Of course they “deliberate” about the processors for their “trucks." They look far ahead and plan for every contingency. They’ve got plans for staying with Intel, going AMD, switching to ARM, switching to Atom, designing their own x86 chips, designing new ARM chips, etc. etc. Whatever realities arise in the years ahead, they won’t be caught off guard with their processor choices. That doesn’t mean they “want to” move from Intel.
This is just raw performance specs which doesn't tell you a lot really. I was talking primarily about efficiency, and also "faster" in the context of actually making an OS faster, not just pushing pixels on a test.
Sooo, facts are meaningless, distorted generalized opinions are better. Got it.
what a lot of people don't know is that AMD uses licensed Intel tech known as x86 architecture. And Intel has told AMD that they can't compete with them on the high end. So if Apple tries going with AMD Intel would make sure the best stuff won't get into their machines. So Apple's only move is to use their own swag.
How about they are planning on porting iOS over to the desktop/laptop side. Then they start using their custom designed chips.
Dont tell me there isnt an iOS powered imac sitting in the lab. And dont get me wrong, I am not talking about touch powered. It might have keyboard and cursor interface just as OSX has today
on newly modified apps.
Of course they have an iOS powered iMac somewhere in R&D. So what? That's what R&D does. They continue research to stay ahead. Do you expect Apple to simply sit on its laurels and be comfy and stodgy now that they are on top?
I know everyone is saying "Ultrabooks" but that wasn't in the mix when they were choosing processors for the new mobile devices.
Intel chips just didn't have what it takes to power mobile devices and they still don't. This is not an "Apple getting back at Intel" situation at all, Intel just dropped the ball, didn't have the right stuff or whatever other euphemism you want to use. Atom chips suck (power) and were essentially an afterthought by Intel whereas ARM has been working on mobile solutions since forever.
Wasn't there also an issue with the graphics chipset, where Apple was saddled with inferior Intel graphics, rather than being able to use faster NVidia graphics because of some licensing spat? For a time they had to use Intel on low end macbooks, and two graphics processors for top end. My memory is rather hazy as to the details, but this can't have pleased Apple.
I don't think that discussions about a topic indicate a direction. I am sure that all sorts of things are discussed at Apple that never see daylight, it's part of the process.
Apple should buy AMD! With AMD's manufacturing capability they could drop Samsung as a manufacturer of the A6 and future CPU's as well as use AMD's x86/64_x86 in their iMacs and laptops.
Current market cap is only 2.3b with a 1.5 premium that would only be about 3.5b. A drop in their current cash bucket!
Abandoning Intel, or more broadly, abandoning x86, would be idiotic. The current situation makes Apple the most flexible computing platform in terms of operating system support, and that's vital for professional and corporate use, and besides Intel continues to make very good progress with their chip design.
I can see a situation where further improvements in ARM processors or Apple derivatives thereof gets us to a point where many home users will be quite happy with a couple of generations-improved iPad as their only computer. For lighter home users, we're really already there except perhaps on photo and movie storage capacity. A higher-capacity iPad, a WIFi NAS device and a WiFi multifunction printer is a good, solid computing system, especially if you can set it up for running an HD TV off the iPad and operating with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse for those occasions when you want to run it more like a conventional computer. Gives you the best of all worlds for home computing. And if this country ever truly gets its act together on broadband, perhaps the cloud can replace the NAS device.
I know for a fact that Apple wants to switch to clear crystal cubes instead of chip made by any company. Apple cares about the design aesthetics of their innards as well as their case designs. Think of how cool the Apple Cube could have looked if it was totally clear.
Both Superman's people from Krypton and Star Trek's federation use this technology, and Apple has always wanted to be more like those guys than like Microsoft.
I don't see a safe landing space for Apple here. ARM is years away from having consumer class hardware beyond the mobile space.
AMD could be purchased for a pittance but does Apple really want to get into head to head competition with Intel?
Lastly virtualization is very key to Apple products being sold in Enterprise. Not saying it cannot be done with Apple homegrown solutions but a different architecture makes that endeavor much harder.
have you seen what most corp desktops run? Office and maybe one or 2 fat apps that are 90% cruft and web apps.
Those fat apps will die in 10 years (or move to a virtual desktop farm). Virtualization on the local desktop goes away with cloud virtualization.
obtw, if you go ask Microsoft, Office will be 100% html5 by 2017, and the primary delivery will be via Office365.com.
And most consumer class hardware needs less. in my corp, non IT desktops only require Java and a smattering of Photoshop and design tools, and (I run the configuration monitoring, so I know).
Most of us are tech geeks... we crave power/busses/cables... but the masses... then want facebook, MSWord/Excel/PowerPoint, and a printer.
Sounds like a 13" octocore iPad with a keyboard and mouse and a 100baseT adaptor.
