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...
It would also destroy Mac sales. Being able to run Windows is a *big* incentive to buy a Mac for many people. Most of the people I convince to buy a Mac have no interest because they've got so much money invested in Windows software. When I point out that they *can* run all that software on a Mac, they instantly become much more open to getting a Mac. Down the road, they may wind up being Windows haters like many people around here; but without that bridge, they would never have become Mac users in the first place.
Take the Mac and turn it into something that can't run Windows (at full speed), and you lose the ability to attract PC users this way. I don't even think SJ would give up that.
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.
Apple was also a major stockholder in ARM at one time. IIRC, they began liquidating their position during the late '90s after canceling the Newton. It seems Apple has more skin in the game this time around, since they acquired PA Semi with the clear intent of going in-house for processor development.
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...
Well just look at what's coming right around the corner: iPad. Over 10 hours of battery life. Not much blew me away in SJ's presentation, but the half-day battery life sure did.
This is what's known as 'competitive advantage.' It's part of what is going to make the iPad special and different from the competition.
That's a sentient thought! Who decides the fabrication technology? Is it the contracted foundry or Apple? I would imagine that contact foundries have a harder time keeping up with Intel and IBM far as manufacturing sizes (32 nanometers vs 24 nanometers and such), as well as materials like what metals to use in the gates.
Are contract foundries on the forefront of technology like Intel, IBM and to a lesser extent AMD?
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.
NeXtStep brings back fond memories. I was thinking of moving up to the NeXt computer as my Mac Plus was aging and I was looking at the Mac iici. The greatest selling point was the unix based OS.
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.
I think Apple's PPC partners bailed on Apple before Apple bailed on them. They were only interested in the server (IBM) and embeded (Motorola) markets and showed little interest in working with Apple in making PPC a viable general computer CPU. Apple only switched to Intel when the PPC alliance failed to produce a G5 capable of being put into a laptop.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
That's a sentient thought! Who decides the fabrication technology? Is it the contracted foundry or Apple? I would imagine that contact foundries have a harder time keeping up with Intel and IBM far as manufacturing sizes (32 nanometers vs 24 nanometers and such), as well as materials like what metals to use in the gates.
Are contract foundries on the forefront of technology like Intel, IBM and to a lesser extent AMD?
Yes.
The main advantage that IBM or Intel has here is that they know exactly how the manufacturing process is likely to behave. When you are fabless you rely on marketing information which can be misleading. This seems to be the major delay for NVidia's new graphics cards.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
I don't consider an iMac or Mac Pro as a mobile device. Perhaps you should have said laptops instead of computers.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
It'll therefore make it far easier to divest if/when needed. No messy contracts, partner disputes, and such. They will simply sell it off to someone who can extract greater value from it. A $1B investment in the larger scheme of things is a very small bet for Apple (relative to possible payoff).
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
Exactly. The big news here might be that Apple has hit the natural limits of their partnership with Intel. The Intel partnership made a lot of sense (and still does) for PCs if only because it puts them in a better position to complete with Microsoft in that arena, but in markets where Microsoft is not the major factor, it makes more sense for them to blaze their own path.
I don't consider an iMac or Mac Pro as a mobile device. Perhaps you should have said laptops instead of computers.
From the context of sentence mentioning mobiles and then computers it seemed like a logic deduction to assume he meant only portable computers, ie notebooks.
why would it cost 1billion? this article just didn't give me any explanation.
My thoughts exactly. This seems to be a cost for designing the part from scratch.
I would think that Apple would do like the others do and buy rights for the ARM design (and any other Intellectual Property they needed) and make modifications as needed.
"Available as either a single core or configurable multicore processor, with both synthesizable or hard-macro implementations available."
The 1GHz processor was referenced in 3rd party marketing as a single-core CPU, which although close to double the 3GS is nowhere near a dual 1GHz CPU. The single core also also has the lowest power usage out of all the designs.
Plus if it was multi-core, out of all the companies in the world, Apple would be one of the most likely to say dual-1GHz if it was dual-1GHz.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
I don't foresee that Apple/PA Semi will take on Intel--at least not yet. There might be some differences between Intel and Apple when Intel decided to include a graphics chip in their latest generation of CPU's.
