I read that to be just a comparison of a Cortex-A9 to the the Cortex-A8 in the 3GS, not a statement that the iPad's ARM is based on that chip.
Quote:
Plus if it was multi-core, out of all the companies in the world, Apple would be one of the most likely to say dual-1GHz if it was dual-1GHz.
Apple is pretty light on details with their HW, but I agree that they would have promoted it since it's a marketing win no matter how you slice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes
I don't foresee that Apple/PA Semi will take on Intel--at least not yet. There might be some differences between Intel and Apple when Intel decided to include a graphics chip in their latest generation of CPU's.
It does make sense that Apple develop their own chips that they put into their own mobile devices ie iPhone, Ipod touch and iPad.
It appears that Intel wants to move the Atom into ARM's space and it looks like this year's tablets will be ARM with Mac OS X or Android v. Atom with Windows 7 or Chrome OS. This could get interesting in this space. Streamlined but less functional v. clunky but more functional.
Apple need to stick this chip in a refreshed Apple TV. Throw away whatever ancient chipset is "powering" it currently and put something in there which can handle 1080p with ease, and will be able to provide a modern UI which isn't painfully slow to use.
And bring down the cost too. For Apple TV for be a success without additional features, be that a blu-ray drive, TV tuner, or whatever else, it will need to be vastly cheaper than it is now. I'm thinking £50 or less.
It appears that Intel wants to move the Atom into ARM's space and it looks like this year's tablets will be ARM with Mac OS X or Android v. Atom with Windows 7 or Chrome OS. This could get interesting in this space. Streamlined but less functional v. clunky but more functional.
Chips used in mobile devices yes there will be competition. But for now, Intel doesn't have to worry about an Apple Core ix chip equivalent appearing in the Mac lineup.
Oh boy. Where do I start to inject sense into this conversation.
PA Semi is fabless. Atom is x86 based. It can therefore run x86 software. This is it's raison d'etre (and a disadvantage for mobile devices, which don't need to run legacy code)
Apple with or without PA Semi *cannot* compete with Intel in making x86 type chips with a better price/performance than Intel. Anyone that thinks they will see an Apple chip inside a Macbook is stupid. Even AMD with all their design expertise is having a tough time keeping up.
1 billion (US) = 1000 million. That's about 5 000 manyears of work and change left for respinning the silicon. The A4 is ARM based. You buy an IP license. Apple would only make it from scratch if they were stupid.
10hour battery life on a tablet with a mobile phone processor is not *that* impressive. After all a large LiPo battery can be molded into the thing due to the large footprint
Apple need to stick this chip in a refreshed Apple TV. Throw away whatever ancient chipset is "powering" it currently and put something in there which can handle 1080p with ease, and will be able to provide a modern UI which isn't painfully slow to use.
And bring down the cost too. For Apple TV for be a success without additional features, be that a blu-ray drive, TV tuner, or whatever else, it will need to be vastly cheaper than it is now. I'm thinking £50 or less.
It currently has 1Ghz Pentium-class CPU. I think the iPad's base HW is ideal for the next AppleTV, though a much better GPU may be required (or at least upping the clock speed) to get high-profile 1080p content without stuttering. It would run much cooler, too.
I think your price is quite low for a media extender appliance with gigabit ethernet, a HDD and 802.11n.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
Chips used in mobile devices yes there will be competition. But for now, Intel doesn't have to worry about an Apple Core ix chip equivalent appearing in the Mac lineup.
Absolutely not, ARM has no change in there and I've read nothing that would indicate they have a roadmap in place to get there. Hell, AMD can't even compete with Intel in the mobile PC arena.
Oh boy. Where do I start to inject sense into this conversation.
PA Semi is fabless. Atom is x86 based. It can therefore run x86 software. This is it's raison d'etre (and a disadvantage for mobile devices, which don't need to run legacy code)
Apple with or without PA Semi *cannot* compete with Intel in making x86 type chips with a better price/performance than Intel. Anyone that thinks they will see an Apple chip inside a Macbook is stupid. Even AMD with all their design expertise is having a tough time keeping up.
1 billion (US) = 1000 million. That's about 5 000 manyears of work and change left for respinning the silicon. The A4 is ARM based. You buy an IP license. Apple would only make it from scratch if they were stupid.
