Right!? It's not like Apple was the first ARM based PC. Windows RT was a thing almost 10 years ago! Being late doesn't mean you can't be the best. Apple is pretty much "late" to EVERYTHING, but they take their time, analyze, and get it done right.
For all the people mocking QC, they have a long history and a lot of experience in processor design, so they're not exactly 'new' to the game.
Ultimately, though, if they want to build a desktop-class processor, they need to have an OS to run on it. Microsoft has not shown any will to make ARM processors a viable alternative for windows. until they do, any non-x86 chip will be fighting with one hand behind its back.
Microsoft is largely doing what it can to make ARM processors a viable Windows platform, with the biggest problem being not only are they extremely constrained by the availability of high-performance ARM chips for running ARM-native code applications, even with the hardware/software support they have with running legacy Intel ISA native code with a major performance hit compared to native ARM code, the bigger thing is Microsoft has a business model of very long-term backwards compatibility, something that enterprise loves. The same thing that works for Microsoft for Enterprise is a HUGE weakness for Apple, as there’s very little “old” software that is in use, as Apple very quickly breaks old software with new APIs being introduced and old ones notably changing in behavior and/or being removed completely in a very short time period.
Making Windows work at top native ARM processor performance is already solved: making all ISVs and in-house applications move to ARM is an incredibly high amount of inertia to overcome, for those stated reasons and more. Microsoft being able to use Apple chips for their ARM platform by itself is not sufficient to move Enterprise over, even if Microsoft and Apple cooperated on that.
For all the people mocking QC, they have a long history and a lot of experience in processor design, so they're not exactly 'new' to the game.
Ultimately, though, if they want to build a desktop-class processor, they need to have an OS to run on it. Microsoft has not shown any will to make ARM processors a viable alternative for windows. until they do, any non-x86 chip will be fighting with one hand behind its back.
Microsoft is largely doing what it can to make ARM processors a viable Windows platform, with the biggest problem being not only are they extremely constrained by the availability of high-performance ARM chips for running ARM-native code applications, even with the hardware/software support they have with running legacy Intel ISA native code with a major performance hit compared to native ARM code, the bigger thing is Microsoft has a business model of very long-term backwards compatibility, something that enterprise loves. The same thing that works for Microsoft for Enterprise is a HUGE weakness for Apple, as there’s very little “old” software that is in use, as Apple very quickly breaks old software with new APIs being introduced and old ones notably changing in behavior and/or being removed completely in a very short time period.
Making Windows work at top native ARM processor performance is already solved: making all ISVs and in-house applications move to ARM is an incredibly high amount of inertia to overcome, for those stated reasons and more. Microsoft being able to use Apple chips for their ARM platform by itself is not sufficient to move Enterprise over, even if Microsoft and Apple cooperated on that.
If MS were at all serious about Win-ARM, they would port their own software library over, but they’ve only got a fraction of that work done. Part of that, no doubt stems from the lack of abstraction in their X86 code and all the legacy calls that are still allowed. Apple did the hard work of cutting this cruft a decade ago. I just don’t see how MS can make any kind of Rosetta equivalent without causing massive headaches along the way.
There is nothing wrong with being late to the party if what you are bringing is a game changer. That's what Apple is known for. Not being a leader but taking tech and improving it and making what was often rough and ready... usable.
Wasn't QC actually in the ARM based SoCs for PC/laptops before Apple with the Snapdragon 8cx and 7c compute platforms?
And Samsung was making knockoff Blackberries before iPhone….
If you think Qualcomm is reacting to their old crappy chips then you’re really delusional. They even said they were reacting to Apple themselves! But let’s move the goalposts so Apple gets ZERO credit!
You are going to have to point out where the goalposts were moved.
Qualcomm is on its own roadmap. It wasn't 'late to the party' and earlier this year it announced the 7c gen 2.
Clearly you're very immersed in the manufacturing side of things and take a clinical 'roadmap' view of the world. I'm involved with meetings where people outline roadmaps all the time, and it all sounds great in a PowerPoint presentation: ticking the boxes. But nothing would ever move forward if creating products was simply about bumping the specs and ticking the feature boxes.
And I get it, Qualcomm is simply a component manufacturer for other companies who create the products, and a successful one at that. Division of labour: we do our part, iterate the design and tick the boxes, then you do your part, package it up and tick the boxes, and out the other end comes something which ticks the boxes. Everyone meets expectations and we get what's expected.
Then Apple comes out with something beyond what's expected, but rather than see what makes it a better solution, it's reduced down to simply being the same components everyone else has. The marketing must be why people are excited about it, not the fact that they're finding innovative ways to create products that are truly an evolution of what came before. The iPhone was simply an inevitability given the components.
