If Apple would to dump the A7 (or A8 if it's coming later this year) into a new device that had the battery capacity of the MBA, and then added more RAM to the mix, and maybe upped the GPU capacity and went retina (or 4K) with the display, Apple could come out with a new product with touch screen or touch pad, or mouse/keyboard control that could go places and do things no current device or computer has gone before.
I'm not bright enough to say what this might look like or do, but if matched with the right new software, it could define a new market as fresh as the iPad was...
Well, the creatives would eat it up if their apps ran (FCP, LogicPro, etc.). I strongly suspect that Apple already have ARM-native versions of their Pro apps running.
Also, it is probable that companies that cater to these same creatives, like Adobe, DeVinci, etc, -- already are experimenting with ARM implementations.
Finally, most of the downside (neither fish nor fowl) issues can be mitigated by:
including x86 and ARM chips in the same device
or
using the cloud servers to support the x86 apps not [yet] available on ARM.
The increased thermal headroom of a MacBook Air compared to an iPhone or iPad would allow a design to run at faster speeds for more of the time (most of the processing time in an iPhone or iPad is actually spent in "race to idle" mode - long battery lives are only achieved by being idle most of the time). I don't think they would use two A8s, they would probably fab an A8X or clock the A8 faster due to the increased thermal headroom.
People do need to understand that we don't know what the maximum clock rate on A7 is much less an unreleased A8. However ARM cores have been reported to run much faster than 1.6 GHz. If Apple can hit 2.6 GHz on a much faster memory bus I'm pretty sure that A7 or A8 would put many mainstream chips to shame.
But I don't think Apple is in the right place yet to release a ARM device running Mac OS X - all the software is compiled for x86-64 currently, not ARM.
On modern hardware recompiles take place in minutes, it is seldom an all day ordeal anymore.
There would have to be a period of time where ARM was enabled for all software builds in XCode for Mac OS X. I believe Apple uses the threat of ARMing themselves to make Intel provide its CPUs at a reasonable price.
That could very well be triple to an extent but do realize that Intel is under supervision, their ability to offer discounts is limited to volume. However the very fact that Apple is having huge success with ARM has certainly redirected Intels priorities.
The following months and years will be very interesting. If Intel isn't careful they could go the way of Kodak that didn't see the winds of change.
Would be cool if a future iteration of the iPhone could be wirelessly connected to a keyboard, monitor, external storage and mouse to play the part of an instant Mac mini.
Sounds like you are describing an iPad with a BT keyboard and Airplay mirroring to a big screen. Even sounds a little like Carplay.
You are assuming that there would be fragmentation. There are a number of ways Apple could pull this off. One way is to make it an iOS laptop. The second would be to make it a Mac laptop that runs iOS apps in a window.
Isn't this what Microsoft did with Windows RT/8? Simply moved the fragmentation downstream, to the user experience?
Flashback to Steve's comment after the first iPhone was announced.
[QUOTE]Quote: We define everything that is on the phone. [B][SIZE=4]You dont want your phone to be like a PC.[/SIZE][/B] The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesnt work anymore. [B][SIZE=4]These are more like iPods than they are like computers.[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
Anand risks serious credibility problems by going against the meme and praising Apple's technology. The BYO elite spec-chaser crowd doesn't take kindly to praising Apple. /s
Anand risks serious credibility problems by going against the meme and praising Apple's technology. The BYO elite spec-chaser crowd doesn't take kindly to praising Apple. /s
I'm not sure why you added the sarcasm tag as this is quite true. Go read the comments from when he first started detailing and using Apple's products. It was not pretty. It's a lot less now but there are still some holdouts.
Tim Cook said Apple has been working on products in new categories. I wonder if A-chip based laptops would be constitute a new category. It may or may not be, depending on how one defines a category.
If Apple were to produce A-chip based laptops, it will also make MacPro with A-chips. This way, there is no fragmentation in the OSX platform. It's a big effort. But, if there is only 1 company in the world that can do it, it is probably Apple.
Anand is a smart guy and I appreciate his detective work (and that of his sources), but I found this paragraph a bit odd:
"The challenge is that at full tilt a pair of Cyclone cores can consume quite a bit of power. So for now, Cyclone's performance is really used to exploit race to sleep and get the device into a low power state as quickly as possible. The other problem I see is that although Cyclone is incredibly forward looking, it launched in devices with only 1GB of RAM. It's very likely that you'll run into memory limits before you hit CPU performance limits if you plan on keeping your device for a long time."
