I would NOT like to see Apple branch off the OS once again. not at all.
Unless they include a capacitance stylus I don?t see how they can?t alter the UI to fit a large screen device that works primarily with one?s fingers/
Quote:
It perhaps would need both. Unless there was a way to run iPhone apps in emulation without losing speed.
This would be a very good convergence device.
I'm not sure apple would want such a thing though.
That is the easy part because it?s already been done to some extent. The iPhone Simulator in the SDK works very well. There are caveats with it running on x86 with a different GPU, but on modern Mac notebooks it?s considerably faster than on the iPhone.
(Seriously) Is that expectation based on what you expect the tablet to be able to do, or is it based on an idea that even an iPod Touch with a big screen would require a larger processor? Perhaps the intended function of the thing is such that all it needs to better video hardware.
(Less seriously) It sometimes seems as though talking about iTablet specs is akin to talking about the capabilities of the Flying Dutchman. One gets the feeling that if the iTablet ever sails into port, most everyone will be angry and disappointed, loudly decrying its lack of capabilities, expectations of which it could only have satisfied with supernatural help
If it is based on the iPhone OS, it might not need anything much more powerful than what's in the current machines. I remember the amazing things my Newton could do, and that was a wind-up toy compared with current technology. If the iTablet is real and not just an idle skunkworks project, and if it really does need a powerful processor, then it might be awaiting processor. Perhaps the signal people should be looking for that signals the coming of the iTablet is a more powerful processor. If you don't believe the Cortex is fast enough, when is the next generation?
It's a bit of both, I think.
Wouldn't you expect a much larger device to do more?
That's why so many people are disappointed with netbooks. They think they're just smaller, and cheaper notebooks. But they're not. They're REALLY slow.
Would Apple allow that? I don't think so. Managing expectations will be very important here.
But people expect things to respond at a certain rate. With a phone, people have been accustomed to crappy performance, or clumsy usage, so the 2G and 3G's performance wasn't too much of an issue. But the new 3Gs is much faster. I saw that with my daughter's new one. Really noticeable.
With such a large screen, the graphics performance will be really slow unless Apple uses the fastest graphics chip for the ARM that they can get from Imagination, the PowerVR SGx543 at 35 Million polygons/sec, and 16 instances. Right now, the one they use, I think the number is, the 540 at 14 million, and 4 instances.
But would one ARM, even if it's 1GHz be enough? The 2 core version wont be out for some time.
It wouldn't be good if the 3GS outperformed the tablet.
Unless they include a capacitance stylus I don’t see how they can’t alter the UI to fit a large screen device that works primarily with one’s fingers/
It would be interesting, wouldn't it?
I was skeptical at first about the iPhone. I was one who was asking, and experimenting with a stylus, but I got over it. It's performed much better than I thought.
I think it would work with a much bigger screen. The multitouch already works very well. Even on my iPhone, I can touch a really small link between two other links, and almost all the time, the correct link is chosen. That's without magnifying the screen first. Amazing! I've tried it on some other phones and it doesn't work as well. I tried the Palm, but the screen is even smaller, and the links are almost impossible to see, unless you get real close, and the smaller screen makes it more difficult to correctly jab the correct one.
The thing about multitouch is that it senses a fair number of spots around where you hit, and uses an algorithm to figure out where you were selecting. It works very well. A larger screen should allow this to function pretty accurately I would think.
Also, this is a big device, Apple could bless us with a couple of ports, a mini Displayport, and a USB 2. That would allow a mouse, or track ball (or gamestick!). A KEYBOARD!!!
If the mini DP port wasn't invented for this, then what's it good for?
Quote:
That is the easy part because it’s already been done to some extent. The iPhone Simulator in the SDK works very well. There are caveats with it running on x86 with a different GPU, but on modern Mac notebooks it’s considerably faster than on the iPhone.
The iPhone simulator is working on MUCH more powerful processors. The tablet, if it had an Atom, say, wouldn't have that processing power.
She's using XP. You know my views about copyright and eula's.
Yes I know, I would have been shocked if you hacked it.
Quote:
Isn't bribery illegal?
Well, I'd like to see OLED, sevral companies have already gone to it.
My copy editor didn't catch the typo.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
Yes I know, I would have been shocked if you hacked it.
