Apple pulls back the curtain on its secretive chip development operation

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    josha said:
    stubb said:
    If only the software got the same level of attention.
    Both must be developed in tune;   together.
    IBM knew that!

    Today there are still examples of inferior products where the SW and HDW aren't in tune.
    Software developement is very much a black art and much less disciplined than hardware development.  From the article:

    If there’s a bug in software, you simply release a corrected version. It’s different with hardware. “You get one transistor wrong, it’s done, game over,” Srouji says. “Each one of those transistors has to work. Silicon is very unforgiving.” 
    edited February 2016
  • Reply 22 of 29
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,271member
    josu said:

    cpsro said:
    I'm sure Apple already has an aMac. Close to 20 years ago, IBM had an in-house PowerPC notebook computer that ran Windows, OS/2 and Mac OS X.
    Apple had a Mac that run on Intel well before the switch to them. 

    I'm with you, sooner or later Apple will leave Intel to go all in house A processors. 
    Not for a long time I suspect.
    I would think a Hybrid first with an A series as the platform hub and still with intel for grunt processing.
    Put all the core OS services on the A series chip and let it direct the screen so that light Apple apps such as mail, music, photos, app store are also running on the Aseries. Which lets them stay active background and keep apps and data up to date push messages. They could add cellular data to the portable Mac's and all radio communications would be identical across the product line.

    I would the next step towards this would be cinema display with enough OS that it cloud be a standalone thin cloud client but plugged in a mac is the full shebang.
    I mean if they could have released the iPad Pro on an A8X chip but an A10x must be close to be able to drive a 5k cinema display.
  • Reply 23 of 29
    There was an interesting anecdote in the article about the first iPhone. Seems it was made off a large number of off-the-shelf components, including something that was used in Samsung DVD players!
    That compromise is what led to the iPhone not having 3G, a front-facing camera and having other constraints.

    It may seem condescending to say it now, but nothing exemplifies the "can do" attitude better than Apple's manufacturing of the iPhone.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    There was an interesting anecdote in the article about the first iPhone. Seems it was made off a large number of off-the-shelf components, including something that was used in Samsung DVD players!
    That compromise is what led to the iPhone not having 3G, a front-facing camera and having other constraints.

    It may seem condescending to say it now, but nothing exemplifies the "can do" attitude better than Apple's manufacturing of the iPhone.
    Interesting to compare what was revealed in the article ("Steve Jobs was well aware of its flaws") with the dismissive rationalizations from Apple fans back in the day:  "Who needs 3G, EDGE is good enough for most people, etc".  And it's still going on today.  Every time we hear about some feature missing from current Apple products, there are the inevitable rationalizations from Apple defenders who are eventually proven wrong..  Why keep doing this?
  • Reply 25 of 29
    Blaster said:
    There was an interesting anecdote in the article about the first iPhone. Seems it was made off a large number of off-the-shelf components, including something that was used in Samsung DVD players!
    That compromise is what led to the iPhone not having 3G, a front-facing camera and having other constraints.

    It may seem condescending to say it now, but nothing exemplifies the "can do" attitude better than Apple's manufacturing of the iPhone.
    Interesting to compare what was revealed in the article ("Steve Jobs was well aware of its flaws") with the dismissive rationalizations from Apple fans back in the day:  "Who needs 3G, EDGE is good enough for most people, etc".  And it's still going on today.  Every time we hear about some feature missing from current Apple products, there are the inevitable rationalizations from Apple defenders who are eventually proven wrong..  Why keep doing this?
    Eventually proven wrong how? Do you have examples (other than the one your citing here)?
  • Reply 26 of 29
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Blaster said:
    There was an interesting anecdote in the article about the first iPhone. Seems it was made off a large number of off-the-shelf components, including something that was used in Samsung DVD players!
    That compromise is what led to the iPhone not having 3G, a front-facing camera and having other constraints.

