Another resident troll comment bashing an article while offering NOTHING to counter what was said.
What's the problem? Can't discuss technology or microprocessor architecture? Please enlighten us with your great wisdom and point out all the flaws in this article, and why Apple isn't the world's most advanced mobile processor company.
The vast majority of DED's articles are garbage, this is just another example. There is no need to counter what is said in the article as most of it is just inflation of common knowledge. Unfortunately it is a writin example more suited for the national enquirer than Apple Insider. Honestly if you find value in this article you need to look in a mirror and asks why.
I don't think we'll ever see an A Series processor in a Mac.
- It would be a huge undertaking to port over OS X to a different processor architecture, despite Apple efforts to make it easier to port code (developers writing OS X and iOS Apps, for example). An OS is several orders of magnitude more work to convert than an App.
I'm not sure where people get this idea. Mac OS, the core components are running on ARM right now as iOS. Getting desktop Mac OS up and running on ARM would not require much effort at all. The reality is that it is most likely already running on ARM.
- OS X on an A Series would also cause headaches for developers. They won't be simply "re-compiling" their Apps so they can run on the new processor. It will require effort to port their Apps over, and increase their work load by now having two products to test/debug/support.
That largely depends upon the app. If developers follow Apples guidelines it actually would be little more than a recompile. Take a look at the Linux world if you want to see examples of software packages that run on a wide array of platforms with just a recompile. This use to be a significant problem but these days is far less of an issue.
- Despite the huge gains in performance the last couple of years for A Series processors, they are still severely underpowered compared to an Intel processor. OS X would be terrible on an A8X (or A9).
Or competitive with a Mac Book Air. Remember we have no idea where the current design maxes out clock rate wise nor do we know how far it can go on a different process. Today's A8X has the potential to drive a laptop to relatively good performance figures.
- Apple is still firm in that it will never merge iOS and OS X. The paradigms are too different (keyboard/mouse vs touch) as is the intended market/use. Apple is smart keeping them separate while bringing features to make common tasks easy to do (and switch between) on both platforms. This is as far as Apple will "integrate" iOS and OS X.
I have to agree on this one. I could however see Apple make a modal tablet. That is one that runs iOS in portable mode and Mac OS when docked to a power supply / base station. An ARM based chip could easily handle that sort of implementation.
- Macs and MacBooks are already great devices. Switching to A Series will only offer a slight reduction in device cost (while sacrificing performance). I don't see Apple willing to save a few dollars if it impacts the customer experience in any way (and it will for many reasons).
Such a chip might allow Apple to knock 2-300 dollars off the price of an Air. Some of that is based on cup costs but there is also value in the reduced PC Board size. We are talking about a machine here that might cost 50-100 dollars more than an equivalent iPad. It is a nice concept to think about.
It's great they r making good chips. Apple didn't ditch Samsung since they r going back to Samsung next year. I guess things didn't go so well w/ TSMC. As for taking on Intel, this author failed to mention Intel is a few nodes ahead & looking into alternative technologies since being part 10nm seems difficult. No one will catch them anytime soon.
Look, Apple would most certainly prefer to install the upcoming AMD K12 based APU or FX that Keller and company are developing than they would cripple their Macbooks or Macbook Airs with ARM solutions.
In the past I've advocated for an AMD based Mini simply to get a better GPU so I wouldn't dismiss such a machine. However let's be honest here if we are talking about future chips it is very possible that Apple will exceed what AMD is going to ship as far as CPUS performance.
Beyond that I'm not sure where this idea that A8X is crippled comes from. The design is fairly robust, up the clock rate a bit and it isn't really that bad compared to the CPU performance you get out of the chips in the Air.
The real question for both the ARM and AMD options is whether Apple has the license to develop it's own compatible Thunderbolt Controller to interface with PCH freeing it to use either AMD or ARM.
Actually that is a very good question. Honestly we don't even know who even got the developmental ball rolling here. It is rather strange that Intel teamed up with Apple in the first place. That right there caused knee jerk reactions from the PC crowd. Even know TB isn't widely acknowledged in the PC world.
Without Thunderbolt licensing, Apple either has to convince AMD to use something other than Hypertransport 3.x and ARM has to redesign its solutions to be compatible with Thunderbolt.
Actually at this point Apple could take on the design efforts all on its own. As for ARM I believe there are PCI express function blocks available for ARM 64 bit right now. This is an interesting discussion though because I do wonder about the interface to the PCI express bus on Intels TB chips. If the interface is clean PCI Epress Apple might be able to plug it into another chipset and get it to work with a bit of effort. If that is the case then Apples development work,is trivial.
The other thing to realize is that when Apple picked up PA Semi they picked up a company with a lot of experience with serial buses. Even if they had to do a custom chip they likely already have the In house talent to do so.
The vast majority of DED's articles are garbage, this is just another example. There is no need to counter what is said in the article as most of it is just inflation of common knowledge. Unfortunately it is a writin example more suited for the national enquirer than Apple Insider. Honestly if you find value in this article you need to look in a mirror and asks why.
Funny. I re-read this article and while Daniel loves his words sharpened to cut to the bone, there isn't all that much to disagree with other than his comments on Samsung production of A series SOC (Samsung is still important, because of a quarter billion A series SOC's a year), and whether there will be a A series in a Mac (by definition, no; some new product line). That said, TSMC, Global Foundries, and Samsung are all producing or will be producing A series SOC's.
The point of the article is that: Qualcomm hasn't been able to capitalize on SOC's for High End Tablets (iPad owns that space), and Nvidia's 64 bit K1 isn't substantially better in any metric than the A8X, and in many metrics, is substantially worse. The Nexus 9 is weak sauce, and a poor build which doesn't help drive industry sales of the K1 family. Further, Apple is able to leverage its profitability to create an efficient, powerful processor family in volumes that Nvidia can't even imagine, while Nvidia is, for all practical purposes, unable to produce a competitive processor for any smartphone.
