Great, just what we need: a more proprietary Apple.
This would not be any more proprietary than the Alt Vec approach of old. There the ISA was completely open for the programmers to exploit as they saw fit. In any event if Apple does implement such a facility in a manner that lets it operate across all the processor architectures that it currently uses that will lead to a greater adoption of code executable on this common platform.
Quote:
Hooray, let's cheer for giving users LESS choice!
-Clive
Clive it is not less but more choice. The user would then have the ability to execute code on the processor supplied on the platform or on Apple supplied and designed vector processors. This is clearly an example of Apple giving the user more choice one of which is substantial performance.
Depending on just what is implemented it may give the user the choice of getting work done on a desktop that currently just can't be done. That certainly isn't less and is less proprietary than having to develop your code to run on some odd Beowolf cluster that may be a one off cluster implementation.
Of course I just compared an imaginary Apple to real world tools. It is a valid comparison though if the speculation in this thread is focused correctly. The trick in modern computing is finding ways to boost the performance of your computational platform without blowing your power budget. Currently there is a whole class of problems that simply can't be executed well on modern CPU's but have potential on vector processors especially if the number of threads goes up significantly.
And just how does this make them "more proprietary"? If running on a machine not blessed with wonderous new hardware it just doesn't run as fast. The whole point behind OpenCL (the little we know of it) is to provide an open standard way to program all these various kinds of processors (CPUs, CPUs w/ SIMD, GPUs, and stuff like we're speculating about). Developers write code, code takes advantage of whatever it is you happen to have bought.
With this kind of tech in place I could actually see that Apple might license the OS because now there really is a compelling reason to buy their hardware... its 10x faster!
PS: And do you really want Apple to stop innovating just to avoid being proprietary? I'd rather them push forward to the future, thank you very much.
1) I have a feeling that releasing an OS optimized for a different chipset would be the worst upsell ever. People will try OS X on their PC, watch it be slow and kernel panic a few times, blame Apple, and then boot back into Windows.
2) I disagree that the only way to innovate is to move into all proprietary formats. In fact, I feel unification and interoperability are some of the best ways to innovate.
Besides, I wouldn't exactly call achieving a speed boost (even a large one) an "innovation" ... but perhaps an iteration.
giving this rumor a spin, you need to check into Intels Northbridge and Southbridge used in Apples iMacs as well as Apples Notebooks. There is a lot of overhead and legacy in these two chips that Apple is not using at all, but it costs a lot in power consumption and pincount/space.
My guess:
Apple is going for a custom single chip North+Southbridge. This chip is the memory hub and includes PCIe, SATA, LAN, USB etc. The graphics is not integrated, but can be selected from various vendors (like ATI, nVidia etc.) and is connected via 16x PCIe. This solution makes system design very flexible and offroad from Intels roadmap.
giving this rumor a spin, you need to check into Intels Northbridge and Southbridge used in Apples iMacs as well as Apples Notebooks. There is a lot of overhead and legacy in these two chips that Apple is not using at all, but it costs a lot in power consumption and pincount/space.
My guess:
Apple is going for a custom single chip North+Southbridge. This chip is the memory hub and includes PCIe, SATA, LAN, USB etc. The graphics is not integrated, but can be selected from various vendors (like ATI, nVidia etc.) and is connected via 16x PCIe. This solution makes system design very flexible and offroad from Intels roadmap.
Think about it and you will see the benefits!
I really doubt Apple is going to replace Intel's northbridge and southbridge. If they try, they'll always be a generation behind technologically, and they'll never be able to beat Intel's volume price.
I'm sorry if this has been covered, I can't get through all the posts. The stupid, it burns!!
I shouldn't say that, there are a lot of questions from people who just don't know a lot about computer hardware.
Since a lot of people didn't use the Google..
Chipset:
A set of chips. "Chipset" is generally used to describe the chip(s), other than the CPU, that control the computer. In Intel's case, chipset generally refers to the Northbridge and Southbridge.
"Chipset" can also be used to refer to the whole package. The "Centrino" chipset is the CPU and the other chips on the motherboard. Centrino is often confused with the CPU alone.
When this article refers to a chipset, it appears they mean moving from something like the Intel PM45 to VIA PT880. [that's a bad comparison btw.. intel laptop to VIA Desktop set but you get the idea]
A CPU is not a chipset. A chipset is usually everything but the CPU (but it can mean everything together)
Code:
The CPU architecture is i386. Current i386 code [OS X Intel code] will run on any i386 system regardless of the chipset or processor [give the appropriate OS support of course]. If it didn't, the machine wouldn't be real i386.
The only difference in changing chipsets would be the software drivers used to control the new hardware (the new chipset).
Heat/Power:
The Intel chipsets do use a lot of power [relative] but that has a lot to do with the CPU architecture. Unlike an AMD chip, the Intel chip doesn't have a memory controller on the CPU. This means it needs a more traditional northbridge/southbridge chipset. The northbridge in the AMD chipset is mostly on the CPU so that functionality [transistors] isn't needed in the AMD chipsets.
The Catch is.. AMD CPUs run hotter even though their CHIPSETS don't run as hot.
Overall, Intel and AMD systems often are fairly similar in overall power usage (I believe Intel still has the advantage everywhere but the Server space where Intel uses power-hungry FB-DIMM memory)
Why Apple won't leave Intel:
Preface.. this is the dumbest rumor I've heard in ages.
Apple won't leave Intel because Intel delivers a whole package. This lowers R&D.
Intel has also been very amenable to Apple, giving them tweaked solutions and access to parts before other vendors.
Why would you part out your machines when you can do one-stop shopping with a vendor who is willing to give you exclusive early access to parts (like the 3 MHz Xeon duals, or the new CPU package for the MacBook Air).
Further, to the hobbyist, a Nvidia or VIA chipset might be superior because the platform is open to tweaking [overclocking] but ask anyone who actually works in IT and they'll most likely tell you that all-Intel systems are more stable and more reliable. Intel is 'yesterday's-Apple' when it comes to i386. The design everything to work together.
Apple has zero interest in releasing a product that is more flexible for end users. Apple defines the product parameters and then designs that product. Allowing fan-boys to futz with their Mac firmware settings is a guarantee of more support costs and more hurt-feelings when Johnny burns up his CPU (I've seen AMD cpus burn completely off the substrate of the cpu package).
