license + own a bit of PowerVR graphics.
Anobit have a great NAND flash controller that enables Apple to buy cheap flash memory and make their own NAND Flash. If Apple released it today it would be the fastest flash device on the market (670 megabyte read/write).
Apple spent over 500 million on Sharp LCD plant.
A few more companies/parts and Apple could design their own total SoC with CPU, Graphics, Flash controller, 4G baseband, Thunderbolt I/O and Sharp Screens. This would give Apple an unique advantage over all other vendors.
The A class SoC have already given Apple a huge advantage since they can design it for iOS + it can be 30% larger then competing ARM SoCs and be bought at the same price.
Great times ahead.
If Apple just buys a foundry so they can manufacture everything themselves.
It's a neat idea, and it could really make APIs like Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL pay off for massively parallel workloads. If only they could cram it into some worthy pro tools like FCPX or Motion or Mathematica...
It's a neat idea, and it could really make APIs like Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL pay off for massively parallel workloads. If only they could cram it into some worthy pro tools like FCPX or Motion or Mathematica...
You Imply that GCD isn't paying off for Apple but don't seem to realize that it is a great success story along with OpenCL. GCD is also a very positive development for Apples developers. Even OpenCL has been a big hit, though if you don't understand what it is you will never grasp that success.
You Imply that GCD isn't paying off for Apple but don't seem to realize that it is a great success story along with OpenCL. GCD is also a very positive development for Apples developers. Even OpenCL has been a big hit, though if you don't understand what it is you will never grasp that success.
I don't see the problem with his comment, but anyway a big problem is lack of suitable gpu hardware for bigger tasks on the OSX side.
GCD is a technology separate from OpenCL and is used extensively in apps and Apple software. To imply that GCD isn't paying off both both Apple and developers is just plain foolish at best and ignorant trolling at worst. For developers that followed Apple guidelines (they had a plan) their Apps improved significantly when GCD hit.
Like OpenCL the benefits of GCD are very much app based. You can't benefit from improved threading if your software technology doesn't or can't support multiple threads. Like wise with SIMD operations on a GPU, if your app can't leverage the GPUss deaign there is no reason to support OpenCL.
In the end I object to the idea that GCD and other Apple tech isn't paying off for Apple. Indeed it is a huge positive for them and their developers. In fact a great success story. As to old apps using new technology look at what happens when Apple does leverage those new technologies. Their movie editor update was a massive improvement over the old program but due to some useless features being removed it has been hammered in the press by a few Luddites. There is great risk for Apple every time they do a major rewrite of a package, so yeah some apps take awhile to upgrade. Something for Apps like Mathematica, not only would the app require a major rewrite, they also have a primary concern of getting the same results no matter where their code runs. It is a bit unreasonable of people to expect old apps to instantly embrace new tech, in some case they can't and in other cases developers have to worry about impact on end users. Sometimes people reveal to the world that they are simply uninformed with their comments.
I don't see the problem with his comment, but anyway a big problem is lack of suitable gpu hardware for bigger tasks on the OSX side.
Well the way I read the comment he implied that GCD isn't used extensively and tried to bundle it with OpenCL.
GCD is a technology separate from OpenCL and is used extensively in apps and Apple software. To imply that GCD isn't paying off both both Apple and developers is just plain foolish at best and ignorant trolling at worst. For developers that followed Apple guidelines (they had a plan) their Apps improved significantly when GCD hit.
Like OpenCL the benefits of GCD are very much app based. You can't benefit from improved threading if your software technology doesn't or can't support multiple threads. Like wise with SIMD operations on a GPU, if your app can't leverage the GPUss deaign there is no reason to support OpenCL.
In the end I object to the idea that GCD and other Apple tech isn't paying off for Apple. Indeed it is a huge positive for them and their developers. In fact a great success story. As to old apps using new technology look at what happens when Apple does leverage those new technologies. Their movie editor update was a massive improvement over the old program but due to some useless features being removed it has been hammered in the press by a few Luddites. There is great risk for Apple every time they do a major rewrite of a package, so yeah some apps take awhile to upgrade. Something for Apps like Mathematica, not only would the app require a major rewrite, they also have a primary concern of getting the same results no matter where their code runs. It is a bit unreasonable of people to expect old apps to instantly embrace new tech, in some case they can't and in other cases developers have to worry about impact on end users. Sometimes people reveal to the world that they are simply uninformed with their comments.
You have a very large mysterious company there, and they cut people off from future licenses trying to push them to a .1 release. I think the reason you heard so much about it was because it was a bad transition. Look at some of their previous transitions and you'll get what I mean. They've been much better. Studios might have pipelines built around certain features, so to see them no longer exist and to be forced to buy a product that might not open their projects correctly, that can become a bad thing. The point is that a smooth transition would help a lot in these areas. There are a lot of apps with severely aging code that I'd like to see rewritten, but again transitions tend to be slow because of the need for testing the new thing, looking for bug issues that require workarounds, and the number of scripts and plugins written for the old thing.
Do you recall the program Shake? It was pretty much in the lead. Apple bought it out, slowed development, and dumped it. Nuke definitely pushed it aside at some point.
OpenCL has a lot of support. It seems that protocols that can be run via gpu remain somewhat limited. GPU use has become big among rendering engines, but not all of them have been able to support all features under these modes. It could be really cool for those programs once their implementations mature a bit more.