As for Intel, I don't actually know what is happening to them in mobile, other than the uptake has been slow, but their pricing structure doesn't fit well with the OEM's, who aren't seeing much if any profit in tablets. albeit that could always change.
I do think that Daniel overstates Intel's problems, it has the resources for a long game, but I also find that Intel hasn't made much progress in mobile, which would be the industry assessment as well.
In the past I've advocated for an AMD based Mini simply to get a better GPU so I wouldn't dismiss such a machine. However let's be honest here if we are talking about future chips it is very possible that Apple will exceed what AMD is going to ship as far as CPUS performance.
Beyond that I'm not sure where this idea that A8X is crippled comes from. The design is fairly robust, up the clock rate a bit and it isn't really that bad compared to the CPU performance you get out of the chips in the Air.
Actually that is a very good question. Honestly we don't even know who even got the developmental ball rolling here. It is rather strange that Intel teamed up with Apple in the first place. That right there caused knee jerk reactions from the PC crowd. Even know TB isn't widely acknowledged in the PC world.
Actually at this point Apple could take on the design efforts all on its own. As for ARM I believe there are PCI express function blocks available for ARM 64 bit right now. This is an interesting discussion though because I do wonder about the interface to the PCI express bus on Intels TB chips. If the interface is clean PCI Epress Apple might be able to plug it into another chipset and get it to work with a bit of effort. If that is the case then Apples development work,is trivial.
The other thing to realize is that when Apple picked up PA Semi they picked up a company with a lot of experience with serial buses. Even if they had to do a custom chip they likely already have the In house talent to do so.
People forget that Apple was the driving force behind the creation of Firewire, and recently, Lightning. Of course Apple would have been working on a followup. I suspect that after Apple cajoled the initial processor for the Mac Book Air out of Intel, that there has been ongoing collaboration between the two companies.
Intel has certainly benefited from Apple leading the PC industry with its Mac Book Pro and Mac Book Air.
Possibly, but what about an Apple notebook or desktop machine that runs on ARM that isn't labeled as a Mac, but has a Mac OS X-like OS?
Apples biggest concern is likely marketing issues. As such it probably would be better to market the device with a new family name.
Sure, but they've done that several times before with great success, including bringing OS X to ARM. Remember that iOS is born from Mac OS X and was labeled OS X iPhone by Apple at one point. I'm guessing they migrated Aqua to ARM a long time ago, and then probably after that built an entirely new desktop OS UI for ARM.
I don't see it as the big deal many here seem to think it is. There have been rumors to the effect that Apple has been running Mac OS on ARM for a couple of years now. I don't doubt those rumors at all.
Again, previously something Apple has done with remarkable ease. Of course, moving to PPC to Intel had a major performance boost that PPC apps running in Rosetta likely felt faster on the Intel-based systems, but now we have the Mac App Store, which means many apps might be able to be ported with very little effort.
You get around the emulation problem by not emulating. This is where I see them trying to leverage the already massive IPAd library of Apps.
I would imagine that a desktop 'PC" from Apple running on ARM for the budget-market would likely require the App Store, like with iOS, and I would imagine the store would be bountiful in no time at all.
Exactly! Developers would be all over each other to get their apps up on the store supporting ARM. I could see Apple helping this along by requiring ports of Mac apps to the ARM devices for App Store listings.
1) What about when you increase the Wattage of the A-series chips to match, say, the performance of the Intel chipset in the 11.6" MacBook Air? How fast is that A-series chip now?
Apple is using TSMC low power process. With Apples secrecy we don't know how fast the current A8X chip can run on that process. Knowing Apple they are likely maximizing yields so it is reasonable to assume higher clock rates are possible. Even if those higher clock rates aren't signficant Apple could move to a performance oriented process to allow higher clock speeds using the same basic design. That might allow for speeds approaching 3 GHz.
A lot of ifs and buts here but the point is we can't assume that the current A8X design can't be ran much faster.
2) Apple builds their bespoke A-series chips for iDevices, as well as their M-series chips, and soon to be S-series SIP. I see no reason Apple couldn't make an n-series chip that is idealized for a budget desktop "PC."
Al it requires is the willingness to do so. And maybe more importantly a market ready for such a device.
I agree with that, but I don't think running a desktop OS on ARM would be merging these two disparate OSes into a single platform. There will be cross pollination that has benefited both OSes, and likely the upcoming WatchOS, but they will remain separate, even if they are run on the same architecture.
The cross pollination has been going on for a very long time now and it won't likely stop.
It's a HUGE reduction in cost. Price those Intel chips. Apple could likely knock at least a couple hundred off the price even whilst getting ballpark performance for a specialized ARM-based chip for a low-cost notebook or desktop.
It isn't just the chip cost, the high integration means a smaller motherboard which further reduces costs. Just one look at the iPad mother board ought to enlighten people there. Yes an AIR would need more I/O ports but that still doesn't impact board size dramatically. At least not compared to an Intel motherboard.
People forget that Apple was the driving force behind the creation of Firewire, and recently, Lightning. Of course Apple would have been working on a followup. I suspect that after Apple cajoled the initial processor for the Mac Book Air out of Intel, that there has been ongoing collaboration between the two companies.
The only questions I have about TB was these: 1. Who's initiative was it? 2. Did Apple and Intel cross license the technology?
Answer those two questions and we might get an idea if we will ever see a TB port in an iOS device.
Intel at one time kinda hinted at the idea that they might not object to compatible hardware. I've yet to see anything materialize so maybe that was wishful thinking. The other thing here is that TB is evolving rapidly, there might be a pause in the industry waiting for Intel to deliver a revision that will be stable for awhile. In the overall picture TB 2 was extremely close to TB 1, this kinda indicates that TB 1 was released early to allow Apple to launch new hardware with the port.