I guess I understand now that it's not even moving the goalposts for such people. It's really just being immersed in a world where nothing is more than the sum of its parts. Innovation and inspiration are irrelevant.
Qualcomm and Apple both have lists with checkboxes. That's what roadmaps are all about.
Qualcomm doesn't just dump components on hardware manufacturers and leave them to it.
It provides tools and knowhow for manufacturers to squeeze the most out of its hardware if they want to.
That is what Apple is doing right now with QC modems. It is what Apple's silicon teams are doing with other teams within Apple.
Apple has management and engineers working extremely closely with Qualcomm. So do other manufacturers.
The biggest difference is that companies like Apple, Samsung and Huawei can decide which checkboxes get put onto the roadmap.
As for delivering more than what was expected. What does that have to do with anything?
It's just as true to say they delivered less than expected in many other areas (and for years). Needing to settle with Qualcomm, use their modems (bolted on) , purchase Intel's IP and scramble to build their own, is just one example.
But that is all irrevelant here. The comment I was referring too said Qualcomm was late to the party. I don't see how that can be true.
Wasn't QC actually in the ARM based SoCs for PC/laptops before Apple with the Snapdragon 8cx and 7c compute platforms?
And Samsung was making knockoff Blackberries before iPhone….
If you think Qualcomm is reacting to their old crappy chips then you’re really delusional. They even said they were reacting to Apple themselves! But let’s move the goalposts so Apple gets ZERO credit!
You are going to have to point out where the goalposts were moved.
Qualcomm is on its own roadmap. It wasn't 'late to the party' and earlier this year it announced the 7c gen 2.
Huawei is doing the same but it began with smartphones (Kirin) and went to the top end with AI training clusters (Ascend) , servers... and then desktops for business (Kunpeng).
Apple is doing the same but in CE and PC contexts.
Weren't you aware of all this?
I don't see here any roadmap at all. Qualcomm was simply shaken up by Apple's M1 move. It is Qualcomm trying to catch up with Apple, not opposite around The Qualcomm CEO admit it him self. He said:
"..... the company needed to produce its own silicon if its customers want to take on Apple directly....." and ".....Qualcomm new chips will provide high levels of performance and battery life, echoing the benefits of Apple's M1 range."
It is again Apple showing the way for the rest.........
You only need to go back and watch the presentations to see the roadmap.
Talking about Apple draws attention to themselves.
Just look at what they were saying about the 7c platform in late 2019:
"Beautifully thin and light systems that offer multi-day battery life and LTE cellular connectivity can be available for everyone. Why haven’t traditional PCs offered that experience?
Delivering an always on, always connected superior PC experience requires innovation and invention. It needs the advanced and efficient technologies that Qualcomm Technologies has been putting in smart phones for years, brought into your PC. Snapdragon 7c compute platforms can deliver that experience; thinner, lighter, and quieter PCs with up to 20% faster system performance than competitive platforms. Additionally, Snapdragon 7c can deliver up 2x the battery life** of typical entry-level PCs. Upgrade your PC to a Snapdragon 7c and get the battery life you deserve, with the performance you need."
Sounds like that could have come from Apple, right?
Marketing is marketing of course and Apple is no different there.
But the 7c followed on from the 8cx from late 2018. Now we have the 7c 2nd Gen.
Sounds like Qualcomm had pretty clear ideas about its goals and from what I can see, they haven't changed.
Something very different is the impact of those developments at the time but that isn't down to Qualcomm.
Just so everyone is aware, if NUVIA's performance claims are true (keep in mind the big "if"), then Qualcomm will be ahead of the M1 and more likely in a position to compete with an M2 series chip:
Given the reputation of the engineers behind NUVIA and the fact that Qualcomm paid a relatively significant sum for them to fill this exact need, it does give their claim some merit. So don't be surprised if it does end up competing with Apple's late 2022 / early 2023 offerings.
Once again though, we still have yet to see an actual product, so take this with a grain of salt until we do.
Using this chart is a bit misleading, don't you think? This is a marketing chart used to attract investors. The bottom of those targeted stats are probably where they were at, the top is what they hope to achieve, "with enough funding".
If the A15 was on this chart it would lay smack dab in the middle of NUVIA's projected target; ~1800 @ 3.5W. And that's out now.
Let's also not forget that this design is for server applications, i.e. very expensive. I'm guessing this is going to have to be scaled way back to make it cost effective for Qualcomm to produce.