10hour battery life on a tablet with a mobile phone processor is not *that* impressive. After all a large LiPo battery can be molded into the thing due to the large footprint
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
10+ hours is impressive. We haven't seen numbers like that announced for tablets, let alone tablets with beautiful, vibrant screens and functioning GUIs.
R&D being what it is, I stated long ago that PPC would not keep up with Intel and Apple would eventually switch. I don't think the A4 will replace Intel silicon. But perhaps Apple will parlay their investment in PA into something magical on the motherboards of their laptops.
It currently has 1Ghz Pentium-class CPU. I think the iPad's base HW is ideal for the next AppleTV, though a much better GPU may be required (or at least upping the clock speed) to get high-profile 1080p content without stuttering. It would run much cooler, too.
I think your price is quite low for a media extender appliance with gigabit ethernet, a HDD and 802.11n.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
You hit the nail on the head with consoles. I could buy a PS3 for £260, which not only plays PS3 games, but also blu-rays, offers a web browser, and access to the PSN video store. Plus it has access to the BBC's iPlayer service. And they've even thrown a 250gb HD into the deal.
Or I could buy an Apple TV for £220 which offers access to the iTunes store and nothing else.
Apple's offering is embarassing by comparison and it's easy to see why Apple TV has been such a failure. Personally I'd like to see Apple relaunch ATV as a general media player device, with access to all popular streaming services, a blu-ray drive, and some sort of TV tuner/PVR functionality. Do it as multiple SKUs so people could pick and choose too.
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
Atom is faster than ARM, but the biggest problem is running desktop OSes on Atom CPUs when they are too blaoted for them. That is why Linux actually got a small leg up in that area and MS had to practically give away WinXP at first. Too many returns due to Linux being Linux that MS can now reportedly charge $50 for a copy of Windows 7 Starter Edition for netbooks. When Chrome OS hits the visible performance will likely jump considerably.
I've had two netbooks, one with WinXP and the other with Mac OS X. Neither could play Hulu in 480p without stuttering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
You hit the nail on the head with consoles. I could buy a PS3 for £260, which not only plays PS3 games, but also blu-rays, offers a web browser, and access to the PSN video store. Plus it has access to the BBC's iPlayer service. And they've even thrown a 250gb HD into the deal.
Or I could buy an Apple TV for £220 which offers access to the iTunes store and nothing else.
Apple's offering is embarassing by comparison and it's easy to see why Apple TV has been such a failure. Personally I'd like to see Apple relaunch ATV as a general media player device, with access to all popular streaming services, a blu-ray drive, and some sort of TV tuner/PVR functionality. Do it as multiple SKUs so people could pick and choose too.
Note that the PS3 and XBOX are selling at thin margins in hopes to get revenue from the game content end. Apple doesn't do that and likely couldn't do that if they tried.
I don't know about an included Blu-ray player, but having one that form fits on top of it and connects via s simple USB2 plug would be great. Of course, Apple has a vested interest in the iTS so I don't that is likely, though considerably more likely than Blu-ray in their Mac notebooks.
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
10+ hours is impressive. We haven't seen numbers like that announced for tablets, let alone tablets with beautiful, vibrant screens and functioning GUIs.
R&D being what it is, I stated long ago that PPC would not keep up with Intel and Apple would eventually switch. I don't think the A4 will replace Intel silicon. But perhaps Apple will parlay their investment in PA into something magical on the motherboards of their laptops.
Ive used a 1.6GHz Atom. It's fine. Don't forget that it runs a full (multitasking) OS, meant for increasingly powerful CPUs.
The iPhone is ARM based, therefore it makes sense to use an ARM based processor on the iPad - Atom was never in the running for that device. Moreoever I've heard that OS X SL doesn't like to run on <1GB.
I still don't consider 10hours as that impressive, considering the space available for a battery. FWIW I'm a HW designer.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
An SDK for the Apple TV would be the hidden killer app. Not sure the required price point for a device like that would make it an interesting proposition for Apple.
Well just look at what's coming right around the corner: iPad. Over 10 hours of battery life. Not much blew me away in SJ's presentation, but the half-day battery life sure did.
This is what's known as 'competitive advantage.' It's part of what is going to make the iPad special and different from the competition.
Perhaps further down the road Apple will be a position to license their battery and power engineering know-how to others for use in electric vehicles and the like.