Intel has certainly benefited from Apple leading the PC industry with its Mac Book Pro and Mac Book Air.
Yes high exposure even if there isn't an Intel inside sticker on the Mac Books! ????????????????????. I couldn't resot saying that because that Intel inside sticker ends up on a lot of crap products.
Yes TSMC just announced 16nm FinFET+Risk certification
However, they lost their partership with Global Foundries, who joined with Samsung a single unified FinFET solution:
It's 14nm FinFET by Samsung and Global Foundries
TSMC stamped out 20nm SLP/16nm FinFET just like Global Foundries when they were partners.
Problem for TSMC is this won't be ready until July 2015 while 14nm FinFET arrives from Samsung/GloFlo for scaled production Q1/2015.
Intel is already pushing back their 14nm FinFET 6-12 months from their initial target dates.
Hell the A8X gets smoked 3:1 by the iMac 27 latest performance numbers.
Finally, the A9 mythical future Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of any Intel Xeon/Haswell/Skylake or AMD FX Excavator/APU or K12. Not by a long shot.
No one is going to want to purchase crippled Macbooks so Apple can shave off the cost. They want and should get an increase in performance above today's Intel CPUs and that is how come Intel's Skylake will be what the masses will demand.
Apple does not have a license for Thunderbolt on the ARM processors, or they would have never released a USB3.0+ in Lightning.
You do realize that this a mobile processor made to operate in 4-5 mm of room and no ventilation... At 1.5 GHZ not throttle. That's one hell of a design constraint on performance. With a lot more thermal headroom and a much more performing process, you think they couldn't go much much faster? Seems an unreasonable conclusion to make.
That is an absolutely huge waste of engineering resources to tailor OS X lite for a laptop, to save a few bucks, when the AMD APUs post Bulldozer architecture will crush any Intel iGPU and the SMT structure Keller is putting in for SP/DP makes the cost of the Intel product a waste of time.
The only thing I can say here is that AMD has been full of promises in the past. I'd really love to see them back in the game though. That might just happen as the leadership there does have a strong technical background now. Given that I still advocate AMD for the better GPUs they could bring to Apple devices especially products like the Mini.
I'd laugh my ass off if the Global Foundries, Samsung and AMD line up managed to bring those chips to market on 14 nm. Even if they didn't ship to mid 2015 AMD will have effectively caught up with Intel process technology wise.
Your best bet is Apple helps AMD roll out their architecture for late 2015/early 2016 and forces Intel to drop their CPU pricing or lose a massive customer in Apple.
Interesting that you use the word help here. One of the big points many mis about Apples ARM based chips is their control over that SoC. They can optimize it in anyway they prefer, silicon is today Primted circuit board.
AMD gets interesting here because they have embraced the idea of building custom hardware, in effect making custom system on chips for whomever is willing to pay. This could be ideal for Apple because they can place exactly what they need on that SoC. For Apple that could mean 4 USB ports, deletion of all SATA ports, video processing hardware for a camera, a TB port and any other thing they may desire. A custom tailored chip would waste less space on that chip and leave room for other advancements.
Apple invests ZERO in software optimizations as it won't have to redesign a single bit of OS X to work.
Well it wouldn't have to redesign for ARM either if it got Mac OS up and running on the platform. Drivers would likely have to be rewritten for both chips so there is balance there. I think it comes down thiugh to how willing AMD would be to do a custom chip for Apple. That ability to engineer on the silicon will become increasingly important as we move forward into the future. The ability to quickly engineer new ARM hardware is extremely valuable to Apple. It is one of the reasons for the success of Apples iOS hardware.
You do realize that this a mobile processor made to operate in 4-5 mm of room and no ventilation... At 1.5 GHZ not throttle. That's one hell of a design constraint on performance. With a lot more thermal headroom and a much more performing process, you think they couldn't go much much faster? Seems an unreasonable conclusion to make.
Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
That's what I've been wondering - whether Apple would drop Intel for its own chips, not just in the lower-end Macs, but in all Macs. If they can achieve both the performance and software compatibility, there's really no reason not to. Wouldn't want to be the owner of Intel stock if that ever happens (wait a minute...my mutual funds do hold Intel stock), although from a unit standpoint, Macs are a relatively small part of Apple's game these days.
Software compatibility with the Windows world is largely over blown these days. Think about it, how many iPad users run around demanding Windows compatibility?
Now for me Imwould need i86 support at work. However at home there has been zero need for that.
Among the many advantages of their own chip, I think it would be a tremendous differentiating marketing advantage - something which was lost when Apple started using Intel processors.
Don't underestimate how many Macs got sold because of that i86 compatibility back then. Obviously it isn't the big deal it was ten years ago but some people simply would not be able to justify a Mac without that capability. Today it is a different story, Windows no longer has the mind share of the community the way it use too.
The competition could no longer advertise that they're using the same processor as Apple. Although would this mean you could no longer run Windows on a Mac? (Not that I do.)
I don't even fire up my Linux virtual machine that much on my MBP. There just isn't a big draw. As long as the ARM based Mac ships with Python and Java I'm in the clear as far as software support goes. As far as Java goes currently I use it to run Eclipse and not much else. I'm assuming such a machine ships with the basic Apple apps here.
To add to that I would like to see Miracast, your mention of using the iPad as a TV would benefit from this. Of course there are my usual requests, being able to run multiple apps in the background, multi-user support to split your work and home profiles, able to use a different browser, email client, etc. as your default instead of an Apple app and a built in file manager that can mount all of my cloud and network storge and than be able access these drives via every app that is installed on the system and not just ones that are programed to handle such things, better app communication.
Sounds like you'd like Apple to be exactly like Android, how interesting!
