Originally Posted by samab
No, he hasn't --- because he kept changing his arguments (while my arguments have been the same).
He was originally talking about Apple releasing their own dual core "compatible" core for ipad2/iphone5. I showed him how unreasonable his timeline was --- then he changed his argument by saying that Apple is going to process shrink the A4 and even dual core A4. You can't dual-core an A4 because Cortex A8 is designed to be single core only.
I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking.
I've changed nothing. I also haven't said you could dual core an A4.
You continue to poorly read the phrase, "follow on to the A4". I have used those specific words several times because I don't know if there ever will be an A5, or if Apple will pick up some other marketing term for the technology it wields as a follow on. A dual core follow on would obviously be, to anyone not trying to twist things, a CortexA9 design, but it could even be a CortexA15 (but I would bet on the A9 due to power considerations in the mobile space). Maybe Apple will shrink the A4 and call it an A5? If they do it's still one of the possible follow ons, but not a dual core follow on.
See, I'm using very precise language and terminology to delineate what I think and not say anything else. Yes, I believe Apple is working hard to power optimize an ARM design like the CortexA8 and/or CortexA9, lots of folks here think so too. Nothing new and hardly scandalous except in your world where somehow your personal view of "The Timeline"
is being violated. So far the only timeline thats unacceptable to the larger audience seems to be yours.
My view of the timeline is that I don't know when it started, but I'm sure it's before your timeline says it does. And that the timeline is shorter than you say it is -- for everyone -- because you only picked isolated PR release dates to use as data-in. I'll take those and raise them by adding the context of business process and engineering spool-up time before the "start" decision of any timeline gets made.
And when you don't twist other folks context, you still fall into the trap of not analyzing what you read before you retort. You make the same error of superficial analysis many stock analysts made upon the announcement of more PA Semi management leaving. To wit
You: "I don't know anything about PA Semi --- except that most of the top people left after Apple bought them, because Apple didn't price their stock options to their liking."
Me: "just needed access to the IP and a few select PA Semi engineers to really get a project completed"
Notice I said nothing about the Founders/Senior Managers who left, or even the lions share of the engineering pool. Not because I didn't know about them, but because they weren't the talent Apple was after!
The departed founders are successful entrepreneurs and idea men. The founders were very successful as engineers in the day, but their work at PA Semi had moved on to building business, not tinkering with chips on a daily basis anymore. Apple didn't purchase the businessman, it has plenty of it's own personnel to do that. Apple purchased the team of engineers they put together. And I'm sure when it gets all the way to brass tacks Apple found the critical core in that team that was the real target.
That half dozen to dozen engineers ARE the technical prowess of PA Semi, and everyone else was just operational support and overhead. Just the way it is for the rest of the ~150 engineers.
So sure, ton's of PA Semi folks left, but the thing we won't know for sure is did the right ones stay? My guess is those few folks DID get treated right and did stay.