Just so everyone is aware, if NUVIA's performance claims are true (keep in mind the big "if"), then Qualcomm will be ahead of the M1 and more likely in a position to compete with an M2 series chip:
Given the reputation of the engineers behind NUVIA and the fact that Qualcomm paid a relatively significant sum for them to fill this exact need, it does give their claim some merit. So don't be surprised if it does end up competing with Apple's late 2022 / early 2023 offerings.
Once again though, we still have yet to see an actual product, so take this with a grain of salt until we do.
Using this chart is a bit misleading, don't you think? This is a marketing chart used to attract investors. The bottom of those targeted stats are probably where they were at, the top is what they hope to achieve, "with enough funding".
If the A15 was on this chart it would lay smack dab in the middle of NUVIA's projected target; ~1800 @ 3.5W. And that's out now.
Let's also not forget that this design is for server applications, i.e. very expensive. I'm guessing this is going to have to be scaled way back to make it cost effective for Qualcomm to produce.
He prefaced it with "if… charts are true" and the followed up again with " (keep in mind the big 'if')" and then finished his last paragraph by including "so take this with a grain of salt" . I think that's more than sufficient and more than we usually get around here for people posting Just You Wait data.
Wasn't QC actually in the ARM based SoCs for PC/laptops before Apple with the Snapdragon 8cx and 7c compute platforms?
And Samsung was making knockoff Blackberries before iPhone….
If you think Qualcomm is reacting to their old crappy chips then you’re really delusional. They even said they were reacting to Apple themselves! But let’s move the goalposts so Apple gets ZERO credit!
You are going to have to point out where the goalposts were moved.
Qualcomm is on its own roadmap. It wasn't 'late to the party' and earlier this year it announced the 7c gen 2.
Clearly you're very immersed in the manufacturing side of things and take a clinical 'roadmap' view of the world. I'm involved with meetings where people outline roadmaps all the time, and it all sounds great in a PowerPoint presentation: ticking the boxes. But nothing would ever move forward if creating products was simply about bumping the specs and ticking the feature boxes.
And I get it, Qualcomm is simply a component manufacturer for other companies who create the products, and a successful one at that. Division of labour: we do our part, iterate the design and tick the boxes, then you do your part, package it up and tick the boxes, and out the other end comes something which ticks the boxes. Everyone meets expectations and we get what's expected.
Then Apple comes out with something beyond what's expected, but rather than see what makes it a better solution, it's reduced down to simply being the same components everyone else has. The marketing must be why people are excited about it, not the fact that they're finding innovative ways to create products that are truly an evolution of what came before. The iPhone was simply an inevitability given the components.
I guess I understand now that it's not even moving the goalposts for such people. It's really just being immersed in a world where nothing is more than the sum of its parts. Innovation and inspiration are irrelevant.
Qualcomm and Apple both have lists with checkboxes. That's what roadmaps are all about.
Have you even read the history of Apple? Much of the greatest work they've done didn't come from a roadmap. While I'm sure things are quite a bit different these days, they've always had a bit of a different culture in terms of balancing strategic plans and fostering innovative ideas and unique thinking (which is something I appreciate). A good start would be folklore.org
Qualcomm doesn't just dump components on hardware manufacturers and leave them to it.
It provides tools and knowhow for manufacturers to squeeze the most out of its hardware if they want to.
That is what Apple is doing right now with QC modems. It is what Apple's silicon teams are doing with other teams within Apple.
Apple has management and engineers working extremely closely with Qualcomm. So do other manufacturers.
Squeezing performance out of a known component with fixed functionality is one aspect of designing a product. Coming up with an entirely new component (hardware or software) by finding a completely different perspective on how things should work (something not found on a roadmap) is another.
As for delivering more than what was expected. What does that have to do with anything?
That's the entire point.
Back when Apple first started, the expectation of PC hobbyists/enthusiasts was that computers were modular and each component came separately. No one (at the time) was asking for all of the components together in one box. And yet they found great success in creating a product which was more than expectations (the Apple II).
After that, no one had any expectations of a computer with a GUI and a mouse, and yet they created one. While one can argue the success of the original MacIntosh, it changed the PC industry forever. There's no way anything like that would have been on anyone's roadmap (Xerox only had it in their research labs with no clue how to create a real product). It was born out of a concept and a lot of talented (as well as creative) engineers.
It's a similar story with the iPhone.
It's just as true to say they delivered less than expected in many other areas (and for years). Needing to settle with Qualcomm, use their modems (bolted on) , purchase Intel's IP and scramble to build their own, is just one example.
But that is all irrevelant here. The comment I was referring too said Qualcomm was late to the party. I don't see how that can be true.
