Apple buys chip designer PA Semi for $278 million

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post


    No that makes no sense whatsoever. No developer worth their salt on the Mac is developing Intel only applications. That would be insane with still half the market on PowerPC.



    PPC represents about 40% of Macs in use, and that proportion is falling fairly steadily. I think Apple is selling 2x as many Intel machines in a quarter than they ever sold PPC machines in a quarter. If an app takes processor tuning, the return on making a new app work for PPC is quite diminished.
  • Reply 82 of 90
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    For that matter, PA Semi doesn't have any products that would be useful for mobile devices like the iPhone. Or anything other current Apple products.



    Some important facts to look at around this deal.



    - PA Semi designs power efficient embedded processors



    - PA Semi engineers have expertise in ARM as well as PPC



    - The acquisition of PA Semi was spearheaded by Apple Senior Vice President Tony Fadell.



    - Tony Fadell is the head of Apple's iPod division. Its very unlikely he would have pushed for this acquisition to develop power efficient embedded processors for some other device outside of his division.
  • Reply 83 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post




    - Tony Fadell is the head of Apple's iPod division. Its very unlikely he would have pushed for this acquisition to develop power efficient embedded processors for some other device outside of his division.



    So is Tony going to give us a dualCore G5 iPod the size of a newton that nobody wants ?.

    It ticks me off that this PA Semi chip could have succeeded the PB 1.67 and progress on their specialised path. Heck, with 25watts, it could be coupled with a 8800M and kick some serious graphics benchmarks.
  • Reply 84 of 90
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nano2Gfteo View Post


    So is Tony going to give us a dualCore G5 iPod the size of a newton that nobody wants ?.



    First, a lot of the techniques applied to the PA Semi PPC chip probably can be applied to an ARM chip.



    Quote:

    It ticks me off that this PA Semi chip could have succeeded the PB 1.67 and progress on their specialised path. Heck, with 25watts, it could be coupled with a 8800M and kick some serious graphics benchmarks.



    Why would someone want a notebook that'll burn off their leg hair?
  • Reply 85 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    [...]



    Dammit! I knew Cringely would be writing this week's article about this but forget to add it to my list.
  • Reply 86 of 90
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Dammit! I knew Cringely would be writing this week's article about this but forget to add it to my list.



    His point sounds good but it has weaknesses. If Apple saves $278 million in Intel chip costs because of the "threat" of PA Semi derived procs then they really are at zero at that point. How many years would it take to save 278 million in Intel chip/chipset costs? In order for such a premise to be credible Apple would have to deliver compelling products based on PA Semi created hardware. Intel's not going to quake in their boots because of the acquisition..they would actually need to see competiting hardware being sold and sold well.



    I think Apple definitely has plans for PA Semi and I don't think they would spend over a quarter of a Billion dollars to play chicken with Intel. Hell they could have "hinted" at an AMD move and accomplished the same feat without shelling out any money.



    Apple plans to use PA Semi to deliver products tailored for their needs. I look for more forays into the mobile computing arena and consumer electronics. Intel could be a player or could not be a player depending on Apple's design goals.
  • Reply 87 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    His point sounds good but it has weaknesses. If Apple saves $278 million in Intel chip costs because of the "threat" of PA Semi derived procs then they really are at zero at that point. How many years would it take to save 278 million in Intel chip/chipset costs? In order for such a premise to be credible Apple would have to deliver compelling products based on PA Semi created hardware. Intel's not going to quake in their boots because of the acquisition..they would actually need to see competiting hardware being sold and sold well.



    I think Apple definitely has plans for PA Semi and I don't think they would spend over a quarter of a Billion dollars to play chicken with Intel. Hell they could have "hinted" at an AMD move and accomplished the same feat without shelling out any money.



    Apple plans to use PA Semi to deliver products tailored for their needs. I look for more forays into the mobile computing arena and consumer electronics. Intel could be a player or could not be a player depending on Apple's design goals.



    I used to like Cringely a long time ago. I really enjoyed his Triumph of the Nerds series. But he seems to miss some miss some really basic things.



    For instance, the paragraph below says that the Intel switch did help with switchers but that benefit is now obsolescing with virtualization. He seems to be implying that Apple could move back to PPC and still offer virtualization.
    Oh it worked out well and has helped Apple sell computers into Windows shops because of Boot Camp and the ability to run Windows as well as any desktop from Dell or HP, but this advantage is fading fast with the increasing popularity of virtualization.
    Then he makes a statement that gets me thinking about Apple's HW ecosystem from a performance side and a way of protecting IP (read: prevent OSx86 hackers):
    PUs optimized for OS X would be smaller, cheaper, and use less power than any Intel or AMD alternative simply because they could be simpler overall.
  • Reply 88 of 90
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Dammit! I knew Cringely would be writing this week's article about this but forget to add it to my list.



    Er... this guy really doesn't have a clue what the hell he's talking about. He clearly doesn't understand what virtualisation is, and as for the stuff about CPUs "optimised" for OS X, that's just pure poppycock.
  • Reply 89 of 90
    05dude05dude Posts: 1member
    Am I wrong, but don't the current generation X-Box 360, Playstation 3, etc, run PPC processors? Could Apple be planning a Mac Mini sized console to compete against the likes of the Wii, PS3 etc?
  • Reply 90 of 90
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 05dude View Post


    Am I wrong, but don't the current generation X-Box 360, Playstation 3, etc, run PPC processors?



    They do, but they are rather specialised. The X-Box has a three-core PPC CPU called Xenon that runs at a high clock rate (3.2 GHz), and the Playstation 3 uses the Cell, which has a "simple" PPC-like core, with seven co-processing cores which are optimised for multi-media tasks and have their own instruction set.



    The PA-semi chip is more general-purpose than either the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 chips.



    I think it's best to take Apple on their word and assume that PA-semi's current chip will never be used in any Apple product. PA-semi was bought for its engineers and that's it.
Sign In or Register to comment.