But let's stop and think a minute. Android has all the features you need. Apple doesn't. But Apple is more popular among consumers with money, among people who pay for things, among people who pay a premium to upgrade to better products. There's a reason why Apple doesn't adopt the Android features you say you need. Because the people who buy Apple gear are not the people who like the things Android offers.
Given that Android meets all your needs, be happy that it's there, and if it isn't, there'll always be a ChromeOS or Windows or Linux or Tizen that magically meets all your needs. There will always be a demand for that, even if its serviced by a noncommercial hobbyist platform. The thing that people who like to pay extra for better things like about Apple is exactly that is its not like the things you like.
So really, stop asking Apple to adopt all the things that Android vendors (who are barely making money, selling mostly low-end / volume products) advertise as being important and that you agree are important. Apple doesn't serve your needs. Android does.
You sound like an American telling his neighbors how he likes America, but really wishes it was more like a Socialist paradise existing under a police state, where nobody could work hard and get rich and a central government all owned the means of production. It just sounds so ridiculous to hear you say that over and over and over again like you're going to convince Apple to be more like the thing that people with money don't buy.
No, he doesn't see things as they are. He sees things the way he wants them to be. And those people here who also want to see things as they want them to be read him uncritically. They don't look to the incorrect facts and omissions, or the fault in his logic.
Don't get me wrong, he's fun to read, and for a short time, I can imagine that in his world, everything would be good. But then, I have to leave that utopia, and come back to earth.
You like to toot your horn, but where's your record of accuracy? Your regular attempts at character assassination are really just a lot of puffing hot air around. Where's the bullets?
Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The basic design of the A8(X) is sound. As suggested if freed from its thermal constraints there is much potential here. Many ARM cores these days are running well beyond 2GHZ when built upon suitable processes.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
I'm glad you have confidence but he will have to overcome AMDs recent history. They have promised a lot at times and delivered little. That being said their HSA architecture is certainly shaping up, even if this architecture doesn't work its way into Apple hardware I could see them gaining ground on Intel with HSA and better performing hardware.
It should be noted that AMDs hardware hasn't been all that bad of late. The big problem being the lag on processes thus high power usage. Even then AMD can be competitive with Intel when they can leverage their strengths.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
That is a bit of history people seem to forget.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
Actually I kinda wish Apple would stop flip flopping on GPUs and just stick with AMD.
Given that AMDs biggest problem is cash flow right now. The greatest minds in the world can't save a company that has the problems AMD has. They need good product of course but they also need some marketing skill that can drive public interest again.
I haven't gotten the feeling from you that you do know this. I have talked to her, and her posts have shown that she does know what she' stalking g about. Perhaps you can enlighten us further.
As far as your knowledge goes, I don't see it from your statements here. Surely you know that clock speed has little to do with anything unless it specifically refers to the same processor family? So comparing clocks and performance is not proper. And while I'm not a fan of Nvidia, their latest SoC is pretty good. Knocking it isn't helping your case.
No, you are confusing two things. It's not always a fair comparison to benchmark two different processor architectures running at the same clock rate, because some, like PowerPC, were designed to run faster to achieve the same result.
But the issue here--with two implementations of ARM--is something different, as he explained pretty well: Nvidia made specific claims about how many instructions the K1 could handle at once, but at the same clock speed, that just isn't the case. Nvidia's claims and predictions about the market were wrong. It was soundly beaten in both GPU and CPU by a company that is not a GPU company. That's pretty aweful for Nvidia. It's like if Apple had beaten Adobe with Aperture, or if iWork had blown away MS Office (well it did with keynote, but not across the board), or if Maps had soundly beaten the 7 year old Google Maps on day one in every respect.
Nvidia isn't okay being "pretty good." It needed to be significantly ahead. And it's not.
Consider if Apple delivered a product that was soundly beaten by a much larger company with established sales. Or just think about the reality of when that happened, when IBM came in and delivered a business PC (82) that was much better than the Apple II. Boom, Apple was knocked down a peg. It already had the Mac in development and nearly ready to ship (84). Now imagine if Apple had shipped the Mac and IBM had shipped an advanced version of OS/2 in 1984 that was just as good if not better than the Mac. Apple would have been destroyed.
It took IBM and Microsoft another 6-10 years to catch up with the Mac. Nvidia needed a 6-10 year advantage like that. Instead, it has a K1 "Kepler desktop graphics" chip that Apple passed up before Nvidia could even sell its market advantage. Now it's too late. Because "good" isn't good enough to make money.
Oh please! If you've actually been following DED on his own website, you'd know what he is. I've pointed out many flaws in his "facts" and reasoning to him over the years. He refuses to acknowledge them. Even if you prove to him that it's flawed, he often won't even read the evidence.
This argument is flawed, because, for example, the new Tegra has better performance per core than the A8x, an argument that has been used for Apple's chips over the years, but since it only has two cores, poorer multi core performance, another argument around Apple's chips over the years. The graphics performance of the latest Tegra is also pretty good.
Well this is actually debatable. It really comes down to real world usage and I've seen mixed results there. Also power usage is a factor here but even here it isn't clear which chip has the upper hand.
But this doesn't matter that much. As I said in my first post here, Apple's chips aren't much of a threat to Qualcomm or other manufacturers, because Apple doesn't sell their chips, amd Apple's market share in tablets is continually falling. But, Apple's chips are inspiring other chip manufacturers to increase the performance of their own.
The most important determinant to whether a chip is important is in how it leads to increased sales. Has the A7 led to increased Apple tablet sales? No, sales are down. Is the A8x going to? Well, we don't know yet, but it looks as though the answer is no.
Actually the A8X and that extra bit of RAM might finally get me to upgrade my iPad 3. The A7 certainly wouldn't have caused me to upgrade.
While it's true that Apple's profitability is much higher than competing tablet makers, if sales continue to drop, it won't matter much.
