More evidence of Apple's iPhone eventually going Intel

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
There's some more anecdotal evidence this week to suggest that Apple Inc.'s iPhone will eventually abandon its Samsung-based roots and make the jump to Intel's freshly-coined Atom architecture.



Citing is own sources, as well as a leaked presentation slide belonging to Intel, the Inquirer is corroborating reports first published by AppleInsider last year in saying that the touch-screen handset is destine to join the ultra-mobile platform in the not too distant future.



However, and more appropriately given recent disclosures by the Intel on the first-generation of the Atom architecture, the evidence suggests the transition will not take place until the second rev of the ultra-mobile Atom platform, code-named Moorestown.



This would see the third-generation iPhone pick up Silverthorne's smaller, and more refined successor sometime in 2009, while the Silverthorne chip itself serves an initial role in Apple's tablet-like extension of the iPod touch platform, frequently referenced by AppleInsider as a reincarnation of the Newton MessagePad.



Among other things, the move will allow Apple to better solidify the codebase of its handheld devices with that of its remaining business segments, mainly its Mac computer line and fledging media hub business (Apple TV). It will also serve as a measure that will help the electronics maker form a tighter shield around its intellectual property, given that the company's disclosures and product plans will be privy to one less partner.



During Intel's Fall developer forum last year, executives for the chipmaker flaunted an unnamed Moorestown processor, describing it as the "chip the iPhone would have wanted." Like Silverthorne, the 45nm Moorestown design bundles an integrated memory controller, video encode/decode engine and graphics processor all on a single SoC, with the added option of WiFi, 3G, and WiMAX technologies.



An Intel Atom roadmap slide shown off at CeBIT | Source: The Inquirer

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Because we know someone giving a presentation, and needing some picture to indicate smart phones, would never pull out a picture of an iPhone unless it was guaranteed to be under Intel's wing soon enough.
  • Reply 2 of 40
    boogabooga Posts: 1,077member
    This isn't evidence of anything... it's just the graphic Intel chose to represent "Smart Phones". It's like saying that computer desk you buy from Sears will include an iMac because it's got a cardboard cutout of an iMac on it. Or those computer ads where the companies show a Mac but Photoshop a Windows desktop onto it.



    I'm sure Apple is considering Intel's products carefully-- they've got some great products in the pipeline. But this isn't evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
  • Reply 3 of 40
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    If it's freshly-coined as Atom, why reference Silverthorne? Makes for a confusing read.
  • Reply 4 of 40
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by crees! View Post


    If it's freshly-coined as Atom, why reference Silverthorne? Makes for a confusing read.



    Atom isn't just Silverthorne you know.



    /Adrian
  • Reply 5 of 40
    hattighattig Posts: 830member
    (1) It's the Inquirer

    (2) It's just an image they used for Smartphone, it's not making any statements



    Moorestown would still have to be a quarter of the size, 4x more integrated and use 1/4 of the power to compete with the ARMs that will be out at that time. Never mind that Apple is quite happy right now to use ARM, and it's clearly powerful enough for the current iPhone's software.
  • Reply 6 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Atom architecture.



    Are you saying this thing is NUCLEAR??
  • Reply 7 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post


    Are you saying this thing is NUCLEAR??



    No no no. It's electrical.



    It just needs a thermonuclear reaction to charge the battery to run the platform.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    If true, it is interesting to note that: (1) Intel plans to get to "Premium Smartphones" before it gets to "Smartphones;" and (2) Intel does not seem to think the iPhone is a "Premium Smartphone"!

  • Reply 9 of 40
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post


    No no no. It's electrical.



    It just needs a thermonuclear reaction to charge the batter to run the platform.



    Are you saying it's fish and chips?
  • Reply 10 of 40
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    If true, it is interesting to note that: (1) Intel plans to get to "Premium Smartphones" before it gets to "Smartphones;" and (2) Intel does not seem to think the iPhone is a "Premium Smartphone"!





    It's more like a Smartphone with a Premium.
  • Reply 11 of 40
    Call the 3G chip Eve, and I'll be happy.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    This is likely good news, as long as atom doesn't use all that power they are talking about it might. I like my phone to keep its charge.