An SDK for the Apple TV would be the hidden killer app. Not sure the required price point for a device like that would make it an interesting proposition for Apple.
Considering the sad state of the iPhone SDK (an un-Appleish mess if ever there was one) I wouldn't bet on one coming out soon.
To clarify, I am willing to bet Steve has never dealt with the app dev side of things at all. If he saw the hoops devs need to jump through just to get to a baseline, he'd split in half and explode.
Right, they're going to ask all the developers to spend lots of money move again to a platform that has never been used for homer computers.
You didn't fully read my comment.
"I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor. "
If you make the OS do all the work, software developers don't need to optimize for a particular processor type. This would make it easier for developers.
Moto and IBM were (and are) in the business of making money, not being a complementary service to Apple. Amiga was going nowhere and Windows PPC didn't go all that far. Apple under jobs wasn't willing to open Apple up to other markets or big name clones. That all Limited the amount of orders a PowerPC chip could receive. Moto and IBM made up for this partially by having dual use chips with embedded or server applications. However, in the end there just wasn't money to be main in high performance PowerPCs in that environment. In addition to that, a lot of software companies were not will to optimize code for the PowerPC.
Everybody is in business to make money, or they aren't in business at all.
Apple wasn't being run by Steve Jobs when the PPC project began, and he wasn't running it when the cloning experiment was started. When he shut it down, this was a fete accomplie, since it was already a complete disaster for Apple. This had nothing to do with anyone's willingness to do anything except save Apple from destruction.
That said, IBM and especially Motorola were always weak partners for Apple.
Comments
The original NYT article contains wrong assertions:
Actually, there is no phone or smartphone with Intel CPU, yet. It is only an Intel target to enter phone/smartphone CPU business.
There are no aspirational products running Microsoft Windows either
No indication that it's the MPCore design.
http://www.arm.com/products/processo.../cortex-a9.php
I read that to be just a comparison of a Cortex-A9 to the the Cortex-A8 in the 3GS, not a statement that the iPad's ARM is based on that chip.
Plus if it was multi-core, out of all the companies in the world, Apple would be one of the most likely to say dual-1GHz if it was dual-1GHz.
Apple is pretty light on details with their HW, but I agree that they would have promoted it since it's a marketing win no matter how you slice it.
I don't foresee that Apple/PA Semi will take on Intel--at least not yet. There might be some differences between Intel and Apple when Intel decided to include a graphics chip in their latest generation of CPU's.
It does make sense that Apple develop their own chips that they put into their own mobile devices ie iPhone, Ipod touch and iPad.
It appears that Intel wants to move the Atom into ARM's space and it looks like this year's tablets will be ARM with Mac OS X or Android v. Atom with Windows 7 or Chrome OS. This could get interesting in this space. Streamlined but less functional v. clunky but more functional.
Bargain!
Thanks--corrected
And bring down the cost too. For Apple TV for be a success without additional features, be that a blu-ray drive, TV tuner, or whatever else, it will need to be vastly cheaper than it is now. I'm thinking £50 or less.
It appears that Intel wants to move the Atom into ARM's space and it looks like this year's tablets will be ARM with Mac OS X or Android v. Atom with Windows 7 or Chrome OS. This could get interesting in this space. Streamlined but less functional v. clunky but more functional.
Chips used in mobile devices yes there will be competition. But for now, Intel doesn't have to worry about an Apple Core ix chip equivalent appearing in the Mac lineup.
PA Semi is fabless. Atom is x86 based. It can therefore run x86 software. This is it's raison d'etre (and a disadvantage for mobile devices, which don't need to run legacy code)
Apple with or without PA Semi *cannot* compete with Intel in making x86 type chips with a better price/performance than Intel. Anyone that thinks they will see an Apple chip inside a Macbook is stupid. Even AMD with all their design expertise is having a tough time keeping up.
1 billion (US) = 1000 million. That's about 5 000 manyears of work and change left for respinning the silicon. The A4 is ARM based. You buy an IP license. Apple would only make it from scratch if they were stupid.
10hour battery life on a tablet with a mobile phone processor is not *that* impressive. After all a large LiPo battery can be molded into the thing due to the large footprint
Apple need to stick this chip in a refreshed Apple TV. Throw away whatever ancient chipset is "powering" it currently and put something in there which can handle 1080p with ease, and will be able to provide a modern UI which isn't painfully slow to use.