Finally, there are two ways to read this rumor:
1) Apple moves to another vendor for system controllers (chipset). In this scenero, Apple trades one common part for another common part. How, exactly, does this differentiate Apple from their competition who use the same commodity parts?
2) Apple designs or modifies the design of an existing Chipset design. Why? Apple isn't going to significantly re-engineer a system to any advantage vs. what's already available or on the horizon. Faster memory? .. coming. Other protocols, like newer I/O specs? .. put an ancillary chip on the board. If Apple did take this step, with little or no pay-off, the R&D costs would be enormous.
Realistically, the only change I could see Apple doing would be some modification to TPM in order to lock OS X to Apple hardware. Of course, that would eventually get broken. You can't give out the black box and expect that no one will figure out how to get it open.
I'm clueless in the area of chips and chip pricing, but would a chip designed by the P.A. Semi people actually decrease gross margins from 34% to 31% over the next 18 months?
I don't think Apple is going more proprietary, just radically forward. Like when Dell/HP decided to drop legacy ports (whoa, that's like 2000 thinking!).
AMD's Fusion chip is ready and rolls out in August. It's a 4 core design that has 2 CPU's, a dedicated GPU and a 4th chip just for north/south bridge controls all operating in an async mode. Not sure what the final specs are but 2.66/3.06 were the target figures rolling on a 1333 bus. Video was an ATI HD model with scalable memory. Pretty neat if I understood it correctly. Also had hardware based protected memory environment and MOST importantly the like Intel's Speedstep this cpu can scale back by 3's and shut off one cpu entirely when not needed.
It's TDW was just over 22w if I remember. There's more info floating around but AMD has been very quiet about it until recently.
PA Semi's PowerPC can run x86 code if I remember correctly but I think Apple bought them primarily for their R&D/Brains/License rights. Still I wouldn't count out a PPC base return as Apple stated at the developers convention years ago, UNIVERSAL is what we want you to write and Xcode is what we want you to use. So Xcode would basically make it universal if compiled correctly.
The margin reduction is due partly to higher cost to produce the new products and partly because of a price reduction coming forth with the revision to stay competitive. More than 65% of the PC craptop market is below $700 right now.
One last thing, the top and bottom of that AL case are not the same size so I'm presuming the battery/HD bay are making up the bulk of the missing piece?
To keep on the x86/x64 thinking route AMD would be the viable choice in the matter as the OS would and DOES run on AMD based CPU's... Fusion also has SSE5 built in too.
I really doubt Apple is going to replace Intel's northbridge and southbridge. If they try, they'll always be a generation behind technologically, and they'll never be able to beat Intel's volume price.
With Intels Quick Path on its way for Nehalem and Tukwila there is no technology you gain from choosing Intels chipsets. Just use the "standard" FSB with a memory hub for today.
Apple can get volume by using the same chip in its notebooks and iMacs, so price is getting competitive. Especialy if you take out all the legacy and overhead in Intels chipsets and make it a single chip. Also think power here. For example the chipset in netbooks powered by Intels Atom CPU uses more power than the CPU. So choosing a diffrent chipset reduces power consumption and increase battery life. Following Intels chipset roadmap doesnt give you anything. And this is the same with chipsets from other vendors if you follow the north and southbridge architecture; especialy if you have to put in all the flexibility the PC manufacturers want to differentiate.
But the big advantage is in the graphics. All PC manufacturers have the same low cost Intel integrated graphics, while Apple can offer better and more flexible graphics from ATI or nVidia even in the MacBooks or entry level iMacs. No need to wait for another version of Intel chipsets here.
If true, Apple would still be using the Intel processor. Apple would only be tinkering with the chip set, which most likely will improve on Intel's designs. That makes sense to me as Apple has quite a bit of processor design experience. I doubt Apple's design would be slower then the competition, or there wouldn't be any reason to go that route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
Is anyone else rolling their eyes and saying "here we go again?" Apple tried going their own way for years, and mostly what they got out of it was being slower than the competition and having serious supply constraints. If this article is true, I wouldn't want to be long on Apple.
With Intels Quick Path on its way for Nehalem and Tukwila there is no technology you gain from choosing Intels chipsets. Just use the "standard" FSB with a memory hub for today.
Apple can get volume by using the same chip in its notebooks and iMacs, so price is getting competitive. Especialy if you take out all the legacy and overhead in Intels chipsets and make it a single chip. Also think power here. For example the chipset in netbooks powered by Intels Atom CPU uses more power than the CPU. So choosing a diffrent chipset reduces power consumption and increase battery life. Following Intels chipset roadmap doesnt give you anything. And this is the same with chipsets from other vendors if you follow the north and southbridge architecture; especialy if you have to put in all the flexibility the PC manufacturers want to differentiate.
But the big advantage is in the graphics. All PC manufacturers have the same low cost Intel integrated graphics, while Apple can offer better and more flexible graphics from ATI or nVidia even in the MacBooks or entry level iMacs. No need to wait for another version of Intel chipsets here.
Nail+Hammer=Squish. Agreed. They have used the same notebook class CPU in the iMac/Macbook/Mini line to get volume pricing.
Nehalam is a whole nutter beast! QuickPath has the capabilites to change the landscape quick and the fact we'll get 8 Cores PER CPU by 2009.... What do you call the Mac Pro at that point? Hence Snow Leopard to take advantage of this multi core processing. PLUS Intels Mobil gets 4 cores by Q4 2008.
My money is on a slimmed down chipset OR AMD Fusion. And I'm only putting it on Fusion for the cost factor alone. Fusions integrated graphics and controller for both Memory and I/O using 2/3rds the power of JUST the Intel CPU really has it's advantages in a laptop form factor. Lower heat, better graphics, faster refresh cycles of hardware (1 logic board design can be used longer with an SoC) and high clock speeds. Intel's SoC is lagging behind AMD. But AMD saw the future and they created their own market. 2 years in the making, it better be good. From a power standpoint it should use 1/2 the total power required alowing the MacBook Air to match the others with 5+ hours of up time while enhancing graphics capabilities and wireless monitor extension (oops).
Now I forgot to second that $999 MacPro Mini that was mentioned before. So I'm gonna do it now. Gimmie the same kit, but swap out the 2.5" for a 3.5" and up the integrated graphics... Or just gimme a 3.5" with an AMD Fusion chip.
I don't think Apple is going more proprietary, just radically forward. Like when Dell/HP decided to drop legacy ports (whoa, that's like 2000 thinking!).