My copy editor didn't catch the typo.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
I'd like that, but what would it do to iPhone sales? With the camera and mike, an OLED could have serious effects.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
This would be the way to offer a higher resolution display, too, this way developers that haven’t been building their apps using vector graphic images or skirting Apple’s other development guidelines will have nearly a year to get it right for the next iPhone, which is much more important to users to work right than an iPod, for obvious reasons.
It might not come this year, but eventually a higher pixel per inch will be needed, if only to keep up with the pack.
What I would like to see, and it might not be too difficult to do is to have both the Simple Finder from OS X on the machine as default, then allow the OS to also use an iPhone GUI as well, so that it could run both types of apps.
The thing is, counter to rational thought , if the tablet offers MORE functionality it might cause it to fail.
We know the history of tablets - they haven't been particularly well received. If Apple brings out a tablet that is capable of running OSX apps, then we get access all the applications on OSX today - applications that aren't designed with virtual touch interface and virtual keyboard etc in mind.
If we are using many of those apps, then we start to naturally wish we had a keyboard and mouse. And eventually we would rather just have a laptop. Additionally, the extra processing power required for something designed to run OSX apps means it has to cost something like a laptop, and have something like the thickness of a laptop (and, like MBA, if it's extra thin that will result in extra cost too).
I say force developers to write new apps for it, current OSX apps shouldn't run. I'm in 2 minds about making it capable of running standard iPhone apps - I'll swing towards the same though - BLOCK that, BUT make it easy to modify iPhoneOS apps for the tablet.
If a tablet is to succeed it has to break the mold and our expectations.
I reckon your expectations of the Apple iTeamaker with it's mouth and leg attachments for it's all singing and dancing capabilities are well over estimated.
As Apple have said cheerio to the hard disk iPod i.e. iPod classic, the flash memory will be bound for the Classic as a replacement storage medium.
We have to remember that we're still in the recession and it would be highly unlikely Apple would turn around and offer such a revolutionary product in times of woe.
As the Classic is the only iPod still using a hard disk for storage, we can only assume it will be replaced by flash memory bought by manufacturers who have bought a lorry load of it in at bulk discount, to be used in an iPod to sell at a "reasonable" price to the consumer.
I'd reckon an 64GB iPod Classic with the Flash memory would fetch about £200.
I'm kind of wondering whether we'll see ARM in the next AppleTV, actually.
ARM's advantage for portables - low power consumption at a given level of performance - would not be relevant here, although ARM does show up in routers and so forth. They and their content-providers might be tempted by the lockdown that custom hardware could offer for both iTablet and AppleTV. But I'd worry if Apple started to custom-design ARM chips right across their product range. They could end up spending a great deal of money for no better than industry-average performance.
ARM's advantage for portables - low power consumption at a given level of performance - would not be relevant here, although ARM does show up in routers and so forth. They and their content-providers might be tempted by the lockdown that custom hardware could offer for both iTablet and AppleTV.
I agree the lower power consumption is not an advantage in the AppleTV.
I thought ARM chips were cheaper than Intel chips though - perhaps I'm wrong.
Quote:
But I'd worry if Apple started to custom-design ARM chips right across their product range. They could end up spending a great deal of money for no better than industry-average performance.
That's true. Right now though the existing iPod Touch internals seem to be enough to drive an SD version of the AppleTV... just remove the battery & screen, add an IR port. PERHAPS replace the solid state drive with a hard disk? The prices of entry-level iPod Touch and AppleTV are the same at present.
If the next iPod Touch chip can handle HD video (ie NOT a custom-designed ARM chip), is there any advantage to using Intel in the AppleTV?
I presume the Samsung SoC is a die-shrink of their current offering.
it is hard to say for sure but I'd say it is not likely. The reason being is that Samsungs current offerring is A8 and it is likely that new designs are A9 Cortex based.
Quote:
Could be that Apple will switch silently to this without changing operating parameters. Maybe Jan'10 iPhone 3GS' will get an extra hour of battery.
Well that would be nice but do you really think Apple would be that generous? Personally I can see Apple reving the iPhone before it's scheduled time.
Quote:
But yes, Samsung's actual performance with their ARM SoCs does make Apple's PA Semi purchase seem worthless, so PA Semi must be designing other chips for Apple beyond what Apple would have otherwise got from Samsung.
Apparently you don't understand this industry. First; PA Semi is a design house not a manufacture. They still need a foundry to produce the chips. Second; this means there is a production ready 45nm ARM chip which is a big milestone. Third; if Samsung is willing to fab a full custom SoC for Apple/PA Semi, it highlights the possibility that the SoC will be 45nm and very cool running. If Apple implements the best ARM has to offer, that is a quad Cortex SoC, we could have some very snappy machines.