So, DED's arguments are incorrect. It's a marketing challenge for other companies to claim that they too have 64 bit chips, no doubt. And while I don't believe that Apple has done this for marketing purposes, does it really matter? I don't think so. If the biggest selling component of the tablet market is now tablets selling for under $250, then having a performance leading chip is of less importance than before. The truth is that these cheaper tablets have seen their performance rise to the point to where what most people do, which is view video, listen to music, browse the web, buy things, and do email, that they don't need significantly increased performance. Particularly not if that increased performance comes at a highly increased cost.
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one, it is very hard to knock better performance and frankly all of these devices are rather young on the market. The maturation process of better hardware and a better OS does lead to a desire to upgrade. In some cases the requirement is to upgrade.
My concern, and something that DED continually misses, is that Apple has a habit of shaking up a market with a major disruption, and then sitting on it, and merely iterating designs over the years, rather than coming up with something that shakes it up again, in a way that will continue Apple's leading position, and so that position continually erodes, as we are seeing happen.
I agree with this 100%. A perfect example here is Apple ignoring the iPod line. I know sales are declining but part of that is a self fulfilling prophecy as the hardware is effectively outdated.
So while TouchID is probably helping iPhone sales, and is enabling Apple Pay, which, hopefully will be a great success for Apple, it's not doing nearly as much for iPads. Mine is great to use, and buying online is easier. But is it going to have people spend $100 more to get an Apple tablet? I'm not so sure.
I don't think anybody understands Apples moves with respect to the Mini. Honestly I'm not even sure why the devices have two different motherboards.
Overall, I think that people must be more critical of what DED writes, and just because he writes what most people here want to read from someone, they have to look at the real world situation as well. And there, his writing falls short.
It is pure fluff. Sadly far too many people give him credit which indicates to me that they don't have a strong understanding of the industry. Further you have to be pretty gullible to read crap written in the Style DED does and believe what you have read. Most of the time I can't even read half way through his articles before I have to do something else.
Yes for some that is the case. However that up is a rapidly shrinking portion of the population. Further iPad clearly demonstrates a very large market of customers that don't care.
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
It doesn't make sense to say Windows outsells OS X, because they are not sold the same way. OS X isn't even sold. If you're comparing Macs to Windows PCs, it doesn't really make sense to include all the markets for which Macs don't sell (such as cash registers and mass licensed enterprise fleets). That would mean you'd look at actual markets where Macs and PCs actually compete; in those, Macs are doing better than WinPCs in a variety a places.
But if you insist to compare Macs against every unit shipment that includes a Windows license, then you also need to include iPads, even though there isn't a one-to-one sale in every market, for that very reason. That makes Apple the largest PC vendor by a good margin, and blows your 12:1 ratio up in smoke.
Can't have it both ways.
Also, the same way that Windows sales are supported by lots of low end products and some high end products, Apple's sales are supported by high volume iPads and lower volume but more expensive Macs.
Microsoft doesn't articulate exactly how many low end and high end licenses it sells, and PC makers don't detail how many cheap PCs vs how many high end premium machines they sell.
That makes it rather ignorantly one-sided to scrutinize the product mix of Apple--just because Apple actually provides you with more data about its operations--and make rather uninformed statements about how important it is for Apple to sell x number of low end products.
If you're not concerned with MS/PC OEM's product mix (and you can't be, without any knowledge of what their mix is), then you can't demand that Apple sell x numbers of iPads. You have to look at Apple's overall results (which is all you know about MS/PC OEMs), and compare overall unit sales and overall profits.
Apple currently beats the shit out of every PC OEM in both units sold and in profits earned. It beats the entire PC industry in profits earned.
Inventing an "iPad problem" to worry about doesn't change the fact that Apple is winning the game. Including the sub-game of tablets, where it also soundly beats every OEM in units and profits by a vast margin.
Fretting about iPad sales is intellectually dishonest. And look who else is doing it - business insider, IDC, and the most delusional analysts who have been wrong over and over again.
Ask yourself why none of those ever thought to worry about how many sub $500 PCs every other OEM was selling each quarter.
It's the same as saying "Apple hires child labor!" after Apple reported catching and putting a stop to remaining issues of child labor. It's what liars do.
I do remember something about that now that you mentioned it.
Regardless, Relic has on numerous occasions tried to downplay the significance of Apple A Series processor when compared to the likes of Qualcomm or Nvidia. These are details I'm concerned about as I don't understand why people are so determined to distort the obvious truth about the superiority of Apple processors.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there is more than one valid metric to judge a processor by. Blindly cheerleading isn't something that leads to respect and acceptance of ones opinion.
In any event I don't know about those instance of down playing Apples processors. In this context I know that DED's article is laced with plenty of bull crap. Unfortunately far to many lap it up with out a bit of critical thinking. With an article like this part of that critical thinking has to involve acknowledging the good points of other products.
Comments
The vast majority of DED's articles are garbage, this is just another example. There is no need to counter what is said in the article as most of it is just inflation of common knowledge. Unfortunately it is a writin example more suited for the national enquirer than Apple Insider. Honestly if you find value in this article you need to look in a mirror and asks why.
Such a chip might allow Apple to knock 2-300 dollars off the price of an Air. Some of that is based on cup costs but there is also value in the reduced PC Board size. We are talking about a machine here that might cost 50-100 dollars more than an equivalent iPad. It is a nice concept to think about.
Sent from my N9
Beyond that I'm not sure where this idea that A8X is crippled comes from. The design is fairly robust, up the clock rate a bit and it isn't really that bad compared to the CPU performance you get out of the chips in the Air. Actually that is a very good question. Honestly we don't even know who even got the developmental ball rolling here. It is rather strange that Intel teamed up with Apple in the first place. That right there caused knee jerk reactions from the PC crowd. Even know TB isn't widely acknowledged in the PC world.