AMD's Fusion chip is ready and rolls out in August. It's a 4 core design that has 2 CPU's, a dedicated GPU and a 4th chip just for north/south bridge controls all operating in an async mode. Not sure what the final specs are but 2.66/3.06 were the target figures rolling on a 1333 bus. Video was an ATI HD model with scalable memory. Pretty neat if I understood it correctly. Also had hardware based protected memory environment and MOST importantly the like Intel's Speedstep this cpu can scale back by 3's and shut off one cpu entirely when not needed.
It's TDW was just over 22w if I remember. There's more info floating around but AMD has been very quiet about it until recently.
PA Semi's PowerPC can run x86 code if I remember correctly but I think Apple bought them primarily for their R&D/Brains/License rights. Still I wouldn't count out a PPC base return as Apple stated at the developers convention years ago, UNIVERSAL is what we want you to write and Xcode is what we want you to use. So Xcode would basically make it universal if compiled correctly.
The margin reduction is due partly to higher cost to produce the new products and partly because of a price reduction coming forth with the revision to stay competitive. More than 65% of the PC craptop market is below $700 right now.
One last thing, the top and bottom of that AL case are not the same size so I'm presuming the battery/HD bay are making up the bulk of the missing piece?
To keep on the x86/x64 thinking route AMD would be the viable choice in the matter as the OS would and DOES run on AMD based CPU's... Fusion also has SSE5 built in too.
Wow, please tell us how you did this. Parallels and VMWare always stated they're for Intel Macs only.
Duh, he ran a Windows MacOSX emulator in VirtualPC and in the Windows MacOSX emulator he ran Parallels, which ran WindowsXP.
People are sooo stooopid.
And just like the old rumors about "PC emulators that run 5x faster than a PC on a PPC", he was able to run the emulator of the emulator and nest them such that his PPC ended up emulating a PC which emulated an intel Mac which emulated a PC which increased over all performance by 3^3, or 27x faster !!!
When the comments come so fast and furiously and the opionions are so extreme I'm always a bit distraught until I have summarized the situation. Usually I just do this for myself, but I have some time this afternoon, so I'll post.
1. Many posts have raised unnecessary fears about switching from Intel processors. Apple is not abandoning Intel. Moreover, Apple is fully aware that the option to run Windows has been an important selling point for many switchers; they're not going to do anything to undermine this.
\t
2. The concept of a chip set is not very clearly defined. In terms of its broadest meaning it's just the complete set of chips inside the computer. AI's post leaves it wide open about exactly what's being suggested. Apple is not going to use the standard Montevina chip set - that in itself shouldn't be very surprising because Apple has already made use of slightly customized versions of many Intel products. Of course, the gist of the rumor is that something more significant is going on, but as stated the rumor does not claim that Apple is rejecting all elements of Montevina. It's consistent with the rumor that Apple is merely adding some unique element(s).
3. Contrary to some suggestions, Apple has a long history of chip design. The idea that Intel (or AMD or anyone else) has a level of expertise about chip design that Apple can't match is a mistake. Intel definitely has fabrication expertise that Apple can't match, and they have CPU expertise that Apple probably shouldn't compete with, but designing speciality chips is an art form in which it is still possible for small teams of talented individuals to surpass the behemoths of the industry.
4. Given Apple's unique position as a maker of both hardware and software it makes excellent sense for them to distance themselves from the competition with unique chips. This is exactly what Dell, HP, and others cannot do alone. It would be disappointing if Apple did not take advantage of this avenue for progress. The switch to Intel is over, and it's been an overwhelming success, so it's time to push ahead.
\t
5. It seems early for the purchase of PA Semi to bear fruit, but Apple and PA Semi have had a relationship since before the Intel switch. PA Semi was a candidate to produce the Power Book processors that IBM could not. (See this link:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/) Presumably Apple would not want to adopt those processors at this date, but it's not impossible that PA Semi was already working on other technologies when Apple bought them. Of course, PA Semi may not have anything to do with this rumor.
6. With the iPod and the iPhone Apple has shown tremendous competence in assembling specialty chips from different vendors to create outstanding products (with high margins!). If there are features that Apple wants that Intel isn't providing Apple knows where to buy them, and how to assemble them.
7. This is an exciting rumor because it invites us to speculate about the new features that Apple would/could build into the Mac lineup. Some of the features may be particular to the portable lines, but others may be universal, or reserved for the Pro lines. At any rate, here's the good stuff, a list of the various roles for a new chip set. For the most part these are not mutually exclusive. My money is on points d and i.
\ta. Power/heat reduction. To my mind this is actually one of the least likely motivations for a change. Unless you were to replace the Intel CPU itself, it seems unlikely that you could significantly reduce the overall power consumption of the chip set. Furthermore, Intel is not doing so poorly on these fronts that the portable lines are suffering in any particular way. Lastly, it's unclear that even getting 20% greater battery life (an unlikely prospect at best) would be a huge selling point. That said, it may be that marginal power savings are one added bonus of various changes.
\tb. A new GPU for laptops, iMac and Mini. Intel's integrated graphics processing has been underwhelming so it's not impossible that Apple would look to replace this with something better. If there's something out there they can buy for a reasonable price, they might well do this, especially if it's one element of a broader change. However, technology in this area changes rapidly and it seems unlikely that Apple would want to take responsibility for this element of their machines. So a proprietary GPU seems unlikely. But see points d and i below.
\tc. Some form of media coprocessor. Especially something that will do H.264 encoding/decoding. Since this is supposed to be a part of Montevina already, this would be an odd addition, unless Apple has something truly outstanding to show off, which isn't impossible. But see the next point.
\td. A proprietary vector processing unit like Altivec. This is probably the most exciting and the most plausible of all the suggestions. Such a unit could contribute to graphics performance and media processing but would be available to accelerate a host of other operations as well. This would appear to make excellent sense given what is known about Snow Leopard, and it might be just the ticket for ennabling Apple's "Core" technologies to shine. All kinds of developers, especially in the sciences, would be enthusiastic to use this processor - as I recall PPC had advantages over x86 for certain scientific applications, and I think Altivec was the main reason. It's not unreasonable to imagine that this could give the Xserve a significant boost in value in certain markets. Finally, assuming Apple's own developers take advantage of this processor, this could also be an enormous advantage for all of the pro apps. Who knows, it might even give Apple the impetus to introduce a Photoshop killer.