As to PA I actually tend to agree that that they are designing for more advance things than a simple iPhone. Base smart phones are commodities and need cheap but powerful processors, that means very high volume commodity devices. So I believe you are right in part, PA Semi is likely doing more design work than Apples has acknowledged. This should not surprise anybody though.
All in all I think this annoucement highlights that Apple could have some very bleeding edge products in the pipeline. This is not a negative revelation at all.
It might not come this year, but eventually a higher pixel per inch will be needed, if only to keep up with the pack.
Actually it is the last thing needed. It makes no sense to have the pixels so small that you need a microscope to see them. IPhone & Touch are doing fine right now. What is needed is a bigger screen for more pixels.
But yes, Samsung's actual performance with their ARM SoCs does make Apple's PA Semi purchase seem worthless, so PA Semi must be designing other chips for Apple beyond what Apple would have otherwise got from Samsung.
Seem worthless? How exactly? The size and relevant speed of a chip doesn't have much to do with the actual design. Both of those are results of manufacturing processes, not chip design.
SoC's contain many different components all thrown onto one chip. It's basically a system on a chip. By designing their own, Apple can customize it anyway they wanted. They could potentially put core OS X functionality directly on the chip. There are many different things they could do to customize the SoC and give them an advantage the competition would never be able to duplicate.
I thought ARM chips were cheaper than Intel chips though - perhaps I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps if Apple can get sufficient volume, as they clearly can with iPhone/iPod components (a very different device), it would be cost-effective. But Apple TV currently uses a 1Ghz Pentium M, so the choice would be commodity x86 versus bleeding-edge ARM with upfront design costs. People do say Apple TV runs awfully hot - can anyone confirm this?
The custom hardware inside games consoles, set-top boxes and DVRs is, I believe, usually subsidised over the life of the device with income from the software, which has not been Apple's model, although with the iTunes ecosystem that is becoming an option - and I'd expect to see it on Apple TV first.
I'm kind of wondering whether we'll see ARM in the next AppleTV, actually.
I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't done this already. The iPhone 3GS SoC is more than enough to handle what the AppleTV does, and this 45nm shrink/enhancement even more so. I can only imagine that Apple is waiting on PA Semi to deliver.
Maybe the tablet will be the first device that uses PA Semi technology, in which case I am hoping for a dual-core Cortex A9 with PowerVR SGX543 graphics and video acceleration. However I think we're a year off PA Semi hardware being available in consumer devices.
I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps if Apple can get sufficient volume, as they clearly can with iPhone/iPod components (a very different device), it would be cost-effective. But Apple TV currently uses a 1Ghz Pentium M, so the choice would be commodity x86 versus bleeding-edge ARM with upfront design costs. People do say Apple TV runs awfully hot - can anyone confirm this?.
It does run hot, not sure what that's from though. I suppose we can just blame the Intel chip and be done with it, although, I know I NEVER put my AppleTV to sleep, so it's constantly on and running. I suppose I should put it to sleep every night when I'm done with it. Oh well.
Anyway, I think Apple will eventually switch to an ARM CPU in the AppleTV. There's no reason for it to have Intel compatibility, as it doesn't run full Mac OS X due to its limited interface, nor is it conducive to running desktop based applications. I'm guessing they are going to release two products in the near future, both of them running the same ARM CPU. One will be a new AppleTV and the other will be some kind of touch screen based portable that will redefine portable computing... combining both multi-touch and a more traditional pointing device interface. I don't believe it will be a shrunken Mac OS X, or an enlarged iPhone OS. It will still be OS X, just another version made for a specialized purpose. It will be a device that sits between Macs and iPhones, in form, function and price.
it is hard to say for sure but I'd say it is not likely. The reason being is that Samsungs current offerring is A8 and it is likely that new designs are A9 Cortex based.
Unlikely. A die shrink with a current product is a very common practice when migrating to a new process. Also the A9 designs were meant to be coming to market next year, I'm not sure if Samsung would have been able to integrate it and get it into production, on a new process no less, this far ahead of anyone else.