It does make sense that Apple develop their own chips that they put into their own mobile devices ie iPhone, Ipod touch and iPad.
The original NYT article contains wrong assertions:
Quote:
Apple was the first company to make a really aspirational device that wasn?t based on Intel chips and Microsoft?s Windows,? said Fred Weber, a chip industry veteran. ?The iPhone broke some psychological barriers people had about trying new products and helped drive this consumer electronics push.?
Actually, there is no phone or smartphone with Intel CPU, yet. It is only an Intel target to enter phone/smartphone CPU business.
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.
Right, they're going to ask all the developers to spend lots of money move again to a platform that has never been used for homer computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I think Apple's PPC partners bailed on Apple before Apple bailed on them. They were only interested in the server (IBM) and embeded (Motorola) markets and showed little interest in working with Apple in making PPC a viable general computer CPU. Apple only switched to Intel when the PPC alliance failed to produce a G5 capable of being put into a laptop.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
Moto and IBM were (and are) in the business of making money, not being a complementary service to Apple. Amiga was going nowhere and Windows PPC didn't go all that far. Apple under jobs wasn't willing to open Apple up to other markets or big name clones. That all Limited the amount of orders a PowerPC chip could receive. Moto and IBM made up for this partially by having dual use chips with embedded or server applications. However, in the end there just wasn't money to be main in high performance PowerPCs in that environment. In addition to that, a lot of software companies were not will to optimize code for the PowerPC.
Comments
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...
It would also destroy Mac sales. Being able to run Windows is a *big* incentive to buy a Mac for many people. Most of the people I convince to buy a Mac have no interest because they've got so much money invested in Windows software. When I point out that they *can* run all that software on a Mac, they instantly become much more open to getting a Mac. Down the road, they may wind up being Windows haters like many people around here; but without that bridge, they would never have become Mac users in the first place.
Take the Mac and turn it into something that can't run Windows (at full speed), and you lose the ability to attract PC users this way. I don't even think SJ would give up that.
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.
Apple was also a major stockholder in ARM at one time. IIRC, they began liquidating their position during the late '90s after canceling the Newton. It seems Apple has more skin in the game this time around, since they acquired PA Semi with the clear intent of going in-house for processor development.
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...
Well just look at what's coming right around the corner: iPad. Over 10 hours of battery life. Not much blew me away in SJ's presentation, but the half-day battery life sure did.
This is what's known as 'competitive advantage.' It's part of what is going to make the iPad special and different from the competition.
You'd be right if Apple had their own foundry.
That's a sentient thought! Who decides the fabrication technology? Is it the contracted foundry or Apple? I would imagine that contact foundries have a harder time keeping up with Intel and IBM far as manufacturing sizes (32 nanometers vs 24 nanometers and such), as well as materials like what metals to use in the gates.
Are contract foundries on the forefront of technology like Intel, IBM and to a lesser extent AMD?
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.
NeXtStep brings back fond memories. I was thinking of moving up to the NeXt computer as my Mac Plus was aging and I was looking at the Mac iici. The greatest selling point was the unix based OS.
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.
I think Apple's PPC partners bailed on Apple before Apple bailed on them. They were only interested in the server (IBM) and embeded (Motorola) markets and showed little interest in working with Apple in making PPC a viable general computer CPU. Apple only switched to Intel when the PPC alliance failed to produce a G5 capable of being put into a laptop.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
That's a sentient thought! Who decides the fabrication technology? Is it the contracted foundry or Apple? I would imagine that contact foundries have a harder time keeping up with Intel and IBM far as manufacturing sizes (32 nanometers vs 24 nanometers and such), as well as materials like what metals to use in the gates.
Are contract foundries on the forefront of technology like Intel, IBM and to a lesser extent AMD?
Yes.