\te. Some kind of built in solid state memory. Storing some portion of the operating system in this way might increase start times, and offer other small advantages. Perhaps I don't understand this well, but I don't see what's supposed to be so exciting about this option. Yes, solid state drives in some laptops make sense and are inevitable, but it's not a very sexy change.
\tf. Built in 3G access and/or GPS. Apple now has expertise with these features. Why not add them to Macbook Pros? In fact, though I can see the advantages, I don't think this is very likely. 3G access would require a contract with a phone company and there hasn't been any rumors of Apple discussing such deals. Moreover, most 3G networks are probably not ready to invite the sort of traffic laptops generate. Which is the same reason that I don't think we'll see anything like an iphone port that allows you to use 3G on the iphone as a modem. GPS strikes me as more likely item than 3G, but I imagine that few people who travel with a laptop don't also have a phone, and GPS really makes most sense on the phone.
\tg. A special chip for interpreting multi touch gestures. Obviously there's got to be some kind of controller for the touch pad, but that's true even for the current generation, so it's unclear that a controller chip for multitouch would merit much notice. Still, Apple could surprise with something really astonishing. It's interesting to wonder how much use Apple will make of multitouch. Moreover, rumors are suggesting that the touch pad is glass, is it possible there's going to be a small touch screen monitor under the glass? What would one display on such a monitor? Would it be useful, or distracting?
\th. A voice input chip. One poster suggested that Apple might add this. It might be cool, but it seems to me that emphasis on voice input is not in the immediate future.
\ti. Support for high resolution monitors to take advantage of Resolution Independence (RI). No one else in the thread has mentioned this, but it's got to be considered among the chief possibilities. Apple has been working on RI for a couple years and encouraging developers to be prepared. RI is a technology that should put the Mac in front of the competition for a couple of years. And it will be a powerful selling point because high resolution monitors create an immediate visible difference in the computing experience. Imagine a monitor with the crisp readability of an iphone. People don't talk much about RI, but it's coming, and it's going to be awesome. Of course, high resolution monitors won't come cheap, so this is likely to be a technology that will distinguish the Macbook Pro from the Macbook. It will also be technology that will usher in the Xmac because it will be too expensive to put into an iMac, and too nice to hook up to a Mini. I'm uncertain exactly what kind of chip(s) will be required, but it's my understanding that to take advantage of high resolution monitors at least some elements of the GPU have to be tweaked along with a new display interconnect/port.
\tj. Some form of hardware authentication. It's not clear that this is either necessary or useful. Hackers would eventually find a way around it, and it would be an expense and an effort of little obvious value. However, if Apple actually adds specialty hardware, they immediately put the clone makers out of buisness.
8. Some people seem convinced that new Macbooks are going to drop in price and account for the decrease in margin that Apple is projecting. I think this is wrong. It's much more likely that the product transition they're talking about involves the iPod Touch. I would expect the new laptops to come in at nearly identical prices to the current lineup.
So this is my summary. To repeat, I think an Altivec-style coprocessor and/or the resources for Resolution Independence would be both the most likely and the coolest features. Feel free to suggest additions or corrections.
If Apple wanted a different chipset then they could work with Intel to provide that. Intel would be happy to make any custom chips and integrate them into Intel boards. This has been signaled over and over. So the access to early parts is not just the end of the collaboration road, Intel could and would make special chips of Apple design and help integrate them into Intel boards that would be Apple only.
WAG What if there were a way to design a Velocity engine that had several different specialized cores in it. One for H264, another for gaming physics, another for HDTV bluray, another for DNA sequencing stuff. In sort a few cores that are very fast at what they do and add great value to Apple machines. Also let's say that in the near future Intel adds a special core to the CPU to do everything h264, Apple could then keep their solution and just shut off the usage of the Apple special core in the software. So the solution would add something now and not necessarily mean that Apple is locked into using only their hardware solutions in the future. The NeXT machines had a special A/D||D/A chip in them.
-Edited in- There maybe should be special cores in that some things can be processed in parallel and MMX (and the like) can help there. The problem is with the problems that don't lend themselves to parallel processing. So if you have to do one thing to completion before you can do the next thing, like most of DNA sequencing, the only real solution is to be able to do the whole calculation very fast. This is where special hardware comes into play, where the sequence is hardwired with little or no need for algorithms, just stream in the data and processed data is written out.
I believe that others could add to this and clarify as needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commander_scampers
-SNIP-
Why Apple won't leave Intel:
Preface.. this is the dumbest rumor I've heard in ages.
Apple won't leave Intel because Intel delivers a whole package. This lowers R&D.
Intel has also been very amenable to Apple, giving them tweaked solutions and access to parts before other vendors.
Why would you part out your machines when you can do one-stop shopping with a vendor who is willing to give you exclusive early access to parts (like the 3 MHz Xeon duals, or the new CPU package for the MacBook Air).
-SNIP-
Finally, there are two ways to read this rumor:
1) Apple moves to another vendor for system controllers (chipset). In this scenero, Apple trades one common part for another common part. How, exactly, does this differentiate Apple from their competition who use the same commodity parts?
2) Apple designs or modifies the design of an existing Chipset design. Why? Apple isn't going to significantly re-engineer a system to any advantage vs. what's already available or on the horizon. Faster memory? .. coming. Other protocols, like newer I/O specs? .. put an ancillary chip on the board. If Apple did take this step, with little or no pay-off, the R&D costs would be enormous.
Realistically, the only change I could see Apple doing would be some modification to TPM in order to lock OS X to Apple hardware. Of course, that would eventually get broken. You can't give out the black box and expect that no one will figure out how to get it open.
What a dumb article. The article said absolutely nothing but bogus speculation, and then posted fake pictures of a fake laptop.
And of course 150+ comments of continued speculation of something that doesn't even exist, with no substantial evidence to support any comment. Lemmings anyone?
What a dumb article. The article said absolutely nothing but bogus speculation, and then posted fake pictures of a fake laptop.
And of course 150+ comments of continued speculation of something that doesn't even exist, with no substantial evidence to support any comment. Lemmings anyone?
Yeah, crazy that people would go to an Apple website that reports rumors and discuss rumors.
Like Many said. If Apple were to make a special chipset then it would properly be a single chipset.
There would be no Floppy port, no parallel port, no IDE Port, no Serial Port, or PCI lane.
Simply just PCI- Express , SATA, USB, Firewire, FSB.