And the comment I was referring to was "moving the goalposts" in regard to giving Apple credit for anything.
I'm still trying to determine if there's a segment of the engineering population which is simply lacking the ability to recognize and appreciate creative and unique thinking. To them, everything is a foregone conclusion and/or a sum of parts. I wonder if, when they listen to music, it's simply a bunch of layered sounds? Or when they look at a painting, it's a simply bunch of brush strokes on a canvas? No recognition of the human inspiration and talent which makes those things more than just the physical manifestation of them, or why one piece of music/art is any different from others.
Wasn't QC actually in the ARM based SoCs for PC/laptops before Apple with the Snapdragon 8cx and 7c compute platforms?
And Samsung was making knockoff Blackberries before iPhone….
If you think Qualcomm is reacting to their old crappy chips then you’re really delusional. They even said they were reacting to Apple themselves! But let’s move the goalposts so Apple gets ZERO credit!
You are going to have to point out where the goalposts were moved.
Qualcomm is on its own roadmap. It wasn't 'late to the party' and earlier this year it announced the 7c gen 2.
Huawei is doing the same but it began with smartphones (Kirin) and went to the top end with AI training clusters (Ascend) , servers... and then desktops for business (Kunpeng).
Apple is doing the same but in CE and PC contexts.
Weren't you aware of all this?
I don't see here any roadmap at all. Qualcomm was simply shaken up by Apple's M1 move. It is Qualcomm trying to catch up with Apple, not opposite around The Qualcomm CEO admit it him self. He said:
"..... the company needed to produce its own silicon if its customers want to take on Apple directly....." and ".....Qualcomm new chips will provide high levels of performance and battery life, echoing the benefits of Apple's M1 range."
It is again Apple showing the way for the rest.........
Sounds like Qualcomm had pretty clear ideas about its goals and from what I can see, they haven't changed.
Something very different is the impact of those developments at the time but that isn't down to Qualcomm.
And therein lies the rub. I have no doubt there are some great engineers at Qualcomm who push the envelope in terms of what their components can do. But ultimately the average person only recognizes the final product. As someone who has worked on the small parts of a big product, it can be frustrating to see great ideas end up in a mediocre and/or poorly marketed product. But that still doesn't take away from me recognizing and appreciating the work of others in the same field.
I love the “competition always benefits the consumer” bit.
Was it competition that produced the M series chips? No, it was Apple being fed up with what they had.
Did competition produce a Mac, or the Magic Keyboard, or a decent trackpad that nobody else has managed? Has the Apple Watch created a slew of competitive smartwatches that have benefited non-Apple users - err, no.
The company's chief technology officer, Dr. James Thompson, intends for hardware samples to be shipped to device vendors in nine months, with the first devices using the chips being sold to consumers in 2023.
Never late if your competitors are making it wrong the big seven (of 2007) sucked Nokia, Blackberry, LG, HTC, Sony, Microsoft, and Palm a murderer’s row of incompetence….
At this point, it's entirely up to Apple if they want to maintain a lead or merely compete with the likes of Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm.
9 months is a long time and in theory Apple has had its M2 (or whatever - the next gen M-series chip) in the pipeline for a while now, so we should see products based on it by it then - and possibly see products based on the equivalent of an M2 Max by then as well. Plus, as Qualcomm doesn't make their own products, there will most likely be a delay between the 9 months date and the date that consumers actually have a product in hand using those CPUs.
That is the interesting thing about predictions. You're either basing your predictions on competitors' current gen stuff - which will be outdated by the time your product comes to market - or you're making assumptions about your competitors' next gen product. The problem with that is that Apple isn't like Intel. It offers no roadmap of its CPUs ahead of time. So Qualcomm is either guessing or they're setting their sites WAY too low.
Either way, seems like an interesting promise they're making.
Apple Silicon has been under development for something like 13 years - what keeps it moving forward is Apple's vision of a future product pipeline.
We'll see how much of Apple technology those Nuvia people got out the door - and there may be litigation if Apple starts see trade secrets or Apple IP in whatever comes out of Nuvia's front door.
Silicon development is just as iterative as software development - maybe more so. I'm sure there's been a lot of development and innovation happened since that group went out seeking greener pastures. Wait 'til they see what a real silicon design house is like, and all the legacy stuff they have to drag around like Marley's chains to stave off litigation from legacy customers.
Without a in house OS and a SOC to go with it hand in hand, Qualcomm got nothing that is the disruption by Apple, also Qualcomm sucks even worse than Intel as a partner good luck.