Actually at this point Apple could take on the design efforts all on its own. As for ARM I believe there are PCI express function blocks available for ARM 64 bit right now. This is an interesting discussion though because I do wonder about the interface to the PCI express bus on Intels TB chips. If the interface is clean PCI Epress Apple might be able to plug it into another chipset and get it to work with a bit of effort. If that is the case then Apples development work,is trivial.
The other thing to realize is that when Apple picked up PA Semi they picked up a company with a lot of experience with serial buses. Even if they had to do a custom chip they likely already have the In house talent to do so.
The vast majority of DED's articles are garbage, this is just another example. There is no need to counter what is said in the article as most of it is just inflation of common knowledge. Unfortunately it is a writin example more suited for the national enquirer than Apple Insider. Honestly if you find value in this article you need to look in a mirror and asks why.
Funny. I re-read this article and while Daniel loves his words sharpened to cut to the bone, there isn't all that much to disagree with other than his comments on Samsung production of A series SOC (Samsung is still important, because of a quarter billion A series SOC's a year), and whether there will be a A series in a Mac (by definition, no; some new product line). That said, TSMC, Global Foundries, and Samsung are all producing or will be producing A series SOC's.
The point of the article is that: Qualcomm hasn't been able to capitalize on SOC's for High End Tablets (iPad owns that space), and Nvidia's 64 bit K1 isn't substantially better in any metric than the A8X, and in many metrics, is substantially worse. The Nexus 9 is weak sauce, and a poor build which doesn't help drive industry sales of the K1 family. Further, Apple is able to leverage its profitability to create an efficient, powerful processor family in volumes that Nvidia can't even imagine, while Nvidia is, for all practical purposes, unable to produce a competitive processor for any smartphone.
As for Intel, I don't actually know what is happening to them in mobile, other than the uptake has been slow, but their pricing structure doesn't fit well with the OEM's, who aren't seeing much if any profit in tablets. albeit that could always change.
I do think that Daniel overstates Intel's problems, it has the resources for a long game, but I also find that Intel hasn't made much progress in mobile, which would be the industry assessment as well.
In the past I've advocated for an AMD based Mini simply to get a better GPU so I wouldn't dismiss such a machine. However let's be honest here if we are talking about future chips it is very possible that Apple will exceed what AMD is going to ship as far as CPUS performance.
Beyond that I'm not sure where this idea that A8X is crippled comes from. The design is fairly robust, up the clock rate a bit and it isn't really that bad compared to the CPU performance you get out of the chips in the Air.
Actually that is a very good question. Honestly we don't even know who even got the developmental ball rolling here. It is rather strange that Intel teamed up with Apple in the first place. That right there caused knee jerk reactions from the PC crowd. Even know TB isn't widely acknowledged in the PC world.
Actually at this point Apple could take on the design efforts all on its own. As for ARM I believe there are PCI express function blocks available for ARM 64 bit right now. This is an interesting discussion though because I do wonder about the interface to the PCI express bus on Intels TB chips. If the interface is clean PCI Epress Apple might be able to plug it into another chipset and get it to work with a bit of effort. If that is the case then Apples development work,is trivial.
The other thing to realize is that when Apple picked up PA Semi they picked up a company with a lot of experience with serial buses. Even if they had to do a custom chip they likely already have the In house talent to do so.
People forget that Apple was the driving force behind the creation of Firewire, and recently, Lightning. Of course Apple would have been working on a followup. I suspect that after Apple cajoled the initial processor for the Mac Book Air out of Intel, that there has been ongoing collaboration between the two companies.
Intel has certainly benefited from Apple leading the PC industry with its Mac Book Pro and Mac Book Air.
A lot of ifs and buts here but the point is we can't assume that the current A8X design can't be ran much faster. Al it requires is the willingness to do so. And maybe more importantly a market ready for such a device. The cross pollination has been going on for a very long time now and it won't likely stop. It isn't just the chip cost, the high integration means a smaller motherboard which further reduces costs. Just one look at the iPad mother board ought to enlighten people there. Yes an AIR would need more I/O ports but that still doesn't impact board size dramatically. At least not compared to an Intel motherboard.
Answer those two questions and we might get an idea if we will ever see a TB port in an iOS device.
Intel at one time kinda hinted at the idea that they might not object to compatible hardware. I've yet to see anything materialize so maybe that was wishful thinking. The other thing here is that TB is evolving rapidly, there might be a pause in the industry waiting for Intel to deliver a revision that will be stable for awhile. In the overall picture TB 2 was extremely close to TB 1, this kinda indicates that TB 1 was released early to allow Apple to launch new hardware with the port. Yes high exposure even if there isn't an Intel inside sticker on the Mac Books! ????????????????????. I couldn't resot saying that because that Intel inside sticker ends up on a lot of crap products.
Observations:
Yes TSMC just announced 16nm FinFET+Risk certification
However, they lost their partership with Global Foundries, who joined with Samsung a single unified FinFET solution:
It's 14nm FinFET by Samsung and Global Foundries
TSMC stamped out 20nm SLP/16nm FinFET just like Global Foundries when they were partners.
Problem for TSMC is this won't be ready until July 2015 while 14nm FinFET arrives from Samsung/GloFlo for scaled production Q1/2015.
Intel is already pushing back their 14nm FinFET 6-12 months from their initial target dates.
Hell the A8X gets smoked 3:1 by the iMac 27 latest performance numbers.
Finally, the A9 mythical future Apple SoC is nowhere near the performance of any Intel Xeon/Haswell/Skylake or AMD FX Excavator/APU or K12. Not by a long shot.
No one is going to want to purchase crippled Macbooks so Apple can shave off the cost. They want and should get an increase in performance above today's Intel CPUs and that is how come Intel's Skylake will be what the masses will demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_(microarchitecture)
Apple does not have a license for Thunderbolt on the ARM processors, or they would have never released a USB3.0+ in Lightning.