Quote:
Apparently you don't understand this industry. First; PA Semi is a design house not a manufacture. They still need a foundry to produce the chips. Second; this means there is a production ready 45nm ARM chip which is a big milestone. Third; if Samsung is willing to fab a full custom SoC for Apple/PA Semi, it highlights the possibility that the SoC will be 45nm and very cool running. If Apple implements the best ARM has to offer, that is a quad Cortex SoC, we could have some very snappy machines.
I think you misread what I wrote. Anyway, Samsung are currently acting as design house and foundry, and performing very well, and selling tens of millions of these chips to Apple. Oddly enough, Samsung's phone division uses TI OMAP chips... :S
There's no reason for Apple to continue using Samsung as a foundry with their own designs, they could use TSMC, Global Foundries, TI, UMC, etc, instead.
Seem worthless? How exactly? The size and relevant speed of a chip doesn't have much to do with the actual design. Both of those are results of manufacturing processes, not chip design.
SoC's contain many different components all thrown onto one chip. It's basically a system on a chip. By designing their own, Apple can customize it anyway they wanted. They could potentially put core OS X functionality directly on the chip. There are many different things they could do to customize the SoC and give them an advantage the competition would never be able to duplicate.
Maybe I have to break my point down into a list.
1) Samsung are perfoming well in terms of ARM SoCs.
2) Therefore no need to Apple to just use PA Semi for iPhone SoCs, because Samsung are providing good SoCs themselves for phone use, for good prices (according to iSupply teardowns anyway, the SoC price is fairly low). And Samsung would be more than happy to customise the design for Apple.
3) Therefore PA Semi is definitely designing more complex chips.
4) Otherwise why buy PA Semi? Upfront design costs for a SoC are massive, and that's on top of the PA Semi purchase price. Each SoC design will end up in around 40m Apple devices (including iPod nano here), so it will be hard for Apple to get the cost per chip down and competitive with what Samsung offer. OTOH it was pocket change for Apple, and yes, it does mean that Apple can include custom hardware to differentiate (or more likely, lock down) their product. Presumably Apple's high-end 45nm SoC (Apple TV / Tablet) will become the mass-market 32nm SoC for iPhone a year later, thus extending the life of a design. Thus I think that PA Semi's main project is the high-end SoC - dual or quad A9, etc, etc, we'll find out one day.
Comments
Although not proved by benchmarks, Qualcomm claims their SnapDragon is clock to clock faster then other Cortex A8 implmentation.
I would NOT like to see Apple branch off the OS once again. not at all.
Unless they include a capacitance stylus I don?t see how they can?t alter the UI to fit a large screen device that works primarily with one?s fingers/
It perhaps would need both. Unless there was a way to run iPhone apps in emulation without losing speed.
This would be a very good convergence device.
I'm not sure apple would want such a thing though.
That is the easy part because it?s already been done to some extent. The iPhone Simulator in the SDK works very well. There are caveats with it running on x86 with a different GPU, but on modern Mac notebooks it?s considerably faster than on the iPhone.
(Seriously) Is that expectation based on what you expect the tablet to be able to do, or is it based on an idea that even an iPod Touch with a big screen would require a larger processor? Perhaps the intended function of the thing is such that all it needs to better video hardware.
(Less seriously) It sometimes seems as though talking about iTablet specs is akin to talking about the capabilities of the Flying Dutchman. One gets the feeling that if the iTablet ever sails into port, most everyone will be angry and disappointed, loudly decrying its lack of capabilities, expectations of which it could only have satisfied with supernatural help
If it is based on the iPhone OS, it might not need anything much more powerful than what's in the current machines. I remember the amazing things my Newton could do, and that was a wind-up toy compared with current technology. If the iTablet is real and not just an idle skunkworks project, and if it really does need a powerful processor, then it might be awaiting processor. Perhaps the signal people should be looking for that signals the coming of the iTablet is a more powerful processor. If you don't believe the Cortex is fast enough, when is the next generation?
It's a bit of both, I think.
Wouldn't you expect a much larger device to do more?
That's why so many people are disappointed with netbooks. They think they're just smaller, and cheaper notebooks. But they're not. They're REALLY slow.
Would Apple allow that? I don't think so. Managing expectations will be very important here.
But people expect things to respond at a certain rate. With a phone, people have been accustomed to crappy performance, or clumsy usage, so the 2G and 3G's performance wasn't too much of an issue. But the new 3Gs is much faster. I saw that with my daughter's new one. Really noticeable.