And bring down the cost too. For Apple TV for be a success without additional features, be that a blu-ray drive, TV tuner, or whatever else, it will need to be vastly cheaper than it is now. I'm thinking £50 or less.
It currently has 1Ghz Pentium-class CPU. I think the iPad's base HW is ideal for the next AppleTV, though a much better GPU may be required (or at least upping the clock speed) to get high-profile 1080p content without stuttering. It would run much cooler, too.
I think your price is quite low for a media extender appliance with gigabit ethernet, a HDD and 802.11n.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
Chips used in mobile devices yes there will be competition. But for now, Intel doesn't have to worry about an Apple Core ix chip equivalent appearing in the Mac lineup.
Absolutely not, ARM has no change in there and I've read nothing that would indicate they have a roadmap in place to get there. Hell, AMD can't even compete with Intel in the mobile PC arena.
Oh boy. Where do I start to inject sense into this conversation.
PA Semi is fabless. Atom is x86 based. It can therefore run x86 software. This is it's raison d'etre (and a disadvantage for mobile devices, which don't need to run legacy code)
Apple with or without PA Semi *cannot* compete with Intel in making x86 type chips with a better price/performance than Intel. Anyone that thinks they will see an Apple chip inside a Macbook is stupid. Even AMD with all their design expertise is having a tough time keeping up.
1 billion (US) = 1000 million. That's about 5 000 manyears of work and change left for respinning the silicon. The A4 is ARM based. You buy an IP license. Apple would only make it from scratch if they were stupid.
10hour battery life on a tablet with a mobile phone processor is not *that* impressive. After all a large LiPo battery can be molded into the thing due to the large footprint
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
10+ hours is impressive. We haven't seen numbers like that announced for tablets, let alone tablets with beautiful, vibrant screens and functioning GUIs.
R&D being what it is, I stated long ago that PPC would not keep up with Intel and Apple would eventually switch. I don't think the A4 will replace Intel silicon. But perhaps Apple will parlay their investment in PA into something magical on the motherboards of their laptops.
It currently has 1Ghz Pentium-class CPU. I think the iPad's base HW is ideal for the next AppleTV, though a much better GPU may be required (or at least upping the clock speed) to get high-profile 1080p content without stuttering. It would run much cooler, too.
I think your price is quite low for a media extender appliance with gigabit ethernet, a HDD and 802.11n.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
You hit the nail on the head with consoles. I could buy a PS3 for £260, which not only plays PS3 games, but also blu-rays, offers a web browser, and access to the PSN video store. Plus it has access to the BBC's iPlayer service. And they've even thrown a 250gb HD into the deal.
Or I could buy an Apple TV for £220 which offers access to the iTunes store and nothing else.
Apple's offering is embarassing by comparison and it's easy to see why Apple TV has been such a failure. Personally I'd like to see Apple relaunch ATV as a general media player device, with access to all popular streaming services, a blu-ray drive, and some sort of TV tuner/PVR functionality. Do it as multiple SKUs so people could pick and choose too.
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
Atom is faster than ARM, but the biggest problem is running desktop OSes on Atom CPUs when they are too blaoted for them. That is why Linux actually got a small leg up in that area and MS had to practically give away WinXP at first. Too many returns due to Linux being Linux that MS can now reportedly charge $50 for a copy of Windows 7 Starter Edition for netbooks. When Chrome OS hits the visible performance will likely jump considerably.
I've had two netbooks, one with WinXP and the other with Mac OS X. Neither could play Hulu in 480p without stuttering.
You hit the nail on the head with consoles. I could buy a PS3 for £260, which not only plays PS3 games, but also blu-rays, offers a web browser, and access to the PSN video store. Plus it has access to the BBC's iPlayer service. And they've even thrown a 250gb HD into the deal.
Or I could buy an Apple TV for £220 which offers access to the iTunes store and nothing else.
Apple's offering is embarassing by comparison and it's easy to see why Apple TV has been such a failure. Personally I'd like to see Apple relaunch ATV as a general media player device, with access to all popular streaming services, a blu-ray drive, and some sort of TV tuner/PVR functionality. Do it as multiple SKUs so people could pick and choose too.