It would be legacy free, but it wouldn't save much cost. Since the die area used by those are pretty small.
It would use less pin, i guess they could have less PCI Express lane then industry standard. So they save cost with less pin again and therefore less layer for Motherbroad.
Using PowerVR for their Graphics means that have very low power consumption. While enough power for all the OSX needs. And Hardware video acceleration engine.
Even though it is using only 1 chipset instead of 2 from Intel, with the volume of Macbook and iMac it will still be quite expensive to produce. It definitely wouldn't be cheaper then Intel.
But with special hardware apple could lock down its platform again.
Comments
Great, just what we need: a more proprietary Apple.
This would not be any more proprietary than the Alt Vec approach of old. There the ISA was completely open for the programmers to exploit as they saw fit. In any event if Apple does implement such a facility in a manner that lets it operate across all the processor architectures that it currently uses that will lead to a greater adoption of code executable on this common platform.
Hooray, let's cheer for giving users LESS choice!
-Clive
Clive it is not less but more choice. The user would then have the ability to execute code on the processor supplied on the platform or on Apple supplied and designed vector processors. This is clearly an example of Apple giving the user more choice one of which is substantial performance.
Depending on just what is implemented it may give the user the choice of getting work done on a desktop that currently just can't be done. That certainly isn't less and is less proprietary than having to develop your code to run on some odd Beowolf cluster that may be a one off cluster implementation.
Of course I just compared an imaginary Apple to real world tools. It is a valid comparison though if the speculation in this thread is focused correctly. The trick in modern computing is finding ways to boost the performance of your computational platform without blowing your power budget. Currently there is a whole class of problems that simply can't be executed well on modern CPU's but have potential on vector processors especially if the number of threads goes up significantly.
DAVE
And just how does this make them "more proprietary"? If running on a machine not blessed with wonderous new hardware it just doesn't run as fast. The whole point behind OpenCL (the little we know of it) is to provide an open standard way to program all these various kinds of processors (CPUs, CPUs w/ SIMD, GPUs, and stuff like we're speculating about). Developers write code, code takes advantage of whatever it is you happen to have bought.
With this kind of tech in place I could actually see that Apple might license the OS because now there really is a compelling reason to buy their hardware... its 10x faster!
PS: And do you really want Apple to stop innovating just to avoid being proprietary? I'd rather them push forward to the future, thank you very much.
1) I have a feeling that releasing an OS optimized for a different chipset would be the worst upsell ever. People will try OS X on their PC, watch it be slow and kernel panic a few times, blame Apple, and then boot back into Windows.
2) I disagree that the only way to innovate is to move into all proprietary formats. In fact, I feel unification and interoperability are some of the best ways to innovate.
Besides, I wouldn't exactly call achieving a speed boost (even a large one) an "innovation" ... but perhaps an iteration.
-Clive
My guess:
Apple is going for a custom single chip North+Southbridge. This chip is the memory hub and includes PCIe, SATA, LAN, USB etc. The graphics is not integrated, but can be selected from various vendors (like ATI, nVidia etc.) and is connected via 16x PCIe. This solution makes system design very flexible and offroad from Intels roadmap.
Think about it and you will see the benefits!
giving this rumor a spin, you need to check into Intels Northbridge and Southbridge used in Apples iMacs as well as Apples Notebooks. There is a lot of overhead and legacy in these two chips that Apple is not using at all, but it costs a lot in power consumption and pincount/space.
My guess:
Apple is going for a custom single chip North+Southbridge. This chip is the memory hub and includes PCIe, SATA, LAN, USB etc. The graphics is not integrated, but can be selected from various vendors (like ATI, nVidia etc.) and is connected via 16x PCIe. This solution makes system design very flexible and offroad from Intels roadmap.
Think about it and you will see the benefits!
I really doubt Apple is going to replace Intel's northbridge and southbridge. If they try, they'll always be a generation behind technologically, and they'll never be able to beat Intel's volume price.
I shouldn't say that, there are a lot of questions from people who just don't know a lot about computer hardware.
Since a lot of people didn't use the Google..
Chipset:
A set of chips. "Chipset" is generally used to describe the chip(s), other than the CPU, that control the computer. In Intel's case, chipset generally refers to the Northbridge and Southbridge.
"Chipset" can also be used to refer to the whole package. The "Centrino" chipset is the CPU and the other chips on the motherboard. Centrino is often confused with the CPU alone.
When this article refers to a chipset, it appears they mean moving from something like the Intel PM45 to VIA PT880. [that's a bad comparison btw.. intel laptop to VIA Desktop set but you get the idea]
A CPU is not a chipset. A chipset is usually everything but the CPU (but it can mean everything together)
Code:
The CPU architecture is i386. Current i386 code [OS X Intel code] will run on any i386 system regardless of the chipset or processor [give the appropriate OS support of course]. If it didn't, the machine wouldn't be real i386.
The only difference in changing chipsets would be the software drivers used to control the new hardware (the new chipset).
Heat/Power:
The Intel chipsets do use a lot of power [relative] but that has a lot to do with the CPU architecture. Unlike an AMD chip, the Intel chip doesn't have a memory controller on the CPU. This means it needs a more traditional northbridge/southbridge chipset. The northbridge in the AMD chipset is mostly on the CPU so that functionality [transistors] isn't needed in the AMD chipsets.
The Catch is.. AMD CPUs run hotter even though their CHIPSETS don't run as hot.
Overall, Intel and AMD systems often are fairly similar in overall power usage (I believe Intel still has the advantage everywhere but the Server space where Intel uses power-hungry FB-DIMM memory)
Why Apple won't leave Intel:
Preface.. this is the dumbest rumor I've heard in ages.
Apple won't leave Intel because Intel delivers a whole package. This lowers R&D.
Intel has also been very amenable to Apple, giving them tweaked solutions and access to parts before other vendors.
Why would you part out your machines when you can do one-stop shopping with a vendor who is willing to give you exclusive early access to parts (like the 3 MHz Xeon duals, or the new CPU package for the MacBook Air).
Further, to the hobbyist, a Nvidia or VIA chipset might be superior because the platform is open to tweaking [overclocking] but ask anyone who actually works in IT and they'll most likely tell you that all-Intel systems are more stable and more reliable. Intel is 'yesterday's-Apple' when it comes to i386. The design everything to work together.