With such a large screen, the graphics performance will be really slow unless Apple uses the fastest graphics chip for the ARM that they can get from Imagination, the PowerVR SGx543 at 35 Million polygons/sec, and 16 instances. Right now, the one they use, I think the number is, the 540 at 14 million, and 4 instances.
But would one ARM, even if it's 1GHz be enough? The 2 core version wont be out for some time.
It wouldn't be good if the 3GS outperformed the tablet.
Unless they include a capacitance stylus I don’t see how they can’t alter the UI to fit a large screen device that works primarily with one’s fingers/
It would be interesting, wouldn't it?
I was skeptical at first about the iPhone. I was one who was asking, and experimenting with a stylus, but I got over it. It's performed much better than I thought.
I think it would work with a much bigger screen. The multitouch already works very well. Even on my iPhone, I can touch a really small link between two other links, and almost all the time, the correct link is chosen. That's without magnifying the screen first. Amazing! I've tried it on some other phones and it doesn't work as well. I tried the Palm, but the screen is even smaller, and the links are almost impossible to see, unless you get real close, and the smaller screen makes it more difficult to correctly jab the correct one.
The thing about multitouch is that it senses a fair number of spots around where you hit, and uses an algorithm to figure out where you were selecting. It works very well. A larger screen should allow this to function pretty accurately I would think.
Also, this is a big device, Apple could bless us with a couple of ports, a mini Displayport, and a USB 2. That would allow a mouse, or track ball (or gamestick!). A KEYBOARD!!!
If the mini DP port wasn't invented for this, then what's it good for?
That is the easy part because it’s already been done to some extent. The iPhone Simulator in the SDK works very well. There are caveats with it running on x86 with a different GPU, but on modern Mac notebooks it’s considerably faster than on the iPhone.
The iPhone simulator is working on MUCH more powerful processors. The tablet, if it had an Atom, say, wouldn't have that processing power.
She's using XP. You know my views about copyright and eula's.
Yes I know, I would have been shocked if you hacked it.
Isn't bribery illegal?
Well, I'd like to see OLED, sevral companies have already gone to it.
My copy editor didn't catch the typo.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
Yes I know, I would have been shocked if you hacked it.
My copy editor didn't catch the typo.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
I'd like that, but what would it do to iPhone sales? With the camera and mike, an OLED could have serious effects.
Apple seems to like to offer better hardware in the refresh of the Touch that was not offered in the previous refresh of the iPhone. Seems like the most logical way they would introduce OLED.
This would be the way to offer a higher resolution display, too, this way developers that haven’t been building their apps using vector graphic images or skirting Apple’s other development guidelines will have nearly a year to get it right for the next iPhone, which is much more important to users to work right than an iPod, for obvious reasons.
It might not come this year, but eventually a higher pixel per inch will be needed, if only to keep up with the pack.
What I would like to see, and it might not be too difficult to do is to have both the Simple Finder from OS X on the machine as default, then allow the OS to also use an iPhone GUI as well, so that it could run both types of apps.
The thing is, counter to rational thought
We know the history of tablets - they haven't been particularly well received. If Apple brings out a tablet that is capable of running OSX apps, then we get access all the applications on OSX today - applications that aren't designed with virtual touch interface and virtual keyboard etc in mind.
If we are using many of those apps, then we start to naturally wish we had a keyboard and mouse. And eventually we would rather just have a laptop. Additionally, the extra processing power required for something designed to run OSX apps means it has to cost something like a laptop, and have something like the thickness of a laptop (and, like MBA, if it's extra thin that will result in extra cost too).
I say force developers to write new apps for it, current OSX apps shouldn't run. I'm in 2 minds about making it capable of running standard iPhone apps - I'll swing towards the same though - BLOCK that, BUT make it easy to modify iPhoneOS apps for the tablet.
If a tablet is to succeed it has to break the mold and our expectations.
As Apple have said cheerio to the hard disk iPod i.e. iPod classic, the flash memory will be bound for the Classic as a replacement storage medium.
We have to remember that we're still in the recession and it would be highly unlikely Apple would turn around and offer such a revolutionary product in times of woe.
As the Classic is the only iPod still using a hard disk for storage, we can only assume it will be replaced by flash memory bought by manufacturers who have bought a lorry load of it in at bulk discount, to be used in an iPod to sell at a "reasonable" price to the consumer.
I'd reckon an 64GB iPod Classic with the Flash memory would fetch about £200.
I'm kind of wondering whether we'll see ARM in the next AppleTV, actually.