The main advantage that IBM or Intel has here is that they know exactly how the manufacturing process is likely to behave. When you are fabless you rely on marketing information which can be misleading. This seems to be the major delay for NVidia's new graphics cards.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
I don't consider an iMac or Mac Pro as a mobile device. Perhaps you should have said laptops instead of computers.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
It'll therefore make it far easier to divest if/when needed. No messy contracts, partner disputes, and such. They will simply sell it off to someone who can extract greater value from it. A $1B investment in the larger scheme of things is a very small bet for Apple (relative to possible payoff).
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
Good points!
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
Exactly. The big news here might be that Apple has hit the natural limits of their partnership with Intel. The Intel partnership made a lot of sense (and still does) for PCs if only because it puts them in a better position to complete with Microsoft in that arena, but in markets where Microsoft is not the major factor, it makes more sense for them to blaze their own path.
I don't consider an iMac or Mac Pro as a mobile device. Perhaps you should have said laptops instead of computers.
From the context of sentence mentioning mobiles and then computers it seemed like a logic deduction to assume he meant only portable computers, ie notebooks.
why would it cost 1billion? this article just didn't give me any explanation.
My thoughts exactly. This seems to be a cost for designing the part from scratch.
I would think that Apple would do like the others do and buy rights for the ARM design (and any other Intellectual Property they needed) and make modifications as needed.
Based on the Cortex-A9 MPCore, the processor is much faster than the ARM-based CPU that powers the iPhone 3GS.
No indication that it's the MPCore design.
http://www.arm.com/products/processo.../cortex-a9.php
"Available as either a single core or configurable multicore processor, with both synthesizable or hard-macro implementations available."
The 1GHz processor was referenced in 3rd party marketing as a single-core CPU, which although close to double the 3GS is nowhere near a dual 1GHz CPU. The single core also also has the lowest power usage out of all the designs.
Plus if it was multi-core, out of all the companies in the world, Apple would be one of the most likely to say dual-1GHz if it was dual-1GHz.
As Steve Jobs stated in the iPad intro presentation, Apple is already the world's largest mobile devices company in revenue $$ when you roll together computers, iPods, and iPhones.
Apple wants to achieve superior battery life for a high level of performance. They don't want to pay a vendor like Intel to achieve those results only to see them offering the same chip for sale to competitors.
These chips are so important to Apple that they want to be in control of their own destiny. They were hurt in the past when IBM and Motorola took their PowerPC road maps in a different direction.
I don't foresee that Apple/PA Semi will take on Intel--at least not yet. There might be some differences between Intel and Apple when Intel decided to include a graphics chip in their latest generation of CPU's.
It does make sense that Apple develop their own chips that they put into their own mobile devices ie iPhone, Ipod touch and iPad.
Apple was the first company to make a really aspirational device that wasn?t based on Intel chips and Microsoft?s Windows,? said Fred Weber, a chip industry veteran. ?The iPhone broke some psychological barriers people had about trying new products and helped drive this consumer electronics push.?
Actually, there is no phone or smartphone with Intel CPU, yet. It is only an Intel target to enter phone/smartphone CPU business.
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.
Right, they're going to ask all the developers to spend lots of money move again to a platform that has never been used for homer computers.
I think Apple's PPC partners bailed on Apple before Apple bailed on them. They were only interested in the server (IBM) and embeded (Motorola) markets and showed little interest in working with Apple in making PPC a viable general computer CPU. Apple only switched to Intel when the PPC alliance failed to produce a G5 capable of being put into a laptop.
As for the A4, who is Apple going to drop? There are no partners other than the fab shops. It's all Apple.
Moto and IBM were (and are) in the business of making money, not being a complementary service to Apple. Amiga was going nowhere and Windows PPC didn't go all that far. Apple under jobs wasn't willing to open Apple up to other markets or big name clones. That all Limited the amount of orders a PowerPC chip could receive. Moto and IBM made up for this partially by having dual use chips with embedded or server applications. However, in the end there just wasn't money to be main in high performance PowerPCs in that environment. In addition to that, a lot of software companies were not will to optimize code for the PowerPC.
Apple acquired PA Semi Conductor in 2008 for $278.
Bargain!