Apple should buy AMD! With AMD's manufacturing capability they could drop Samsung as a manufacturer of the A6 and future CPU's as well as use AMD's x86/64_x86 in their iMacs and laptops.
Current market cap is only 2.3b with a 1.5 premium that would only be about 3.5b. A drop in their current cash bucket!
Krreagan
It's a fair assessment. But again, until there is an OS that Samsung can run on the chip, and apps that run on that... they don't have a product.
I don't think they want chip facilities, but I do think they could make AMD an offer to build chips for Apple.
Keeping Macs compatible with Windows should not be the major design point. The expense of running Windows on a Mac is nearly equivalent to running two computers if you truly pay for the software - the software for Windows is the major cost. You might as well just have two machines.
It would really be nice to have someone seriously challenge the Intel architecture. Intel does not push themselves very hard to produce a better personal computing device. I am not say they do nothing. Yes, there is the "tower of babel" issue on communications and file compatibility. Right now MS Word and Excel are standards, but pretty lousy standards.
Apple was known for it's slogan, "Think Different!"
With recent miscues such as, reduction of store staff, there was no reduction of store staff, doubling up on security when iP5 parts images leaking daily, maps app, non-apology apology, here use our competitors maps, blah, blah, blah...
The ultrabook thing is more like the google maps debacle, in that you're getting stuff on Atom (power management) that isn't available on the mid range chips that Apple wants . The problem with Apple is that they depend on Intel to build great chips... The Atom wasn't a great chip for them, and any expertise diverted from the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge chipsets to Atom was effectively telling Apple 'you're not a priority.' Oh, and partnering with Google on Android/Atom development... yeah, That's what pissed Apple off.
Also, In another thread it was brought up where the iMac, Mini and Mac Pro upgrades are... my educated guess is that Intel came to market slow with those (due to the rest of the market stagnating), and they aren't dropping the prices (again, because general desktop/laptop demands are low). To me, that's the line that was crossed, as Apple explicitly went to Intel on the promise of met timelines and price points.
Moving to an custom ARM chip that Apple can balance it's OS performance (remember when companies like DEC and SUN and IBM built their own chips and their own OSes and compilers, Those were heady days, lads) and power curve on would put them into a spot where they can tune every aspect of their experience, and with 'interactivity' the key requirement, this becomes even more an issue.
Apple wants to optimize very low on the stack... and is getting big enough that they will probably start their own School of Hardware/SW engineering at Cal or Stanford or SJSU;-) (Given the fact they have their own hedge fund investment, this is not farfetched).
History repeats itself. Here we go again no software for macs and every upgrade requires all new software. PC's were popular because you didn't have to constantly buy new software.
Comments
Of course they “deliberate” about the processors for their “trucks." They look far ahead and plan for every contingency. They’ve got plans for staying with Intel, going AMD, switching to ARM, switching to Atom, designing their own x86 chips, designing new ARM chips, etc. etc. Whatever realities arise in the years ahead, they won’t be caught off guard with their processor choices. That doesn’t mean they “want to” move from Intel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is just raw performance specs which doesn't tell you a lot really. I was talking primarily about efficiency, and also "faster" in the context of actually making an OS faster, not just pushing pixels on a test.
Sooo, facts are meaningless, distorted generalized opinions are better. Got it.
Originally Posted by daratbastid
Dont tell me there isnt an iOS powered imac sitting in the lab.
Then it's not using a mouse.
And dont get me wrong, I am not talking about touch powered.
Then it's not iOS.
Bet you're sort of right, though. Bet they're definitely working on a fully touch successor to OS X, not a bigger iOS.
So if Apple tries going with AMD Intel would make sure the best stuff won't get into their machines. So Apple's only move is to use their own swag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daratbastid
How about they are planning on porting iOS over to the desktop/laptop side. Then they start using their custom designed chips.
Dont tell me there isnt an iOS powered imac sitting in the lab. And dont get me wrong, I am not talking about touch powered. It might have keyboard and cursor interface just as OSX has today
on newly modified apps.
Of course they have an iOS powered iMac somewhere in R&D. So what? That's what R&D does. They continue research to stay ahead. Do you expect Apple to simply sit on its laurels and be comfy and stodgy now that they are on top?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
So what did Intel do to piss off Apple?
I know everyone is saying "Ultrabooks" but that wasn't in the mix when they were choosing processors for the new mobile devices.
Intel chips just didn't have what it takes to power mobile devices and they still don't. This is not an "Apple getting back at Intel" situation at all, Intel just dropped the ball, didn't have the right stuff or whatever other euphemism you want to use. Atom chips suck (power) and were essentially an afterthought by Intel whereas ARM has been working on mobile solutions since forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Sooo, facts are meaningless, distorted generalized opinions are better. Got it.
Hey, I took the trouble to explain it all to you and then you just cut out all the facts I mentioned and reply this way?