The overall impression from this text is that Cyclone, and the iPhone/iPad, are somehow unbalanced -- that there is a lot of performance potential that isn't being fully realized, and might never be fully realized in existing devices. Yet also contained in this text is the explanation for why Cyclone makes perfect sense: "Cyclone's performance is really used to exploit race to sleep and get the device into a low power state as quickly as possible." Anand makes it sound like this is a second or third order concern, but in the context of a mobile device, it's actually one of the most important concerns. Apple is trying to design a chip that gets its work done quickly, using as little power as possible. Given the physics confronting CPU designers, that means that you'd rather have more transistors running at a lower clock speed than the reverse. And given the nature of the software run on mobile devices, you'd rather have greater instruction level parallelism than thread level parallelism.
So the A7 is the perfect mobile SOC -- low clockspeed, high ILP, low TLP. it is perfectly balanced for its job. The fact that the cyclone core could also be the basis for a very credible desktop CPU is what's secondary here.
On another AI thread about Apple's sapphire capabilities, most of the discussion was about using the mono cell sapphire as the cover for iPads & iPhones and possible iWatch.
Aside: TC has said that the sapphire was for a new product [category?]. I doubt that the iWatch would require the capacities that Apple appears to be shooting for.
A subtopic of the AI thread led to a discussion whether the high volume of sapphire could be intended for another use than display covers ... One of the suggested uses for sapphire was semiconductor manufacturing. As it turns out, sapphire has better characteristics in [more] heat dissipation and [less] current leakage than silicon. Though, the sapphire process is less-mature [more expensive] than its silicon equivalent ...
But, and a big but: There is some activity experimenting with Silicon on Sapphire to get the best of both worlds.
Also, silicon can be used optically for things like lasers, cameras. In the past, there have been some research using optics to create efficient, high-performance dynamic and static memory (possible RAM, DRAM and SSD replacements?).
Several other uses for sapphire are in lasers and logic chips. GT is suspected of big advances in thinner layers of sapphire (it has been used as non-conductive oxide layer in logic chips, laid on silicon). Sapphire is also capable of being doped as in ruby lasers where ruby is the dopant-- but also with other dopants to create semiconductor chips. Perhaps Apple's considerable acquisition of chip development talent over the years along with significant yields and scale for GT and other aspects in sapphire would suggest a couple of options.
-
Sapphire allows for faster operations in use with silicon at lower power. This is critical in miniaturization with increase in speed and lower power requirements. And then there's the elephant in the room that has been assumed to further in the future -- blindingly fast optical circuits increasingly competitive in low power. This is getting interesting. This is admittedly unknowledgeable speculation on my part, but we know Apple has a wealth in logic design, has acquired more talent through acquisitions and partnerships -- where is this leading? Sapphire shows promise in solar as well. The adjacent property to the GT plant is expected to be used by the Apple GT partnership and may be used for solar power generation and/or production of solar devices.
Solar forays always involve battery advances, and the talks with Tesla may be a budding partnership in battery advances in design, yield and efficiency. Add to all this the research with carbon nanotubes in chip design (already associated with sapphire), and we may being seeing a feasible roadplan for 5 to 10 years for great advances by Apple and partners in compute power and speed at low power requirements on orders of magnitude allowing for very small embedded devices in wearables and household and commercial devices. The new net if you will.
Flashback to Steve's comment after the first iPhone was announced.
I had the very first version of Windows Mobile Phone Edition (a T-Mobile branded device made by HTC) way back in 2002, and that POS would frequently lockup when I got an incoming phone call, requiring a reset (there was a pinhole switch to reboot it). I was highly dissatisfied with the OS. Steve wasn't exaggerating. The iPhone is a more reliable OS.
I'm not sure why you added the sarcasm tag as this is quite true. Go read the comments from when he first started detailing and using Apple's products. It was not pretty. it's a lot less now but there are still some holdouts.
/s
No I hadn't read the comments there yet, but I've pursued their forums before (also DailyTech, which is unabashedly anti-Apple).
I stand corrected.
Battery life and weight on the Air is already terrific, and performance has been improving. Why harm performance by going to ARM, around the same timeframe as MB Airs NEED more performance due to going retina (whenever that happens)?
And your Intel software would no longer run. And workarounds would involve major work for developers, and fat binaries what waste expensive SSD space.