Apple has zero interest in releasing a product that is more flexible for end users. Apple defines the product parameters and then designs that product. Allowing fan-boys to futz with their Mac firmware settings is a guarantee of more support costs and more hurt-feelings when Johnny burns up his CPU (I've seen AMD cpus burn completely off the substrate of the cpu package).
Finally, there are two ways to read this rumor:
1) Apple moves to another vendor for system controllers (chipset). In this scenero, Apple trades one common part for another common part. How, exactly, does this differentiate Apple from their competition who use the same commodity parts?
2) Apple designs or modifies the design of an existing Chipset design. Why? Apple isn't going to significantly re-engineer a system to any advantage vs. what's already available or on the horizon. Faster memory? .. coming. Other protocols, like newer I/O specs? .. put an ancillary chip on the board. If Apple did take this step, with little or no pay-off, the R&D costs would be enormous.
Realistically, the only change I could see Apple doing would be some modification to TPM in order to lock OS X to Apple hardware. Of course, that would eventually get broken. You can't give out the black box and expect that no one will figure out how to get it open.
However, TPM isn't a chipset.
Mr. Scamp
AMD's Fusion chip is ready and rolls out in August. It's a 4 core design that has 2 CPU's, a dedicated GPU and a 4th chip just for north/south bridge controls all operating in an async mode. Not sure what the final specs are but 2.66/3.06 were the target figures rolling on a 1333 bus. Video was an ATI HD model with scalable memory. Pretty neat if I understood it correctly. Also had hardware based protected memory environment and MOST importantly the like Intel's Speedstep this cpu can scale back by 3's and shut off one cpu entirely when not needed.
It's TDW was just over 22w if I remember. There's more info floating around but AMD has been very quiet about it until recently.
PA Semi's PowerPC can run x86 code if I remember correctly but I think Apple bought them primarily for their R&D/Brains/License rights. Still I wouldn't count out a PPC base return as Apple stated at the developers convention years ago, UNIVERSAL is what we want you to write and Xcode is what we want you to use. So Xcode would basically make it universal if compiled correctly.
The margin reduction is due partly to higher cost to produce the new products and partly because of a price reduction coming forth with the revision to stay competitive. More than 65% of the PC craptop market is below $700 right now.
One last thing, the top and bottom of that AL case are not the same size so I'm presuming the battery/HD bay are making up the bulk of the missing piece?
To keep on the x86/x64 thinking route AMD would be the viable choice in the matter as the OS would and DOES run on AMD based CPU's... Fusion also has SSE5 built in too.
I really doubt Apple is going to replace Intel's northbridge and southbridge. If they try, they'll always be a generation behind technologically, and they'll never be able to beat Intel's volume price.
With Intels Quick Path on its way for Nehalem and Tukwila there is no technology you gain from choosing Intels chipsets. Just use the "standard" FSB with a memory hub for today.
Apple can get volume by using the same chip in its notebooks and iMacs, so price is getting competitive. Especialy if you take out all the legacy and overhead in Intels chipsets and make it a single chip. Also think power here. For example the chipset in netbooks powered by Intels Atom CPU uses more power than the CPU. So choosing a diffrent chipset reduces power consumption and increase battery life. Following Intels chipset roadmap doesnt give you anything. And this is the same with chipsets from other vendors if you follow the north and southbridge architecture; especialy if you have to put in all the flexibility the PC manufacturers want to differentiate.
But the big advantage is in the graphics. All PC manufacturers have the same low cost Intel integrated graphics, while Apple can offer better and more flexible graphics from ATI or nVidia even in the MacBooks or entry level iMacs. No need to wait for another version of Intel chipsets here.
Is anyone else rolling their eyes and saying "here we go again?" Apple tried going their own way for years, and mostly what they got out of it was being slower than the competition and having serious supply constraints. If this article is true, I wouldn't want to be long on Apple.
With Intels Quick Path on its way for Nehalem and Tukwila there is no technology you gain from choosing Intels chipsets. Just use the "standard" FSB with a memory hub for today.
Apple can get volume by using the same chip in its notebooks and iMacs, so price is getting competitive. Especialy if you take out all the legacy and overhead in Intels chipsets and make it a single chip. Also think power here. For example the chipset in netbooks powered by Intels Atom CPU uses more power than the CPU. So choosing a diffrent chipset reduces power consumption and increase battery life. Following Intels chipset roadmap doesnt give you anything. And this is the same with chipsets from other vendors if you follow the north and southbridge architecture; especialy if you have to put in all the flexibility the PC manufacturers want to differentiate.
But the big advantage is in the graphics. All PC manufacturers have the same low cost Intel integrated graphics, while Apple can offer better and more flexible graphics from ATI or nVidia even in the MacBooks or entry level iMacs. No need to wait for another version of Intel chipsets here.
Nail+Hammer=Squish. Agreed. They have used the same notebook class CPU in the iMac/Macbook/Mini line to get volume pricing.
Nehalam is a whole nutter beast! QuickPath has the capabilites to change the landscape quick and the fact we'll get 8 Cores PER CPU by 2009.... What do you call the Mac Pro at that point? Hence Snow Leopard to take advantage of this multi core processing. PLUS Intels Mobil gets 4 cores by Q4 2008.
My money is on a slimmed down chipset OR AMD Fusion. And I'm only putting it on Fusion for the cost factor alone. Fusions integrated graphics and controller for both Memory and I/O using 2/3rds the power of JUST the Intel CPU really has it's advantages in a laptop form factor. Lower heat, better graphics, faster refresh cycles of hardware (1 logic board design can be used longer with an SoC) and high clock speeds. Intel's SoC is lagging behind AMD. But AMD saw the future and they created their own market. 2 years in the making, it better be good. From a power standpoint it should use 1/2 the total power required alowing the MacBook Air to match the others with 5+ hours of up time while enhancing graphics capabilities and wireless monitor extension (oops).
Now I forgot to second that $999 MacPro Mini that was mentioned before. So I'm gonna do it now. Gimmie the same kit, but swap out the 2.5" for a 3.5" and up the integrated graphics... Or just gimme a 3.5" with an AMD Fusion chip.
It's gonna be an interesting 2 months...
I don't think Apple is going more proprietary, just radically forward. Like when Dell/HP decided to drop legacy ports (whoa, that's like 2000 thinking!).