    It may seem condescending to say it now, but nothing exemplifies the "can do" attitude better than Apple's manufacturing of the iPhone.
    Interesting to compare what was revealed in the article ("Steve Jobs was well aware of its flaws") with the dismissive rationalizations from Apple fans back in the day:  "Who needs 3G, EDGE is good enough for most people, etc".  And it's still going on today.  Every time we hear about some feature missing from current Apple products, there are the inevitable rationalizations from Apple defenders who are eventually proven wrong..  Why keep doing this?

    You're clearly not reading right.  For example, all we hear on this forum is how Apple won't sell a single iPhone until Apple implements a real file system. I've never come across such a hard-to-please bunch of users as Apple's online customer base.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    wizard69 said:
    Soli said:
    "Steve [Jobs] came to the conclusion that the only way for Apple to really differentiate and deliver something truly unique and truly great, you have to own your own silicon," Srouji said. "You have to control and own it."

    2) Wishful thinking or is this another piece of the puzzle that Apple will eventually support ARM on their desktop OS?

    The unique value to ARM is how well it performs in power-constrained mobile devices. That advantage is lost on desktop devices along with the needful Intel compatibility. It would take some new puzzle-piece to fall into place to make moving to ARM with OSX compelling.
    The need for i86 compatibility isn't anywhere near as strong as it was in the past.


     As far as being power constrained, everything Apple markets is power constrained. This isn't always a good thing but the reality is lower power Intel products has allowed Apple to innovate with respect to platform size. Sometimes Apple shrinks products too fast thus impacting performance.


    Totally unrelated but this new forums software sucks.   I mean it really SUCKS.   Did the AI staff even try this crap out before the conversion?  
    The editor is what really sucks! 90! of the time I have to use MarkUp and the other 10% is a TextEdit on steroids with no apparent way to change between
  • Reply 28 of 29
    jony0jony0 Posts: 378member
    Soli said:
    "Steve [Jobs] came to the conclusion that the only way for Apple to really differentiate and deliver something truly unique and truly great, you have to own your own silicon," Srouji said. "You have to control and own it."
    1) I'm a little surprised by this. Not that I don't believe that Jobs always wanted and knew that controlling the the HW and SW was key to truly great products, but I would have assumed it was other employees that would have finally done the convincing for ARM and PA Semi.
    I'm not surprised at all by this, after all, Jobs often quoted Alan Kay :
    "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
    I think this is just an extension of it to claim that :
    "People who are really serious about hardware should make their own silicon."
  • Reply 29 of 29
    jony0jony0 Posts: 378member
    wizard69 said:
    The unique value to ARM is how well it performs in power-constrained mobile devices. That advantage is lost on desktop devices along with the needful Intel compatibility. It would take some new puzzle-piece to fall into place to make moving to ARM with OSX compelling.
    The need for i86 compatibility isn't anywhere near as strong as it was in the past.

    Totally unrelated but this new forums software sucks.   I mean it really SUCKS.   Did the AI staff even try this crap out before the conversion?  
    NeSXTSTEP was developed for the Motorola 68030 in the 80s, then ported to Intel in the 90s, then evolved into OS X on the PowerPC, then ported to Intel in 2005 (officially, yet I think it was in the labs well before that) and finally evolved into iOS on ARM in 2008, watchOS on an S1 SoC in 2014 and tvOS in 2015. It would be rather trivial to port OS X on ARM, especially with the new ARM 64-bit architecture and instruction set and Apple engineered customizations. As for Windows compatibility, the R in ARM is RISC, so although it would not be quite as efficient as the real thing, it could run Intel CISC instructions fairly well, certainly much more efficiently than in emulation mode. And yet, remember Rosetta ? It sure didn't feel all that sluggish for Intel processors to emulate PowerPC code.

    Oh, and yes this forums software sucks, although not as bad as Fortune. I type it in TextEdit and copy paste it here, spell check works better and I don't lose whole posts accidentally.
    argonaut
Sign In or Register to comment.