ARM's advantage for portables - low power consumption at a given level of performance - would not be relevant here, although ARM does show up in routers and so forth. They and their content-providers might be tempted by the lockdown that custom hardware could offer for both iTablet and AppleTV. But I'd worry if Apple started to custom-design ARM chips right across their product range. They could end up spending a great deal of money for no better than industry-average performance.
ARM's advantage for portables - low power consumption at a given level of performance - would not be relevant here, although ARM does show up in routers and so forth. They and their content-providers might be tempted by the lockdown that custom hardware could offer for both iTablet and AppleTV.
I agree the lower power consumption is not an advantage in the AppleTV.
I thought ARM chips were cheaper than Intel chips though - perhaps I'm wrong.
But I'd worry if Apple started to custom-design ARM chips right across their product range. They could end up spending a great deal of money for no better than industry-average performance.
That's true. Right now though the existing iPod Touch internals seem to be enough to drive an SD version of the AppleTV... just remove the battery & screen, add an IR port. PERHAPS replace the solid state drive with a hard disk? The prices of entry-level iPod Touch and AppleTV are the same at present.
If the next iPod Touch chip can handle HD video (ie NOT a custom-designed ARM chip), is there any advantage to using Intel in the AppleTV?
I presume the Samsung SoC is a die-shrink of their current offering.
it is hard to say for sure but I'd say it is not likely. The reason being is that Samsungs current offerring is A8 and it is likely that new designs are A9 Cortex based.
Could be that Apple will switch silently to this without changing operating parameters. Maybe Jan'10 iPhone 3GS' will get an extra hour of battery.
Well that would be nice but do you really think Apple would be that generous? Personally I can see Apple reving the iPhone before it's scheduled time.
But yes, Samsung's actual performance with their ARM SoCs does make Apple's PA Semi purchase seem worthless, so PA Semi must be designing other chips for Apple beyond what Apple would have otherwise got from Samsung.
Apparently you don't understand this industry. First; PA Semi is a design house not a manufacture. They still need a foundry to produce the chips. Second; this means there is a production ready 45nm ARM chip which is a big milestone. Third; if Samsung is willing to fab a full custom SoC for Apple/PA Semi, it highlights the possibility that the SoC will be 45nm and very cool running. If Apple implements the best ARM has to offer, that is a quad Cortex SoC, we could have some very snappy machines.
As to PA I actually tend to agree that that they are designing for more advance things than a simple iPhone. Base smart phones are commodities and need cheap but powerful processors, that means very high volume commodity devices. So I believe you are right in part, PA Semi is likely doing more design work than Apples has acknowledged. This should not surprise anybody though.
All in all I think this annoucement highlights that Apple could have some very bleeding edge products in the pipeline. This is not a negative revelation at all.
Dave
It might not come this year, but eventually a higher pixel per inch will be needed, if only to keep up with the pack.
Actually it is the last thing needed. It makes no sense to have the pixels so small that you need a microscope to see them. IPhone & Touch are doing fine right now. What is needed is a bigger screen for more pixels.
Dave
But yes, Samsung's actual performance with their ARM SoCs does make Apple's PA Semi purchase seem worthless, so PA Semi must be designing other chips for Apple beyond what Apple would have otherwise got from Samsung.
Seem worthless? How exactly? The size and relevant speed of a chip doesn't have much to do with the actual design. Both of those are results of manufacturing processes, not chip design.
SoC's contain many different components all thrown onto one chip. It's basically a system on a chip. By designing their own, Apple can customize it anyway they wanted. They could potentially put core OS X functionality directly on the chip. There are many different things they could do to customize the SoC and give them an advantage the competition would never be able to duplicate.
I thought ARM chips were cheaper than Intel chips though - perhaps I'm wrong.
I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps if Apple can get sufficient volume, as they clearly can with iPhone/iPod components (a very different device), it would be cost-effective. But Apple TV currently uses a 1Ghz Pentium M, so the choice would be commodity x86 versus bleeding-edge ARM with upfront design costs. People do say Apple TV runs awfully hot - can anyone confirm this?
The custom hardware inside games consoles, set-top boxes and DVRs is, I believe, usually subsidised over the life of the device with income from the software, which has not been Apple's model, although with the iTunes ecosystem that is becoming an option - and I'd expect to see it on Apple TV first.
I agree.
I'm kind of wondering whether we'll see ARM in the next AppleTV, actually.