So it would mean MASSIVE fragmentation for developers, and massive headache for users. The kind of thing you only do if the benefit is HUGE, or if you HAVE to (like the PPC->Intel transition). And you do it for ALL the Macs in the lineup. ARM-based MacBook Pros, iMacs and Mac Pros? Makes no sense any time soon.
Apple already has an ARM-based portable that IS a good idea. They don't need to add one that isn't.
I sure hope you are correct! I have $2500 ready to spend on a maxed out new retina MBA as soon as it is released.
No purchase for me unless its powered by an x86 processor from Intel.
I had the very first version of Windows Mobile Phone Edition (a T-Mobile branded device made by HTC) way back in 2002, and that POS would frequently lockup when I got an incoming phone call, requiring a reset (there was a pinhole switch to reboot it). I was highly dissatisfied with the OS. Steve wasn't exaggerating. The iPhone is a more reliable OS.
I just find it amusing considering what the iPhone turned into (million apps, desktop class chip). Basically Steve was wrong about what the iPhone was (would become).
An A8 chip would cost about $12, allowing Apple to sell an A8 laptop for $699 (and at a higher profit margin). It would also have about 120 hours of battery life. Oh, and if they put 8 cores into the thing, it would run circles around Haswell.
And since the ARM is basically a PPC, the SDK's are all there, and much of the code is already written. It would just need an updating.
Ohhh... That's an interesting idea -- like an inexpensive, quality netbook that can actually be used for something.
I suspect that the PPC SDKs would not be needed -- likely, Apple already has current OSX [including all the APIs form iOS] running on ARM.
According to the article the A7 is hampered by the amount of RAM available to it... which, in turn is limited by the drain on the battery more RAM would add. That's my take-away..
Perhaps Apple should stop obsessing with thinness (the 5/5S are too thin in my book - the 4/4S were perfect) and instead add RAM and battery capacity to really open up the full power of these devices.
Battery life and weight on the Air is already terrific, and performance has been improving. Why harm performance by going to ARM, around the same timeframe as MB Airs NEED more performance due to going retina (whenever that happens)?
And your Intel software would no longer run. And workarounds would involve major work for developers, and fat binaries what waste expensive SSD space.
So it would mean MASSIVE fragmentation for developers, and massive headache for users. The kind of thing you only do if the benefit is HUGE, or if you HAVE to (like the PPC->Intel transition). And you do it for ALL the Macs in the lineup. ARM-based MacBook Pros, iMacs and Mac Pros? Makes no sense any time soon.
Apple already has an ARM-based portable that IS a good idea. They don't need to add one that isn't.
If Apple releases ARM-based Macs i don't see how is this affect you? is not like Apple will stop making Intel-based Macs
Macs with Intel is for people who can afford, and for people who can't afford ARM Mac is the answer
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Huh? Why would you think Apple will use last years' tech in the MBA?
I don't know maybe because of better battery life, thinner, lighter and cheaper MacBook Air
I just find it amusing considering what the iPhone turned into (million apps, desktop class chip). Basically Steve was wrong about what the iPhone was (would become).
It seems to me that by the time he had returned from the "wilderness years," Steve could and did open holes in his RDF to get to the ground truth of his initial assumptions. This made him a much more effective "product guy". It didn't mean he was perfect, but it honed his incredibly prescient consumer taste (sense of where the market was going to be).
Comments
Well, the creatives would eat it up if their apps ran (FCP, LogicPro, etc.). I strongly suspect that Apple already have ARM-native versions of their Pro apps running.
Also, it is probable that companies that cater to these same creatives, like Adobe, DeVinci, etc, -- already are experimenting with ARM implementations.
Finally, most of the downside (neither fish nor fowl) issues can be mitigated by:
including x86 and ARM chips in the same device
or
using the cloud servers to support the x86 apps not [yet] available on ARM.
That could very well be triple to an extent but do realize that Intel is under supervision, their ability to offer discounts is limited to volume. However the very fact that Apple is having huge success with ARM has certainly redirected Intels priorities.
The following months and years will be very interesting. If Intel isn't careful they could go the way of Kodak that didn't see the winds of change.
Sounds like you are describing an iPad with a BT keyboard and Airplay mirroring to a big screen. Even sounds a little like Carplay.
Bingo!, Powerful enough to replace the Mini as a desktop computer.
You are assuming that there would be fragmentation. There are a number of ways Apple could pull this off. One way is to make it an iOS laptop. The second would be to make it a Mac laptop that runs iOS apps in a window.
Isn't this what Microsoft did with Windows RT/8? Simply moved the fragmentation downstream, to the user experience?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.
