I don't even remember that but if he did it's just more clever talk from Apple. If they had ANYTHING to do with the design they would have mentioned it AS THEY ALWAYS DO with the processors.
I don't even remember that but if he did it's just more clever talk from Apple. If they had ANYTHING to do with the design they would have mentioned it AS THEY ALWAYS DO with the processors.
So let me get this straight...
No one has ever used a 3.1 million pixel display in a tablet before.
You know of no other product on the market using this same display.
Apple said engineered a part of the display during the event.
Apple said they engineered a part of the display in text on their website.
...but you claim it's a lie because they didn't lump the display specs in with the processor specs. Fucking genius¡
But wait, haven't you claimed that Apple doesn't engineer their chips because they are manufactured by Samsung. Speaking of bubble you might to pop yours because it seems like you are running low on oxygen.
I don't even remember that but if he did it's just more clever talk from Apple. If they had ANYTHING to do with the design they would have mentioned it AS THEY ALWAYS DO with the processors.
Apple chooses the focus points of their keynote. They don't dwell into every component inside the phone, whether they made it or not.
What exactly is your point that you're trying to make here? So far, you're just making yourself look like an idiot. This article is what it is.
I know some people worry about Samsung dumping Apple as a client, but that would be monumentally stupid, and NO company would ever consider such losses. Apple is a multi-billion dollar client, probably Samsung's largest client/customer. There are many, many other manufacturers that would love to have Apple as a client. Samsung knows that and so does Apple.
I agree. Apple's strength in mobile computing helps explain why Intel was kissing Jobs behind when he wanted to build the first MBA and later when Apple was pushing Thunderbolt. Intel saw which direction the wind was going to blow from and was hoping to be the vendor for Apple's mobile CPUs.
If Apple had anything to do the design of the display it would have been in the keynote, where they always tout their design of the processors, even the A4. Sorry, that's just clever advertising.
Says who?
They said plenty about the display - and covered all the important things. Do you think that viewers were more interested in the spectacular display or in who designed it?
There aren't MANY Fabs player on the Market. As the matter of fact, there is only 3 that fits Apple, Global Foundries, Samsung and TSMC, others like UMC and SMIC dont have the advance node tech required. GF is lacking in Capacity as well. TSMC is just plain stupid not to doing any business with Apple.
Samsung has the capacity and Tech. No one likes to due with them because most of them are somehow directly completing with Samsung and they have a better choice such as TSMC.
The most profiting department in Samsung has been its chip making department. So it is VERY unlikely they will ever get rid of Apple as a customer.
I guess Apple understands the problem as well and want to have a go with Intel as a Fab player. Hence the rumors of Apple talking to Intel about making their SoC there. But Intel just doesn't want to do anything without their x86.
So unless TSMC gets their act together, the current scenario wont likely change in the foreseeable future.
P.S - Building Fabs is just not cost effective. So scrap the idea.
There aren't MANY Fabs player on the Market. As the matter of fact, there is only 3 that fits Apple, Global Foundries, Samsung and TSMC, others like UMC and SMIC dont have the advance node tech required. GF is lacking in Capacity as well. TSMC is just plain stupid not to doing any business with Apple.
Could Apple invest in UMC or SMIC the way they have other companies to get them to advance rapidly or do they not have the aptitude even if they were well funded?
Hey, check it out: Samsung makes parts to order for their boss, Apple. Ha ha, Apple! You, um, only get all the glory and money, whereas Samsung gets, you know, paid for their services. Which totally puts the lie to Apple's claims of being innovative!
More accurate to say world's largest mobile chip user. The largest maker will beSamsung. They make chips used in a lot of other cellphones, too.
Chip designer appears to be what they meant (but I'm glad someone else read this article incisively). Going to the original document, they seem to be pretty clumsy with their language, first seeming to mean "shipper of chips" but then later meaning "designer of chips." I suspect what happened was that the author of the original report meant "designer", and then the InfoWorld reporter got sloppy, and then AI compounded that sloppiness with some of its own.