You do realize that this a mobile processor made to operate in 4-5 mm of room and no ventilation... At 1.5 GHZ not throttle. That's one hell of a design constraint on performance. With a lot more thermal headroom and a much more performing process, you think they couldn't go much much faster? Seems an unreasonable conclusion to make.
I'd laugh my ass off if the Global Foundries, Samsung and AMD line up managed to bring those chips to market on 14 nm. Even if they didn't ship to mid 2015 AMD will have effectively caught up with Intel process technology wise. Interesting that you use the word help here. One of the big points many mis about Apples ARM based chips is their control over that SoC. They can optimize it in anyway they prefer, silicon is today Primted circuit board.
AMD gets interesting here because they have embraced the idea of building custom hardware, in effect making custom system on chips for whomever is willing to pay. This could be ideal for Apple because they can place exactly what they need on that SoC. For Apple that could mean 4 USB ports, deletion of all SATA ports, video processing hardware for a camera, a TB port and any other thing they may desire. A custom tailored chip would waste less space on that chip and leave room for other advancements.
Well it wouldn't have to redesign for ARM either if it got Mac OS up and running on the platform. Drivers would likely have to be rewritten for both chips so there is balance there. I think it comes down thiugh to how willing AMD would be to do a custom chip for Apple. That ability to engineer on the silicon will become increasingly important as we move forward into the future. The ability to quickly engineer new ARM hardware is extremely valuable to Apple. It is one of the reasons for the success of Apples iOS hardware.
Correct, which means it doesn't scale worth a crap on heavy load operations and thus won't ever be stuck in a Laptop/Desktop/Workstation.
Anyone thinks AMD not having Keller back and the head of AMD GPGPUs leaving Apple to return to AMD won't release a beast is truly delusional.
The reason the industry has x86_64 is because of Keller and company. We'd be stuck on 32 bit if it weren't for that team he has once amassed.
FYI: Jim Keller designed the DEC Alpha processor, not to mention was the driving force behind PA-Semi which got bought by Apple, and he worked at Apple as Chief Architect of the Apple A4-A5X processor.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/01/apple-cpu-jim-keller-amd/
AMD will be a pivotal player in the next 18 months and I guarantee you Apple is paying attention, not just collaborating with the Radeon GPGPUs.
Now for me Imwould need i86 support at work. However at home there has been zero need for that. Don't underestimate how many Macs got sold because of that i86 compatibility back then. Obviously it isn't the big deal it was ten years ago but some people simply would not be able to justify a Mac without that capability. Today it is a different story, Windows no longer has the mind share of the community the way it use too.
I don't even fire up my Linux virtual machine that much on my MBP. There just isn't a big draw. As long as the ARM based Mac ships with Python and Java I'm in the clear as far as software support goes. As far as Java goes currently I use it to run Eclipse and not much else. I'm assuming such a machine ships with the basic Apple apps here.
To add to that I would like to see Miracast, your mention of using the iPad as a TV would benefit from this. Of course there are my usual requests, being able to run multiple apps in the background, multi-user support to split your work and home profiles, able to use a different browser, email client, etc. as your default instead of an Apple app and a built in file manager that can mount all of my cloud and network storge and than be able access these drives via every app that is installed on the system and not just ones that are programed to handle such things, better app communication.
Sounds like you'd like Apple to be exactly like Android, how interesting!
But let's stop and think a minute. Android has all the features you need. Apple doesn't. But Apple is more popular among consumers with money, among people who pay for things, among people who pay a premium to upgrade to better products. There's a reason why Apple doesn't adopt the Android features you say you need. Because the people who buy Apple gear are not the people who like the things Android offers.
Given that Android meets all your needs, be happy that it's there, and if it isn't, there'll always be a ChromeOS or Windows or Linux or Tizen that magically meets all your needs. There will always be a demand for that, even if its serviced by a noncommercial hobbyist platform. The thing that people who like to pay extra for better things like about Apple is exactly that is its not like the things you like.
So really, stop asking Apple to adopt all the things that Android vendors (who are barely making money, selling mostly low-end / volume products) advertise as being important and that you agree are important. Apple doesn't serve your needs. Android does.
You sound like an American telling his neighbors how he likes America, but really wishes it was more like a Socialist paradise existing under a police state, where nobody could work hard and get rich and a central government all owned the means of production. It just sounds so ridiculous to hear you say that over and over and over again like you're going to convince Apple to be more like the thing that people with money don't buy.
No, he doesn't see things as they are. He sees things the way he wants them to be. And those people here who also want to see things as they want them to be read him uncritically. They don't look to the incorrect facts and omissions, or the fault in his logic.
Don't get me wrong, he's fun to read, and for a short time, I can imagine that in his world, everything would be good. But then, I have to leave that utopia, and come back to earth.
You like to toot your horn, but where's your record of accuracy? Your regular attempts at character assassination are really just a lot of puffing hot air around. Where's the bullets?
It should be noted that AMDs hardware hasn't been all that bad of late. The big problem being the lag on processes thus high power usage. Even then AMD can be competitive with Intel when they can leverage their strengths. That is a bit of history people seem to forget.
Actually I kinda wish Apple would stop flip flopping on GPUs and just stick with AMD.
Given that AMDs biggest problem is cash flow right now. The greatest minds in the world can't save a company that has the problems AMD has. They need good product of course but they also need some marketing skill that can drive public interest again.
I haven't gotten the feeling from you that you do know this. I have talked to her, and her posts have shown that she does know what she' stalking g about. Perhaps you can enlighten us further.
As far as your knowledge goes, I don't see it from your statements here. Surely you know that clock speed has little to do with anything unless it specifically refers to the same processor family? So comparing clocks and performance is not proper. And while I'm not a fan of Nvidia, their latest SoC is pretty good. Knocking it isn't helping your case.
