This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
If Apple can license and customize ARM chips that are power-efficient yet still beefy, what will Intel's place be in the future product pipeline?
I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor.
This would give them the flexibility to change their systems as needed without major re-writes for software producers like what was needed for the move to Intel.
There should be dual-core 2ghz ARM processors out by next year.
In 2 years, the MacOS will be running on ARM chips.
Apple must not have found a chip that meet all of Steve's needs, so he bought a fabless design firm (PA Semi), licensed the ARM design, and invested lots of money into the design of this new A4 chip. Sounds like it will be a good investment that should pay dividends for several years.
The forthcoming iPad includes a 1GHz Apple A4 processor, based on the ARM architecture, which includes an integrated CPU and graphics processing. Based on the Cortex-A9 MPCore, the processor is much faster than the ARM-based CPU that powers the iPhone 3GS.
Who is saying that?
Quote:
A former Apple engineer writes, “A4 was stated to contain an ARM Cortex-A8, not an A9. It was an internal source that told me. I trust them. No confirmation on which SGX, but it is one.”
A very trusted source tells me: PA Semi didn’t do the A4. It was the existing VLSI team. Apple has made custom chips for years like the Northbridges for G4 and G5.
why would it cost 1billion? this article just didn't give me any explanation.
The R&D + prototyping + debugging the chips functions + test production runs + any tweaks after alpha/beta + down payment and setup charges from the foundry + contracts for minimum quantity... etc.
ATI and nVidia do not own their own factories either. So chances are the numbers are modeled after ATI's and nVidia's.
This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
having apple design their own chips for their macintoshes would put all those "mac are just as pcs" comments to rest, for sure...and would give intel some competition which would be beneficial for consumers...
Seems unlikely there was any reliable source of information to support this article's assertions. Also, from my POV the PA Semi acquisition may not make real financial sense due to several factors. First, there were reports that the top intellectual talent left PA Semi to start a new chip company so Apple can only use what they bought and kept, and second, these firms flourish because their immense development costs are covered by selling their chip designs to a wide variety of companies, extending the life of the investment and increasing the return. Now Apple only will design for Apple, which is great as long as every product they sell continues to be a blockbuster. Post-Jobs this may be less and less likely.
This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
I don't think that this is meant for any MB or MBP. More for their mobile devices. Could appear in their 4g iPhone and iPod Touch.
Citrix does appear to have an Windows 7 virtual desktop emulator ready for the iPad.
having apple design their own chips for their macintoshes would put all those "mac are just as pcs" rumors to rest, for sure...and would give intel some competition which would be beneficial for consumers...
But it could also take away a major selling point for them which is the ability to run Windows.
Also I believe this is another case of Apple trying to do something that someone is already doing far better and thats Intel. Not to mention Nvidia graphics.
While this concept might work okay with the iPad and iPhone I am no sure its a good idea to have a single point of failure for everything one chip. Something goes wrong with this chip and everything is toasted.
During the 1990s, when they partnered with IBM and Motorola to produce the PowerPC.
Yes. And, when it was optimal for them to drop it (and its partners) business-wise, Apple did so. Which is probably what Apple will do with this one too, if it does not pan out in the long run.
Regardless of whether this is a home run or not, what impresses me is how the company is constantly pushing the envelope and attempting to explore new options in every part of its value chain. Its restless and relentless effort at innovation is really something.
Is it really $1B using a stock ARM design and integrating in your own parts?! That would seem more like a ground-up chip investment. The only thing this likely has different than a Snapdragon is some kind of DRM to ensure that the factories can't run a third shift.
Also, the $1B makes no sense for a processor that will never sell in quantities over 30MM. At that point, you are doubling the cost of the processor relative to a "shelf" design.
My guess is they have put in $500MM including the aquisition of PA Semi.
If Apple can license and customize ARM chips that are power-efficient yet still beefy, what will Intel's place be in the future product pipeline?
I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Uhhh...
It always *has* been independent of any particular processor type.
Remember, NeXtStep started out on a 68K. Moved to Intel. Then PowerPC. Then back to Intel. And OSX *is* the kernel for the iPhone and iPod Touch (and iPad) running on an ARM.
Quote:
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor.
This would give them the flexibility to change their systems as needed without major re-writes for software producers like what was needed for the move to Intel.
There should be dual-core 2ghz ARM processors out by next year.
In 2 years, the MacOS will be running on ARM chips.
What makes you think it isn't running on ARM chips today?
Bottom line, though, is that ARM chips don't have the processing power of the x86. They have lots of other advantages (e.g., power and integration), but they don't have the brute power. Even if they did, being able to run Windows on a Mac is a HUGE advantage, one that wouldn't be easily eliminated. The Mac has enjoyed a modicum of success since switching to Intel. Being able to run Windows has had a *lot* to do with that.
But it could also take away a major selling point for them which is the ability to run Windows.
Also I believe this is another case of Apple trying to do something that someone is already doing far better and thats Intel. Not to mention Nvidia graphics.
While this concept might work okay with the iPad and iPhone I am no sure its a good idea to have a single point of failure for everything one chip. Something goes wrong with this chip and everything is toasted.
If something goes wrong with *any* (major) chip on the iPad, the iPad is toast. What's your point?
Keep in mind, that having a single point of failure in this case is actually good. Fewer interconnects on the circuit board, fewer traces, fewer solder joints, and so on (the stuff that often fails).