Hey, check it out: Samsung makes parts to order for their boss, Apple. Ha ha, Apple! You, um, only get all the glory and money, whereas Samsung gets, you know, paid for their services. Which totally puts the lie to Apple's claims of being innovative!
Troll much? A designer can innovate. And a manufacturer can innovate. You seem to think only one of those is true. The A5X chip is an Apple design. If you would be so kind as to quote (and link) a couple of Apple claims about being innovative that you think are lies, and explain why they're lies.
Could Apple invest in UMC or SMIC the way they have other companies to get them to advance rapidly or do they not have the aptitude even if they were well funded?
If Apple doesn't do something they are going to run into the same problems they ran into with Motorola and Intel (and Nvidia for that matter).
Sooner or later Samsung will not be able to provide Apple with what they need. Then where do they turn.
Yes, it will cost Apple money but I think that sooner or later they will have no other choice but to invest in their own fab)
(not part of your argument Solipsism but... ) [not cost effective? What's more cost effective... running without proper processors?]
No, the article is correct. Apple designed chips are currently manufactured by Samsung, but that could change... They are in fact Apple's chips. You're taking the word 'make' too literally, when it's obvious that's not what the author meant.
Using your vague definition of "make", then ARM is the "largest maker" of chips, not Apple.
No, I don't think that way. Apple aint the company it was 10 years ago, or 5 years ago or even 2 years ago. Apple's growth is exploding and I believe that Apple's needs are beginning to outstrip other company's abilities to supply them with the consistent yields that Apple requires.
I believe that Apple has to acquire some manufacturing ability in order to move to the next phase of its business life.
Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.
Comments
Go look at the keynote and see if they say ANYTHING about design it.
Off the top of my head at 1h:17m:30s Scott Brodrick is talking about how "we" had to elevate the pixels from the signals.
I don't even remember that but if he did it's just more clever talk from Apple. If they had ANYTHING to do with the design they would have mentioned it AS THEY ALWAYS DO with the processors.
So let me get this straight...
- No one has ever used a 3.1 million pixel display in a tablet before.
- You know of no other product on the market using this same display.
- Apple said engineered a part of the display during the event.
- Apple said they engineered a part of the display in text on their website.
...but you claim it's a lie because they didn't lump the display specs in with the processor specs. Fucking genius¡But wait, haven't you claimed that Apple doesn't engineer their chips because they are manufactured by Samsung. Speaking of bubble you might to pop yours because it seems like you are running low on oxygen.
I don't even remember that but if he did it's just more clever talk from Apple. If they had ANYTHING to do with the design they would have mentioned it AS THEY ALWAYS DO with the processors.
Apple chooses the focus points of their keynote. They don't dwell into every component inside the phone, whether they made it or not.
What exactly is your point that you're trying to make here? So far, you're just making yourself look like an idiot. This article is what it is.
I know some people worry about Samsung dumping Apple as a client, but that would be monumentally stupid, and NO company would ever consider such losses. Apple is a multi-billion dollar client, probably Samsung's largest client/customer. There are many, many other manufacturers that would love to have Apple as a client. Samsung knows that and so does Apple.
I agree. Apple's strength in mobile computing helps explain why Intel was kissing Jobs behind when he wanted to build the first MBA and later when Apple was pushing Thunderbolt. Intel saw which direction the wind was going to blow from and was hoping to be the vendor for Apple's mobile CPUs.
I think the objective is for Intel to become the foundry for Apple chips
... goes all the way back to the 6502 days...
I thought the 6502 was a Moto chip?
If Apple had anything to do the design of the display it would have been in the keynote, where they always tout their design of the processors, even the A4. Sorry, that's just clever advertising.
Says who?
They said plenty about the display - and covered all the important things. Do you think that viewers were more interested in the spectacular display or in who designed it?
I thought the 6502 was a Moto chip?