F*ck you too. Welcome to the ignore list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Wasn't there also an issue with the graphics chipset, where Apple was saddled with inferior Intel graphics, rather than being able to use faster NVidia graphics because of some licensing spat? For a time they had to use Intel on low end macbooks, and two graphics processors for top end. My memory is rather hazy as to the details, but this can't have pleased Apple.
I don't think that discussions about a topic indicate a direction. I am sure that all sorts of things are discussed at Apple that never see daylight, it's part of the process.
Current market cap is only 2.3b with a 1.5 premium that would only be about 3.5b. A drop in their current cash bucket!
Krreagan
I can see a situation where further improvements in ARM processors or Apple derivatives thereof gets us to a point where many home users will be quite happy with a couple of generations-improved iPad as their only computer. For lighter home users, we're really already there except perhaps on photo and movie storage capacity. A higher-capacity iPad, a WIFi NAS device and a WiFi multifunction printer is a good, solid computing system, especially if you can set it up for running an HD TV off the iPad and operating with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse for those occasions when you want to run it more like a conventional computer. Gives you the best of all worlds for home computing. And if this country ever truly gets its act together on broadband, perhaps the cloud can replace the NAS device.
People have joked about ARM in a Mac Pro. But what if this turns out to be something:
Parallela
And several companies are making ARM based servers now. Like Harbinger said, it would imprudent to not look at some of these possibilities.
Both Superman's people from Krypton and Star Trek's federation use this technology, and Apple has always wanted to be more like those guys than like Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I don't see a safe landing space for Apple here. ARM is years away from having consumer class hardware beyond the mobile space.
AMD could be purchased for a pittance but does Apple really want to get into head to head competition with Intel?
Lastly virtualization is very key to Apple products being sold in Enterprise. Not saying it cannot be done with Apple homegrown solutions but a different architecture makes that endeavor much harder.
have you seen what most corp desktops run? Office and maybe one or 2 fat apps that are 90% cruft and web apps.
Those fat apps will die in 10 years (or move to a virtual desktop farm). Virtualization on the local desktop goes away with cloud virtualization.
obtw, if you go ask Microsoft, Office will be 100% html5 by 2017, and the primary delivery will be via Office365.com.
And most consumer class hardware needs less. in my corp, non IT desktops only require Java and a smattering of Photoshop and design tools, and (I run the configuration monitoring, so I know).
Most of us are tech geeks... we crave power/busses/cables... but the masses... then want facebook, MSWord/Excel/PowerPoint, and a printer.
Sounds like a 13" octocore iPad with a keyboard and mouse and a 100baseT adaptor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan
Apple should buy AMD! With AMD's manufacturing capability they could drop Samsung as a manufacturer of the A6 and future CPU's as well as use AMD's x86/64_x86 in their iMacs and laptops.
Current market cap is only 2.3b with a 1.5 premium that would only be about 3.5b. A drop in their current cash bucket!
Krreagan
It's a fair assessment. But again, until there is an OS that Samsung can run on the chip, and apps that run on that... they don't have a product.
I don't think they want chip facilities, but I do think they could make AMD an offer to build chips for Apple.
It would really be nice to have someone seriously challenge the Intel architecture. Intel does not push themselves very hard to produce a better personal computing device. I am not say they do nothing. Yes, there is the "tower of babel" issue on communications and file compatibility. Right now MS Word and Excel are standards, but pretty lousy standards.
With recent miscues such as, reduction of store staff, there was no reduction of store staff, doubling up on security when iP5 parts images leaking daily, maps app, non-apology apology, here use our competitors maps, blah, blah, blah...
Now that slogan needs to be, Think Twice!™
So with this Intel news, Apple, Think Twice!
The ultrabook thing is more like the google maps debacle, in that you're getting stuff on Atom (power management) that isn't available on the mid range chips that Apple wants . The problem with Apple is that they depend on Intel to build great chips... The Atom wasn't a great chip for them, and any expertise diverted from the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge chipsets to Atom was effectively telling Apple 'you're not a priority.' Oh, and partnering with Google on Android/Atom development... yeah, That's what pissed Apple off.
Also, In another thread it was brought up where the iMac, Mini and Mac Pro upgrades are... my educated guess is that Intel came to market slow with those (due to the rest of the market stagnating), and they aren't dropping the prices (again, because general desktop/laptop demands are low). To me, that's the line that was crossed, as Apple explicitly went to Intel on the promise of met timelines and price points.
Moving to an custom ARM chip that Apple can balance it's OS performance (remember when companies like DEC and SUN and IBM built their own chips and their own OSes and compilers, Those were heady days, lads) and power curve on would put them into a spot where they can tune every aspect of their experience, and with 'interactivity' the key requirement, this becomes even more an issue.
Apple wants to optimize very low on the stack... and is getting big enough that they will probably start their own School of Hardware/SW engineering at Cal or Stanford or SJSU;-) (Given the fact they have their own hedge fund investment, this is not farfetched).