I'm actually surprised that Apple hasn't done this already. The iPhone 3GS SoC is more than enough to handle what the AppleTV does, and this 45nm shrink/enhancement even more so. I can only imagine that Apple is waiting on PA Semi to deliver.
Maybe the tablet will be the first device that uses PA Semi technology, in which case I am hoping for a dual-core Cortex A9 with PowerVR SGX543 graphics and video acceleration. However I think we're a year off PA Semi hardware being available in consumer devices.
I don't know the answer to this. Perhaps if Apple can get sufficient volume, as they clearly can with iPhone/iPod components (a very different device), it would be cost-effective. But Apple TV currently uses a 1Ghz Pentium M, so the choice would be commodity x86 versus bleeding-edge ARM with upfront design costs. People do say Apple TV runs awfully hot - can anyone confirm this?.
It does run hot, not sure what that's from though. I suppose we can just blame the Intel chip and be done with it, although, I know I NEVER put my AppleTV to sleep, so it's constantly on and running. I suppose I should put it to sleep every night when I'm done with it. Oh well.
Anyway, I think Apple will eventually switch to an ARM CPU in the AppleTV. There's no reason for it to have Intel compatibility, as it doesn't run full Mac OS X due to its limited interface, nor is it conducive to running desktop based applications. I'm guessing they are going to release two products in the near future, both of them running the same ARM CPU. One will be a new AppleTV and the other will be some kind of touch screen based portable that will redefine portable computing... combining both multi-touch and a more traditional pointing device interface. I don't believe it will be a shrunken Mac OS X, or an enlarged iPhone OS. It will still be OS X, just another version made for a specialized purpose. It will be a device that sits between Macs and iPhones, in form, function and price.
it is hard to say for sure but I'd say it is not likely. The reason being is that Samsungs current offerring is A8 and it is likely that new designs are A9 Cortex based.
Unlikely. A die shrink with a current product is a very common practice when migrating to a new process. Also the A9 designs were meant to be coming to market next year, I'm not sure if Samsung would have been able to integrate it and get it into production, on a new process no less, this far ahead of anyone else.
Apparently you don't understand this industry. First; PA Semi is a design house not a manufacture. They still need a foundry to produce the chips. Second; this means there is a production ready 45nm ARM chip which is a big milestone. Third; if Samsung is willing to fab a full custom SoC for Apple/PA Semi, it highlights the possibility that the SoC will be 45nm and very cool running. If Apple implements the best ARM has to offer, that is a quad Cortex SoC, we could have some very snappy machines.
I think you misread what I wrote. Anyway, Samsung are currently acting as design house and foundry, and performing very well, and selling tens of millions of these chips to Apple. Oddly enough, Samsung's phone division uses TI OMAP chips... :S
There's no reason for Apple to continue using Samsung as a foundry with their own designs, they could use TSMC, Global Foundries, TI, UMC, etc, instead.
Seem worthless? How exactly? The size and relevant speed of a chip doesn't have much to do with the actual design. Both of those are results of manufacturing processes, not chip design.
SoC's contain many different components all thrown onto one chip. It's basically a system on a chip. By designing their own, Apple can customize it anyway they wanted. They could potentially put core OS X functionality directly on the chip. There are many different things they could do to customize the SoC and give them an advantage the competition would never be able to duplicate.
Maybe I have to break my point down into a list.
1) Samsung are perfoming well in terms of ARM SoCs.
2) Therefore no need to Apple to just use PA Semi for iPhone SoCs, because Samsung are providing good SoCs themselves for phone use, for good prices (according to iSupply teardowns anyway, the SoC price is fairly low). And Samsung would be more than happy to customise the design for Apple.
3) Therefore PA Semi is definitely designing more complex chips.
4) Otherwise why buy PA Semi? Upfront design costs for a SoC are massive, and that's on top of the PA Semi purchase price. Each SoC design will end up in around 40m Apple devices (including iPod nano here), so it will be hard for Apple to get the cost per chip down and competitive with what Samsung offer. OTOH it was pocket change for Apple, and yes, it does mean that Apple can include custom hardware to differentiate (or more likely, lock down) their product. Presumably Apple's high-end 45nm SoC (Apple TV / Tablet) will become the mass-market 32nm SoC for iPhone a year later, thus extending the life of a design. Thus I think that PA Semi's main project is the high-end SoC - dual or quad A9, etc, etc, we'll find out one day.