Chuck Peddle... MOS Technology... Bought out by Commodore... Jack Tramiel... PET computer...
Samsung has the capacity and Tech. No one likes to due with them because most of them are somehow directly completing with Samsung and they have a better choice such as TSMC.
The most profiting department in Samsung has been its chip making department. So it is VERY unlikely they will ever get rid of Apple as a customer.
I guess Apple understands the problem as well and want to have a go with Intel as a Fab player. Hence the rumors of Apple talking to Intel about making their SoC there. But Intel just doesn't want to do anything without their x86.
So unless TSMC gets their act together, the current scenario wont likely change in the foreseeable future.
P.S - Building Fabs is just not cost effective. So scrap the idea.
There aren't MANY Fabs player on the Market. As the matter of fact, there is only 3 that fits Apple, Global Foundries, Samsung and TSMC, others like UMC and SMIC dont have the advance node tech required. GF is lacking in Capacity as well. TSMC is just plain stupid not to doing any business with Apple.
Could Apple invest in UMC or SMIC the way they have other companies to get them to advance rapidly or do they not have the aptitude even if they were well funded?
In a way, Apple is tying up Sammy's production -- and keeping them off the street!
Very funny, but not even remotely close to reality. Look up Exynos.
More accurate to say world's largest mobile chip user. The largest maker will be Samsung. They make chips used in a lot of other cellphones, too.
Chip designer appears to be what they meant (but I'm glad someone else read this article incisively). Going to the original document, they seem to be pretty clumsy with their language, first seeming to mean "shipper of chips" but then later meaning "designer of chips." I suspect what happened was that the author of the original report meant "designer", and then the InfoWorld reporter got sloppy, and then AI compounded that sloppiness with some of its own.
Hey, check it out: Samsung makes parts to order for their boss, Apple. Ha ha, Apple! You, um, only get all the glory and money, whereas Samsung gets, you know, paid for their services. Which totally puts the lie to Apple's claims of being innovative!
Troll much? A designer can innovate. And a manufacturer can innovate. You seem to think only one of those is true. The A5X chip is an Apple design. If you would be so kind as to quote (and link) a couple of Apple claims about being innovative that you think are lies, and explain why they're lies.
Chuck Peddle... MOS Technology... Bought out by Commodore... Jack Tramiel... PET computer...
Motorola was involved in the development, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6502
Could Apple invest in UMC or SMIC the way they have other companies to get them to advance rapidly or do they not have the aptitude even if they were well funded?
If Apple doesn't do something they are going to run into the same problems they ran into with Motorola and Intel (and Nvidia for that matter).
Sooner or later Samsung will not be able to provide Apple with what they need. Then where do they turn.
Yes, it will cost Apple money but I think that sooner or later they will have no other choice but to invest in their own fab)
(not part of your argument Solipsism but... ) [not cost effective? What's more cost effective... running without proper processors?]
No, the article is correct. Apple designed chips are currently manufactured by Samsung, but that could change... They are in fact Apple's chips. You're taking the word 'make' too literally, when it's obvious that's not what the author meant.
Using your vague definition of "make", then ARM is the "largest maker" of chips, not Apple.
No, I don't think that way. Apple aint the company it was 10 years ago, or 5 years ago or even 2 years ago. Apple's growth is exploding and I believe that Apple's needs are beginning to outstrip other company's abilities to supply them with the consistent yields that Apple requires.
I believe that Apple has to acquire some manufacturing ability in order to move to the next phase of its business life.
Absolutely not. The minute you put your own factories into the mix, you hobble your ability to quickly adapt to and exploit ever-changing technologies. Look ... Tim Cook is a manufacturing and logistics wizard. Check out his bio. That's his career background and education. Yet 10 years ago, who do you think led Apple's transition OUT OF manufacturing? That's right. Tim Cook. He is as much responsible for Apple's awesome growth and nimble technology footing as any person in the organization. Read Isaacson's book.