Note that the PS3 and XBOX are selling at thin margins in hopes to get revenue from the game content end. Apple doesn't do that and likely couldn't do that if they tried.
I don't know about an included Blu-ray player, but having one that form fits on top of it and connects via s simple USB2 plug would be great. Of course, Apple has a vested interest in the iTS so I don't that is likely, though considerably more likely than Blu-ray in their Mac notebooks.
I've seen the mighty Atom processor at work in a netbook. I was prepared to be underwhelmed, but what I saw was shocking. So incredibly slow as to be nearly useless. My father in law actually gave it away, which is what I would have done.
I'm glad Apple didn't move in that direction for the iPad.
10+ hours is impressive. We haven't seen numbers like that announced for tablets, let alone tablets with beautiful, vibrant screens and functioning GUIs.
R&D being what it is, I stated long ago that PPC would not keep up with Intel and Apple would eventually switch. I don't think the A4 will replace Intel silicon. But perhaps Apple will parlay their investment in PA into something magical on the motherboards of their laptops.
Ive used a 1.6GHz Atom. It's fine. Don't forget that it runs a full (multitasking) OS, meant for increasingly powerful CPUs.
The iPhone is ARM based, therefore it makes sense to use an ARM based processor on the iPad - Atom was never in the running for that device. Moreoever I've heard that OS X SL doesn't like to run on <1GB.
I still don't consider 10hours as that impressive, considering the space available for a battery. FWIW I'm a HW designer.
G4, A4, will history repeat itself? ;-)
What's next... Z4?
Yes. http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/....asp?num=12696
Right. Thanks for the link.
I don't think Apple can let the living room go, but they also can't wait too much longer if they want to recapture it. They've done well with integrating multiple devices into one, but the console and DVR market has them beat there. Unless they decide to create an SDK for the AppleTV I don't think they'll ever get a substantial share of that market, even though it's likely the most popular media extender appliance to date.
An SDK for the Apple TV would be the hidden killer app. Not sure the required price point for a device like that would make it an interesting proposition for Apple.
Well just look at what's coming right around the corner: iPad. Over 10 hours of battery life. Not much blew me away in SJ's presentation, but the half-day battery life sure did.
This is what's known as 'competitive advantage.' It's part of what is going to make the iPad special and different from the competition.
Perhaps further down the road Apple will be a position to license their battery and power engineering know-how to others for use in electric vehicles and the like.
An SDK for the Apple TV would be the hidden killer app. Not sure the required price point for a device like that would make it an interesting proposition for Apple.
Considering the sad state of the iPhone SDK (an un-Appleish mess if ever there was one) I wouldn't bet on one coming out soon.
To clarify, I am willing to bet Steve has never dealt with the app dev side of things at all. If he saw the hoops devs need to jump through just to get to a baseline, he'd split in half and explode.
Right, they're going to ask all the developers to spend lots of money move again to a platform that has never been used for homer computers.
You didn't fully read my comment.
"I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor. "
If you make the OS do all the work, software developers don't need to optimize for a particular processor type. This would make it easier for developers.
Do I sense the real purpose behind custom processors is content protection?
Don't know about that.
There are two distinct advantages that the custom silicon gives to Apple that I can think of.
1. Custom SoC enables Apple to better optimize performance vs. battery life.
2. Custom SoC makes it significantly more difficult for competitors to copy/duplicate Apple products.
Moto and IBM were (and are) in the business of making money, not being a complementary service to Apple. Amiga was going nowhere and Windows PPC didn't go all that far. Apple under jobs wasn't willing to open Apple up to other markets or big name clones. That all Limited the amount of orders a PowerPC chip could receive. Moto and IBM made up for this partially by having dual use chips with embedded or server applications. However, in the end there just wasn't money to be main in high performance PowerPCs in that environment. In addition to that, a lot of software companies were not will to optimize code for the PowerPC.
Everybody is in business to make money, or they aren't in business at all.
Apple wasn't being run by Steve Jobs when the PPC project began, and he wasn't running it when the cloning experiment was started. When he shut it down, this was a fete accomplie, since it was already a complete disaster for Apple. This had nothing to do with anyone's willingness to do anything except save Apple from destruction.
That said, IBM and especially Motorola were always weak partners for Apple.