AMD's Fusion chip is ready and rolls out in August. It's a 4 core design that has 2 CPU's, a dedicated GPU and a 4th chip just for north/south bridge controls all operating in an async mode. Not sure what the final specs are but 2.66/3.06 were the target figures rolling on a 1333 bus. Video was an ATI HD model with scalable memory. Pretty neat if I understood it correctly. Also had hardware based protected memory environment and MOST importantly the like Intel's Speedstep this cpu can scale back by 3's and shut off one cpu entirely when not needed.
It's TDW was just over 22w if I remember. There's more info floating around but AMD has been very quiet about it until recently.
PA Semi's PowerPC can run x86 code if I remember correctly but I think Apple bought them primarily for their R&D/Brains/License rights. Still I wouldn't count out a PPC base return as Apple stated at the developers convention years ago, UNIVERSAL is what we want you to write and Xcode is what we want you to use. So Xcode would basically make it universal if compiled correctly.
The margin reduction is due partly to higher cost to produce the new products and partly because of a price reduction coming forth with the revision to stay competitive. More than 65% of the PC craptop market is below $700 right now.
One last thing, the top and bottom of that AL case are not the same size so I'm presuming the battery/HD bay are making up the bulk of the missing piece?
To keep on the x86/x64 thinking route AMD would be the viable choice in the matter as the OS would and DOES run on AMD based CPU's... Fusion also has SSE5 built in too.
You mean after Apple had done so prior.
Wow, please tell us how you did this. Parallels and VMWare always stated they're for Intel Macs only.
Duh, he ran a Windows MacOSX emulator in VirtualPC and in the Windows MacOSX emulator he ran Parallels, which ran WindowsXP.
People are sooo stooopid.
And just like the old rumors about "PC emulators that run 5x faster than a PC on a PPC", he was able to run the emulator of the emulator and nest them such that his PPC ended up emulating a PC which emulated an intel Mac which emulated a PC which increased over all performance by 3^3, or 27x faster !!!
1. Many posts have raised unnecessary fears about switching from Intel processors. Apple is not abandoning Intel. Moreover, Apple is fully aware that the option to run Windows has been an important selling point for many switchers; they're not going to do anything to undermine this.
\t
2. The concept of a chip set is not very clearly defined. In terms of its broadest meaning it's just the complete set of chips inside the computer. AI's post leaves it wide open about exactly what's being suggested. Apple is not going to use the standard Montevina chip set - that in itself shouldn't be very surprising because Apple has already made use of slightly customized versions of many Intel products. Of course, the gist of the rumor is that something more significant is going on, but as stated the rumor does not claim that Apple is rejecting all elements of Montevina. It's consistent with the rumor that Apple is merely adding some unique element(s).
3. Contrary to some suggestions, Apple has a long history of chip design. The idea that Intel (or AMD or anyone else) has a level of expertise about chip design that Apple can't match is a mistake. Intel definitely has fabrication expertise that Apple can't match, and they have CPU expertise that Apple probably shouldn't compete with, but designing speciality chips is an art form in which it is still possible for small teams of talented individuals to surpass the behemoths of the industry.
4. Given Apple's unique position as a maker of both hardware and software it makes excellent sense for them to distance themselves from the competition with unique chips. This is exactly what Dell, HP, and others cannot do alone. It would be disappointing if Apple did not take advantage of this avenue for progress. The switch to Intel is over, and it's been an overwhelming success, so it's time to push ahead.
\t
5. It seems early for the purchase of PA Semi to bear fruit, but Apple and PA Semi have had a relationship since before the Intel switch. PA Semi was a candidate to produce the Power Book processors that IBM could not. (See this link:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/) Presumably Apple would not want to adopt those processors at this date, but it's not impossible that PA Semi was already working on other technologies when Apple bought them. Of course, PA Semi may not have anything to do with this rumor.
6. With the iPod and the iPhone Apple has shown tremendous competence in assembling specialty chips from different vendors to create outstanding products (with high margins!). If there are features that Apple wants that Intel isn't providing Apple knows where to buy them, and how to assemble them.
7. This is an exciting rumor because it invites us to speculate about the new features that Apple would/could build into the Mac lineup. Some of the features may be particular to the portable lines, but others may be universal, or reserved for the Pro lines. At any rate, here's the good stuff, a list of the various roles for a new chip set. For the most part these are not mutually exclusive. My money is on points d and i.
\ta. Power/heat reduction. To my mind this is actually one of the least likely motivations for a change. Unless you were to replace the Intel CPU itself, it seems unlikely that you could significantly reduce the overall power consumption of the chip set. Furthermore, Intel is not doing so poorly on these fronts that the portable lines are suffering in any particular way. Lastly, it's unclear that even getting 20% greater battery life (an unlikely prospect at best) would be a huge selling point. That said, it may be that marginal power savings are one added bonus of various changes.
\tb. A new GPU for laptops, iMac and Mini. Intel's integrated graphics processing has been underwhelming so it's not impossible that Apple would look to replace this with something better. If there's something out there they can buy for a reasonable price, they might well do this, especially if it's one element of a broader change. However, technology in this area changes rapidly and it seems unlikely that Apple would want to take responsibility for this element of their machines. So a proprietary GPU seems unlikely. But see points d and i below.
\tc. Some form of media coprocessor. Especially something that will do H.264 encoding/decoding. Since this is supposed to be a part of Montevina already, this would be an odd addition, unless Apple has something truly outstanding to show off, which isn't impossible. But see the next point.
\td. A proprietary vector processing unit like Altivec. This is probably the most exciting and the most plausible of all the suggestions. Such a unit could contribute to graphics performance and media processing but would be available to accelerate a host of other operations as well. This would appear to make excellent sense given what is known about Snow Leopard, and it might be just the ticket for ennabling Apple's "Core" technologies to shine. All kinds of developers, especially in the sciences, would be enthusiastic to use this processor - as I recall PPC had advantages over x86 for certain scientific applications, and I think Altivec was the main reason. It's not unreasonable to imagine that this could give the Xserve a significant boost in value in certain markets. Finally, assuming Apple's own developers take advantage of this processor, this could also be an enormous advantage for all of the pro apps. Who knows, it might even give Apple the impetus to introduce a Photoshop killer.
\te. Some kind of built in solid state memory. Storing some portion of the operating system in this way might increase start times, and offer other small advantages. Perhaps I don't understand this well, but I don't see what's supposed to be so exciting about this option. Yes, solid state drives in some laptops make sense and are inevitable, but it's not a very sexy change.