Comments
Making Windows work at top native ARM processor performance is already solved: making all ISVs and in-house applications move to ARM is an incredibly high amount of inertia to overcome, for those stated reasons and more. Microsoft being able to use Apple chips for their ARM platform by itself is not sufficient to move Enterprise over, even if Microsoft and Apple cooperated on that.
I think all you guys missed the point @sfocal was making.
Qualcomm doesn't just dump components on hardware manufacturers and leave them to it.
It provides tools and knowhow for manufacturers to squeeze the most out of its hardware if they want to.
That is what Apple is doing right now with QC modems. It is what Apple's silicon teams are doing with other teams within Apple.
Apple has management and engineers working extremely closely with Qualcomm. So do other manufacturers.
The biggest difference is that companies like Apple, Samsung and Huawei can decide which checkboxes get put onto the roadmap.
As for delivering more than what was expected. What does that have to do with anything?
It's just as true to say they delivered less than expected in many other areas (and for years). Needing to settle with Qualcomm, use their modems (bolted on) , purchase Intel's IP and scramble to build their own, is just one example.
But that is all irrevelant here. The comment I was referring too said Qualcomm was late to the party. I don't see how that can be true.
Talking about Apple draws attention to themselves.
Just look at what they were saying about the 7c platform in late 2019:
"Beautifully thin and light systems that offer multi-day battery life and LTE cellular connectivity can be available for everyone. Why haven’t traditional PCs offered that experience?
Delivering an always on, always connected superior PC experience requires innovation and invention. It needs the advanced and efficient technologies that Qualcomm Technologies has been putting in smart phones for years, brought into your PC. Snapdragon 7c compute platforms can deliver that experience; thinner, lighter, and quieter PCs with up to 20% faster system performance than competitive platforms. Additionally, Snapdragon 7c can deliver up 2x the battery life** of typical entry-level PCs. Upgrade your PC to a Snapdragon 7c and get the battery life you deserve, with the performance you need."
Sounds like that could have come from Apple, right?
Marketing is marketing of course and Apple is no different there.
But the 7c followed on from the 8cx from late 2018. Now we have the 7c 2nd Gen.
Sounds like Qualcomm had pretty clear ideas about its goals and from what I can see, they haven't changed.
Something very different is the impact of those developments at the time but that isn't down to Qualcomm.
Using this chart is a bit misleading, don't you think? This is a marketing chart used to attract investors. The bottom of those targeted stats are probably where they were at, the top is what they hope to achieve, "with enough funding".
If the A15 was on this chart it would lay smack dab in the middle of NUVIA's projected target; ~1800 @ 3.5W. And that's out now.
Let's also not forget that this design is for server applications, i.e. very expensive. I'm guessing this is going to have to be scaled way back to make it cost effective for Qualcomm to produce.
Squeezing performance out of a known component with fixed functionality is one aspect of designing a product. Coming up with an entirely new component (hardware or software) by finding a completely different perspective on how things should work (something not found on a roadmap) is another.
That's the entire point.
Back when Apple first started, the expectation of PC hobbyists/enthusiasts was that computers were modular and each component came separately. No one (at the time) was asking for all of the components together in one box. And yet they found great success in creating a product which was more than expectations (the Apple II).
After that, no one had any expectations of a computer with a GUI and a mouse, and yet they created one. While one can argue the success of the original MacIntosh, it changed the PC industry forever. There's no way anything like that would have been on anyone's roadmap (Xerox only had it in their research labs with no clue how to create a real product). It was born out of a concept and a lot of talented (as well as creative) engineers.
It's a similar story with the iPhone.
And the comment I was referring to was "moving the goalposts" in regard to giving Apple credit for anything.
I'm still trying to determine if there's a segment of the engineering population which is simply lacking the ability to recognize and appreciate creative and unique thinking. To them, everything is a foregone conclusion and/or a sum of parts. I wonder if, when they listen to music, it's simply a bunch of layered sounds? Or when they look at a painting, it's a simply bunch of brush strokes on a canvas? No recognition of the human inspiration and talent which makes those things more than just the physical manifestation of them, or why one piece of music/art is any different from others.
Was it competition that produced the M series chips? No, it was Apple being fed up with what they had.
Did competition produce a Mac, or the Magic Keyboard, or a decent trackpad that nobody else has managed? Has the Apple Watch created a slew of competitive smartwatches that have benefited non-Apple users - err, no.
You just need to make the best you can.
Without a in house OS and a SOC to go with it hand in hand, Qualcomm got nothing that is the disruption by Apple, also Qualcomm sucks even worse than Intel as a partner good luck.
And Tesla didn’t invent, wheels, cars or engines, but……I think you can follow the rest.