ARM expects to control 50% of mobile chip market by 2015

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 26
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    As long as Windows requires x86 instructions, Apple will have x86 processors because virtualizing is a big deal, IMHO. But it is Apple we are talking about so who really knows.



    Well, that's ironic because Microsoft, and not Apple, is the one that has made an official announcement porting their OS to ARM architecture.
  • Reply 22 of 26
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Yes. Most people forget Apple was a co-founding partner of ARM (I think they had a 10% interest) and had a big say in the chip design (Apple used to design a lot of their own chips in the old days, and still does.)

    Although it sounds odd to me to refer to baseband, BT and WiFi chips as "CPU's."



    The AI article also makes it sound like ARM manufactures chips, but I'm pretty sure they just concentrate on designing excellent chips and then licensing their designs to others.



    Sorry my poor terminology They are in fact System on Chip (SoC), the integrated applications processor (apps processor) typically has several sub-systems on the chip. One for the main OS and general functions, another managing the mobile baseband, which typically has a real-time OS (RTOS). There are often multi-media sub systems which manage video, audio etc and can be one system or multiple. The apps and baseband sections for sure are today using an ARM core. The multi-media sub-system could also have a small ARM CPU core.



    Connectivity (BT, WiFi, GPS, NFC etc) can be one or more SoCs depending on the configuration. If a combo chip then probably one ARM CPU, if two chips which is today still common (BT/WiFi with separate GPS is the most common), then usually as many as chips.



    Hope that helps



    Cheers,



    Kevin
  • Reply 23 of 26
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    Douché Kev. Great use of Google there.



    Maybe the AppleInsider author should have said "All of this adds up to very bad news for Intel." It doesn't really matter if Apple ships 17.0 million ARM-based chips or 17.1 million. The point is that Intel is so locked in to supporting Windows and Office and their legacy x86 architecture that they have lost their focus on mobile.



    It's like Detroit automakers and the U.S. oil companies. The automakers would prefer to make big, heavy, gas-guzzling SUVs because they don't need to conform to stringent air pollution laws. No need for expensive engineering, and they can sell tarted-up trucks for $60k. The oil companies love this because big, heavy, gas-guzzling SUVs create more demand for gas. A match made in heaven.



    Same thing with Microsoft and Intel. Microsoft makes bloated, resource-hogging software. They can't help it. They've lost the ability to write lean, mean code. Intel loves this because bloated, resource-hogging software creates more demand for their latest hot-running power-sucking x86 chips. A match made in heaven.



    Oh, and there's one more thing. This is a blog, not CNN. Opinions are fine on blogs.



    Sadly I am one of those who actually reads all this data (has always been part of my job), so had to just Googleit to find the right links
  • Reply 24 of 26
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post


    Yes. Most people forget Apple was a co-founding partner of ARM (I think they had a 10% interest) and had a big say in the chip design (Apple used to design a lot of their own chips in the old days, and still does.)

    Although it sounds odd to me to refer to baseband, BT and WiFi chips as "CPU's."



    The AI article also makes it sound like ARM manufactures chips, but I'm pretty sure they just concentrate on designing excellent chips and then licensing their designs to others.



    On ARM manufacturing chips, you are absolutely right, ARM does not manufacture chips themselves, they do a few test chips but that is it. ARM's business is in fact an Intellectual Property (IP) business, the largest in the world. Hence licensing and royalties are key for ARM. ARM sells the IP to major chip vendors like TI, Qualcomm, Freescale etc, they then turn the IP into a physical chip.



    That said, if you look at where ARM is placed in the market, ie how the market views them, they are always put in the semiconductor bin as the market still does not get ARM is not an Intel.
  • Reply 25 of 26
    granmastakgranmastak Posts: 298member
    They got a leg up on that one ROTFLMAO
  • Reply 26 of 26
    whcirwhcir Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kevin.mcintyre View Post


    It is in fact more accurate to say that when Apple entered the phone market ARM was the only real choice to use, as ARM is number one in this market. Apple has been using ARM CPUs since the first iPod, and in fact ARM and Apple have a relationship that goes back to the very founding of ARM, as a spin-out from Acorn Computers- An Apple competitor in the UK.



    I'm not sure if ARM was the only real choice, but because ARM licenses its designs instead of manufacturing chips it gives Apple a lot of flexibility. They have licensed ARM's designs to add and modify them to fit their products better and they have the flexibility to seek out manufacturers the same way they do for other parts. This allows them to make great products and drive down their production costs.



    It's also worth noting that Apple was an investor in ARM in its earliest days and Apple used ARM designs in the Newton MessagePad.
Sign In or Register to comment.