\tf. Built in 3G access and/or GPS. Apple now has expertise with these features. Why not add them to Macbook Pros? In fact, though I can see the advantages, I don't think this is very likely. 3G access would require a contract with a phone company and there hasn't been any rumors of Apple discussing such deals. Moreover, most 3G networks are probably not ready to invite the sort of traffic laptops generate. Which is the same reason that I don't think we'll see anything like an iphone port that allows you to use 3G on the iphone as a modem. GPS strikes me as more likely item than 3G, but I imagine that few people who travel with a laptop don't also have a phone, and GPS really makes most sense on the phone.
\tg. A special chip for interpreting multi touch gestures. Obviously there's got to be some kind of controller for the touch pad, but that's true even for the current generation, so it's unclear that a controller chip for multitouch would merit much notice. Still, Apple could surprise with something really astonishing. It's interesting to wonder how much use Apple will make of multitouch. Moreover, rumors are suggesting that the touch pad is glass, is it possible there's going to be a small touch screen monitor under the glass? What would one display on such a monitor? Would it be useful, or distracting?
\th. A voice input chip. One poster suggested that Apple might add this. It might be cool, but it seems to me that emphasis on voice input is not in the immediate future.
\ti. Support for high resolution monitors to take advantage of Resolution Independence (RI). No one else in the thread has mentioned this, but it's got to be considered among the chief possibilities. Apple has been working on RI for a couple years and encouraging developers to be prepared. RI is a technology that should put the Mac in front of the competition for a couple of years. And it will be a powerful selling point because high resolution monitors create an immediate visible difference in the computing experience. Imagine a monitor with the crisp readability of an iphone. People don't talk much about RI, but it's coming, and it's going to be awesome. Of course, high resolution monitors won't come cheap, so this is likely to be a technology that will distinguish the Macbook Pro from the Macbook. It will also be technology that will usher in the Xmac because it will be too expensive to put into an iMac, and too nice to hook up to a Mini. I'm uncertain exactly what kind of chip(s) will be required, but it's my understanding that to take advantage of high resolution monitors at least some elements of the GPU have to be tweaked along with a new display interconnect/port.
\tj. Some form of hardware authentication. It's not clear that this is either necessary or useful. Hackers would eventually find a way around it, and it would be an expense and an effort of little obvious value. However, if Apple actually adds specialty hardware, they immediately put the clone makers out of buisness.
8. Some people seem convinced that new Macbooks are going to drop in price and account for the decrease in margin that Apple is projecting. I think this is wrong. It's much more likely that the product transition they're talking about involves the iPod Touch. I would expect the new laptops to come in at nearly identical prices to the current lineup.
So this is my summary. To repeat, I think an Altivec-style coprocessor and/or the resources for Resolution Independence would be both the most likely and the coolest features. Feel free to suggest additions or corrections.
WAG What if there were a way to design a Velocity engine that had several different specialized cores in it. One for H264, another for gaming physics, another for HDTV bluray, another for DNA sequencing stuff. In sort a few cores that are very fast at what they do and add great value to Apple machines. Also let's say that in the near future Intel adds a special core to the CPU to do everything h264, Apple could then keep their solution and just shut off the usage of the Apple special core in the software. So the solution would add something now and not necessarily mean that Apple is locked into using only their hardware solutions in the future. The NeXT machines had a special A/D||D/A chip in them.
-Edited in- There maybe should be special cores in that some things can be processed in parallel and MMX (and the like) can help there. The problem is with the problems that don't lend themselves to parallel processing. So if you have to do one thing to completion before you can do the next thing, like most of DNA sequencing, the only real solution is to be able to do the whole calculation very fast. This is where special hardware comes into play, where the sequence is hardwired with little or no need for algorithms, just stream in the data and processed data is written out.
I believe that others could add to this and clarify as needed.
-SNIP-
Why Apple won't leave Intel:
Preface.. this is the dumbest rumor I've heard in ages.
Apple won't leave Intel because Intel delivers a whole package. This lowers R&D.
Intel has also been very amenable to Apple, giving them tweaked solutions and access to parts before other vendors.
Why would you part out your machines when you can do one-stop shopping with a vendor who is willing to give you exclusive early access to parts (like the 3 MHz Xeon duals, or the new CPU package for the MacBook Air).
-SNIP-
Finally, there are two ways to read this rumor:
1) Apple moves to another vendor for system controllers (chipset). In this scenero, Apple trades one common part for another common part. How, exactly, does this differentiate Apple from their competition who use the same commodity parts?
2) Apple designs or modifies the design of an existing Chipset design. Why? Apple isn't going to significantly re-engineer a system to any advantage vs. what's already available or on the horizon. Faster memory? .. coming. Other protocols, like newer I/O specs? .. put an ancillary chip on the board. If Apple did take this step, with little or no pay-off, the R&D costs would be enormous.
Realistically, the only change I could see Apple doing would be some modification to TPM in order to lock OS X to Apple hardware. Of course, that would eventually get broken. You can't give out the black box and expect that no one will figure out how to get it open.
However, TPM isn't a chipset.
Mr. Scamp
And of course 150+ comments of continued speculation of something that doesn't even exist, with no substantial evidence to support any comment. Lemmings anyone?
What a dumb article. The article said absolutely nothing but bogus speculation, and then posted fake pictures of a fake laptop.
And of course 150+ comments of continued speculation of something that doesn't even exist, with no substantial evidence to support any comment. Lemmings anyone?
Yeah, crazy that people would go to an Apple website that reports rumors and discuss rumors.
Do you need the the link to MacWorld?
There would be no Floppy port, no parallel port, no IDE Port, no Serial Port, or PCI lane.
Simply just PCI- Express , SATA, USB, Firewire, FSB.
It would be legacy free, but it wouldn't save much cost. Since the die area used by those are pretty small.
It would use less pin, i guess they could have less PCI Express lane then industry standard. So they save cost with less pin again and therefore less layer for Motherbroad.
Using PowerVR for their Graphics means that have very low power consumption. While enough power for all the OSX needs. And Hardware video acceleration engine.
Even though it is using only 1 chipset instead of 2 from Intel, with the volume of Macbook and iMac it will still be quite expensive to produce. It definitely wouldn't be cheaper then Intel.
But with special hardware apple could lock down its platform again.
What a dumb article. The article said absolutely nothing but bogus speculation, and then posted fake pictures of a fake laptop.
Weren't you one of the people that said that the iPhone back shells were fake?