  • Reply 13 of 40
    mrpiddlymrpiddly Posts: 406member
    Second gen iPhone should have Nvidia apx 2500. It has alot of great features that fit well into apple's multimedia focus including:





    OpenGL 2.0 ES!!!!









  • Reply 14 of 40
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThunkDifferent.com View Post


    This is likely good news, as long as atom doesn't use all that power they are talking about it might. I like my phone to keep its charge.







    Don't worry. Each Atom powered device comes with a Mr. Fusion reactor that converts household waste into energy and the backlight is now lit by flux capacitors.
  • Reply 15 of 40
    merdheadmerdhead Posts: 587member
    AppleInsdier is a joke. This is evidence? Then you go on to justify your position with points that actually argue against you.



    Firstly, its a ARM processors are available from a wide array of suppliers. Do you think Jobs would really reduce his ability to bargain, have a secondary source to meet supply requirements and get the best possible choice of technology so that he could be a little more secret? He's obsessed with secrecy, but he's not an idiot. Why would he tie himself to one supplier? With the ARM Apple don't have to accept what Intel designs, they can have their own custom chip. Which would you go for?



    Again, the codebase issue is insignificant. So they have to recompile, not a big issue, but the ARM has a big advantage in that it has Thumb code, an instruction set that allows code to be 35% smaller, saving valuable storage space.



    Then there are the real problems with the procesors Intel ships: they are physically larger. They run much hotter and are more power hungry. Apple have gone to great lengths (eg excluding 3G) to reduce size and power requirements. So now they would throw that away so they didn't need to recompile?



    The Intel chip offers pretty much nothing that ARM doesn't do better. You can get 4 core ARM chips. They are so small (3 sq mm) and cheap that you can put several in your designs. They are particularly low power and are very esy to integrate into custom chip designs.



    You seem to want to push this line with the Intel chips but it makes no sense to anyone who knows the first thing about the issues, or is even using any sort of logic. It's laughable.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    Build an Intel Atom (Silverthorne) inside each iPhone and iPod touch and you have a full Mac OS X 10.5.2 in your pocket. We need tons for our University.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post


    Quote:

    Are you saying this thing is NUCLEAR??



    No no no. It's electrical.



    It just needs a thermonuclear reaction to charge the batter[y] to run the platform.



    Flux Capacitor comes as a 3rd party accessory from Griffin Technology.



    (BttF, awesome).
  • Reply 18 of 40
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by merdhead View Post


    Firstly, its a ARM processors are available from a wide array of suppliers. Do you think Jobs would really reduce his ability to bargain, have a secondary source to meet supply requirements and get the best possible choice of technology so that he could be a little more secret? He's obsessed with secrecy, but he's not an idiot. Why would he tie himself to one supplier? With the ARM Apple don't have to accept what Intel designs, they can have their own custom chip. Which would you go for?



    Well it should be noted that Apple only has one

    processor supplier for its desktop and laptop computers,

    so this move would not be without precedent. At the

    time of the switch to Intel, I think Jobs said something

    to the effect that Intel's plans for the future aligned

    well with what Apple wanted to do. This could all

    be related to that statement.
  • Reply 19 of 40
    merdheadmerdhead Posts: 587member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Well it should be noted that Apple only has one

    processor supplier for its desktop and laptop computers,

    so this move would not be without precedent. At the

    time of the switch to Intel, I think Jobs said something

    to the effect that Intel's plans for the future aligned

    well with what Apple wanted to do. This could all

    be related to that statement.



    No, Apple can go to AMD for laptop chips. Jobs make all sorts of statements, all marketingspeak. The only interest he's aligned to is his shareholders. But if you believe the drivel dolled out by AppleInsider, I guess you'd believe anything.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by merdhead View Post


    No, Apple can go to AMD for laptop chips. Jobs make all sorts of statements, all marketingspeak. The only interest he's aligned to is his shareholders. But if you believe the drivel dolled out by AppleInsider, I guess you'd believe anything.



    Well, to be fair they're reporting on the Inquirer story, which they should really know better of than to give it more positive spin. It's The Inquirer - less reliable than Digitimes. It needs a barrel of salt, not just a pinch.
Sign In or Register to comment.