No, you are confusing two things. It's not always a fair comparison to benchmark two different processor architectures running at the same clock rate, because some, like PowerPC, were designed to run faster to achieve the same result.
But the issue here--with two implementations of ARM--is something different, as he explained pretty well: Nvidia made specific claims about how many instructions the K1 could handle at once, but at the same clock speed, that just isn't the case. Nvidia's claims and predictions about the market were wrong. It was soundly beaten in both GPU and CPU by a company that is not a GPU company. That's pretty aweful for Nvidia. It's like if Apple had beaten Adobe with Aperture, or if iWork had blown away MS Office (well it did with keynote, but not across the board), or if Maps had soundly beaten the 7 year old Google Maps on day one in every respect.
Nvidia isn't okay being "pretty good." It needed to be significantly ahead. And it's not.
Consider if Apple delivered a product that was soundly beaten by a much larger company with established sales. Or just think about the reality of when that happened, when IBM came in and delivered a business PC (82) that was much better than the Apple II. Boom, Apple was knocked down a peg. It already had the Mac in development and nearly ready to ship (84). Now imagine if Apple had shipped the Mac and IBM had shipped an advanced version of OS/2 in 1984 that was just as good if not better than the Mac. Apple would have been destroyed.
It took IBM and Microsoft another 6-10 years to catch up with the Mac. Nvidia needed a 6-10 year advantage like that. Instead, it has a K1 "Kepler desktop graphics" chip that Apple passed up before Nvidia could even sell its market advantage. Now it's too late. Because "good" isn't good enough to make money.
Well this is actually debatable. It really comes down to real world usage and I've seen mixed results there. Also power usage is a factor here but even here it isn't clear which chip has the upper hand. Actually the A8X and that extra bit of RAM might finally get me to upgrade my iPad 3. The A7 certainly wouldn't have caused me to upgrade. Hmm, I'm not sure about this one, it is very hard to knock better performance and frankly all of these devices are rather young on the market. The maturation process of better hardware and a better OS does lead to a desire to upgrade. In some cases the requirement is to upgrade. I agree with this 100%. A perfect example here is Apple ignoring the iPod line. I know sales are declining but part of that is a self fulfilling prophecy as the hardware is effectively outdated. I don't think anybody understands Apples moves with respect to the Mini. Honestly I'm not even sure why the devices have two different motherboards. It is pure fluff. Sadly far too many people give him credit which indicates to me that they don't have a strong understanding of the industry. Further you have to be pretty gullible to read crap written in the Style DED does and believe what you have read. Most of the time I can't even read half way through his articles before I have to do something else.
Yes for some that is the case. However that up is a rapidly shrinking portion of the population. Further iPad clearly demonstrates a very large market of customers that don't care.
Worldwide, Windows outsells OS X by about 12:1. So yes, you can say that Windows outsells MACs. That doesn't mean that Apple is really happy about that. I'll bet they aren't. But publicly, what can they say? Jobs, and Cook have both said that the best part of having a small marketshare is that it gives them a lot of room to grow into. Does that sound like they are happy, long term, in having small numbers? No sir, it does not!
Is Cook happy about diminishing iPad sales? Nope! He may sound positive, and give it some spin, such as pointing out the significantly increasing Mac sales, now that some prices have dropped, a deliberate action that Apple took.
It doesn't make sense to say Windows outsells OS X, because they are not sold the same way. OS X isn't even sold. If you're comparing Macs to Windows PCs, it doesn't really make sense to include all the markets for which Macs don't sell (such as cash registers and mass licensed enterprise fleets). That would mean you'd look at actual markets where Macs and PCs actually compete; in those, Macs are doing better than WinPCs in a variety a places.
But if you insist to compare Macs against every unit shipment that includes a Windows license, then you also need to include iPads, even though there isn't a one-to-one sale in every market, for that very reason. That makes Apple the largest PC vendor by a good margin, and blows your 12:1 ratio up in smoke.
Can't have it both ways.
Also, the same way that Windows sales are supported by lots of low end products and some high end products, Apple's sales are supported by high volume iPads and lower volume but more expensive Macs.
Microsoft doesn't articulate exactly how many low end and high end licenses it sells, and PC makers don't detail how many cheap PCs vs how many high end premium machines they sell.
That makes it rather ignorantly one-sided to scrutinize the product mix of Apple--just because Apple actually provides you with more data about its operations--and make rather uninformed statements about how important it is for Apple to sell x number of low end products.
If you're not concerned with MS/PC OEM's product mix (and you can't be, without any knowledge of what their mix is), then you can't demand that Apple sell x numbers of iPads. You have to look at Apple's overall results (which is all you know about MS/PC OEMs), and compare overall unit sales and overall profits.
Apple currently beats the shit out of every PC OEM in both units sold and in profits earned. It beats the entire PC industry in profits earned.
Inventing an "iPad problem" to worry about doesn't change the fact that Apple is winning the game. Including the sub-game of tablets, where it also soundly beats every OEM in units and profits by a vast margin.
Fretting about iPad sales is intellectually dishonest. And look who else is doing it - business insider, IDC, and the most delusional analysts who have been wrong over and over again.
Ask yourself why none of those ever thought to worry about how many sub $500 PCs every other OEM was selling each quarter.
It's the same as saying "Apple hires child labor!" after Apple reported catching and putting a stop to remaining issues of child labor. It's what liars do.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe there is more than one valid metric to judge a processor by. Blindly cheerleading isn't something that leads to respect and acceptance of ones opinion.
In any event I don't know about those instance of down playing Apples processors. In this context I know that DED's article is laced with plenty of bull crap. Unfortunately far to many lap it up with out a bit of critical thinking. With an article like this part of that critical thinking has to involve acknowledging the good points of other products.