Would there be technical and/or bargaining advantages by include an A8 in addition to an x86 chip on a Mac device?
What would Apple charge to install an A8 chip directly into my brain?
$79?
Better get the AppleCare with the install: $1,000,000.
[QUOTE]Quote:
We define everything that is on the phone. [B][SIZE=4]You dont want your phone to be like a PC.[/SIZE][/B] The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesnt work anymore. [B][SIZE=4]These are more like iPods than they are like computers.[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you added the sarcasm tag as this is quite true. Go read the comments from when he first started detailing and using Apple's products. It was not pretty. It's a lot less now but there are still some holdouts.
Tim Cook said Apple has been working on products in new categories. I wonder if A-chip based laptops would be constitute a new category. It may or may not be, depending on how one defines a category.
If Apple were to produce A-chip based laptops, it will also make MacPro with A-chips. This way, there is no fragmentation in the OSX platform. It's a big effort. But, if there is only 1 company in the world that can do it, it is probably Apple.
On another AI thread about Apple's sapphire capabilities, most of the discussion was about using the mono cell sapphire as the cover for iPads & iPhones and possible iWatch.
Aside: TC has said that the sapphire was for a new product [category?]. I doubt that the iWatch would require the capacities that Apple appears to be shooting for.
A subtopic of the AI thread led to a discussion whether the high volume of sapphire could be intended for another use than display covers ... One of the suggested uses for sapphire was semiconductor manufacturing. As it turns out, sapphire has better characteristics in [more] heat dissipation and [less] current leakage than silicon. Though, the sapphire process is less-mature [more expensive] than its silicon equivalent ...
But, and a big but: There is some activity experimenting with Silicon on Sapphire to get the best of both worlds.
Also, silicon can be used optically for things like lasers, cameras. In the past, there have been some research using optics to create efficient, high-performance dynamic and static memory (possible RAM, DRAM and SSD replacements?).
The AI sub-thread begins here:
I had the very first version of Windows Mobile Phone Edition (a T-Mobile branded device made by HTC) way back in 2002, and that POS would frequently lockup when I got an incoming phone call, requiring a reset (there was a pinhole switch to reboot it). I was highly dissatisfied with the OS. Steve wasn't exaggerating. The iPhone is a more reliable OS.
/sNo I hadn't read the comments there yet, but I've pursued their forums before (also DailyTech, which is unabashedly anti-Apple).
I stand corrected.
I sure hope you are correct! I have $2500 ready to spend on a maxed out new retina MBA as soon as it is released.
No purchase for me unless its powered by an x86 processor from Intel.
Ohhh... That's an interesting idea -- like an inexpensive, quality netbook that can actually be used for something.
I suspect that the PPC SDKs would not be needed -- likely, Apple already has current OSX [including all the APIs form iOS] running on ARM.
According to the article the A7 is hampered by the amount of RAM available to it... which, in turn is limited by the drain on the battery more RAM would add. That's my take-away..
Perhaps Apple should stop obsessing with thinness (the 5/5S are too thin in my book - the 4/4S were perfect) and instead add RAM and battery capacity to really open up the full power of these devices.
How do you resolve that:
MacBook Air? No.
Battery life and weight on the Air is already terrific, and performance has been improving. Why harm performance by going to ARM, around the same timeframe as MB Airs NEED more performance due to going retina (whenever that happens)?
And your Intel software would no longer run. And workarounds would involve major work for developers, and fat binaries what waste expensive SSD space.
So it would mean MASSIVE fragmentation for developers, and massive headache for users. The kind of thing you only do if the benefit is HUGE, or if you HAVE to (like the PPC->Intel transition). And you do it for ALL the Macs in the lineup. ARM-based MacBook Pros, iMacs and Mac Pros? Makes no sense any time soon.
Apple already has an ARM-based portable that IS a good idea. They don't need to add one that isn't.
If Apple releases ARM-based Macs i don't see how is this affect you? is not like Apple will stop making Intel-based Macs
Macs with Intel is for people who can afford, and for people who can't afford ARM Mac is the answer
Huh? Why would you think Apple will use last years' tech in the MBA?
I don't know maybe because of better battery life, thinner, lighter and cheaper MacBook Air
It seems to me that by the time he had returned from the "wilderness years," Steve could and did open holes in his RDF to get to the ground truth of his initial assumptions. This made him a much more effective "product guy". It didn't mean he was perfect, but it honed his incredibly prescient consumer taste (sense of where the market was going to be).