This $1 billion price tag is guesstimate from the NY Times for what the development might cost, and should not be mistaken for the actual cost of anything. I suppose we could try to pick out a major increase in R&D costs from Apple's 10-K or 10-Q statements, but I don't see where even the Times has made that effort.
Comments
Good article, Oliver.
What OS are they are they going to use?
This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor.
This would give them the flexibility to change their systems as needed without major re-writes for software producers like what was needed for the move to Intel.
There should be dual-core 2ghz ARM processors out by next year.
In 2 years, the MacOS will be running on ARM chips.
The forthcoming iPad includes a 1GHz Apple A4 processor, based on the ARM architecture, which includes an integrated CPU and graphics processing. Based on the Cortex-A9 MPCore, the processor is much faster than the ARM-based CPU that powers the iPhone 3GS.
Who is saying that?
A former Apple engineer writes, “A4 was stated to contain an ARM Cortex-A8, not an A9. It was an internal source that told me. I trust them. No confirmation on which SGX, but it is one.”
http://venturebeat.com/2010/02/05/apple-a4-ipad/
A very trusted source tells me: PA Semi didn’t do the A4. It was the existing VLSI team. Apple has made custom chips for years like the Northbridges for G4 and G5.
http://venturebeat.com/2010/02/06/ap...ooler-battery/
Source: http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulle...43#post7829943
why would it cost 1billion? this article just didn't give me any explanation.
The R&D + prototyping + debugging the chips functions + test production runs + any tweaks after alpha/beta + down payment and setup charges from the foundry + contracts for minimum quantity... etc.
ATI and nVidia do not own their own factories either. So chances are the numbers are modeled after ATI's and nVidia's.
This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
having apple design their own chips for their macintoshes would put all those "mac are just as pcs" comments to rest, for sure...and would give intel some competition which would be beneficial for consumers...
This is kind of interesting. I am having a hard time seeing the advantage to putting 1 billion into something like this but I guess over time it could expand. What is interesting is is if they can get enough power out of htis chip an put it into their notebooks Mac users would no longer be able to run Windows on their Macs.
I don't think that this is meant for any MB or MBP. More for their mobile devices. Could appear in their 4g iPhone and iPod Touch.
Citrix does appear to have an Windows 7 virtual desktop emulator ready for the iPad.
having apple design their own chips for their macintoshes would put all those "mac are just as pcs" rumors to rest, for sure...and would give intel some competition which would be beneficial for consumers...
But it could also take away a major selling point for them which is the ability to run Windows.
Also I believe this is another case of Apple trying to do something that someone is already doing far better and thats Intel. Not to mention Nvidia graphics.
While this concept might work okay with the iPad and iPhone I am no sure its a good idea to have a single point of failure for everything one chip. Something goes wrong with this chip and everything is toasted.
During the 1990s, when they partnered with IBM and Motorola to produce the PowerPC.
Yes. And, when it was optimal for them to drop it (and its partners) business-wise, Apple did so. Which is probably what Apple will do with this one too, if it does not pan out in the long run.
Regardless of whether this is a home run or not, what impresses me is how the company is constantly pushing the envelope and attempting to explore new options in every part of its value chain. Its restless and relentless effort at innovation is really something.
Also, the $1B makes no sense for a processor that will never sell in quantities over 30MM. At that point, you are doubling the cost of the processor relative to a "shelf" design.
My guess is they have put in $500MM including the aquisition of PA Semi.
G4, A4, will history repeat itself? ;-)
And, if it did so, how would it matter?
Citrix does appear to have an Windows 7 virtual desktop emulator ready for the iPad.
It's just "streaming" (something like Apple Remote Desktop)
there were reports that the top intellectual talent left PA Semi to start a new chip company so Apple can only use what they bought and kept
Yes. http://www.simmtester.com/page/news/....asp?num=12696
If Apple can license and customize ARM chips that are power-efficient yet still beefy, what will Intel's place be in the future product pipeline?
I'm thinking Apple is working on making OSX independent of any particular processor type.
Uhhh...
It always *has* been independent of any particular processor type.
Remember, NeXtStep started out on a 68K. Moved to Intel. Then PowerPC. Then back to Intel. And OSX *is* the kernel for the iPhone and iPod Touch (and iPad) running on an ARM.
Software will not need to be customized for Intel vs PowerPC vs ARM.
The OS will accept the instructions and translate for the processor.
This would give them the flexibility to change their systems as needed without major re-writes for software producers like what was needed for the move to Intel.
There should be dual-core 2ghz ARM processors out by next year.
In 2 years, the MacOS will be running on ARM chips.
What makes you think it isn't running on ARM chips today?
Bottom line, though, is that ARM chips don't have the processing power of the x86. They have lots of other advantages (e.g., power and integration), but they don't have the brute power. Even if they did, being able to run Windows on a Mac is a HUGE advantage, one that wouldn't be easily eliminated. The Mac has enjoyed a modicum of success since switching to Intel. Being able to run Windows has had a *lot* to do with that.
But it could also take away a major selling point for them which is the ability to run Windows.
Also I believe this is another case of Apple trying to do something that someone is already doing far better and thats Intel. Not to mention Nvidia graphics.
While this concept might work okay with the iPad and iPhone I am no sure its a good idea to have a single point of failure for everything one chip. Something goes wrong with this chip and everything is toasted.
If something goes wrong with *any* (major) chip on the iPad, the iPad is toast. What's your point?
Keep in mind, that having a single point of failure in this case is actually good. Fewer interconnects on the circuit board, fewer traces, fewer solder joints, and so on (the stuff that often fails).