Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production. Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design.
For those who don't know, Intrinsity, an Austin, TX based firm, traces it roots back to the PowerPC x704 in the 1990s. For those who weren't born or were still babies at the time, the PowerPC x704 was a high clock rate PowerPC processor (~500 MHz!) that they tried to sell to Apple for use in Apple PowerPC Macs.
It caused quite the stir at the time as they were using an "exotic" biCMOS process to get those clock rates. Anyways, Apple killed Mac clones, and that basically killed the processor, and the company had to pivot.
What comes around, comes around again, and Apple ends up buying them a little over a decade later. It's not that Intrinsity was some unknown company doing circuit designs. Apple certainly knew of them.
And yes, the A4, A5, A6 and A7 are all Apple designed, and increasingly custom as time goes on.
Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production. Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design.
I don't know from how long you are using a computer, but I've heard those denial for so many time before. My first mac was 24/32 bit (not 32 bit clean) and the A7 will be my third transition to 64bit platform (other was the G5 and Intel C2D). And at each new generation, I hear people having the exact same critics as yours,
You're narrowing you mind on the over 4GB limit which is merely one consequence of 64 bit addressing. Just like the G5 or the Athlon 64 before, going 64bit will bring performance boost on many levels which every apps gain benefit from things like doubling internal I/O bandwidth, we don't know yet all the specs of the A7, no one as got a chance buy one yet. I can't wait to read Chipworks analysis.
Do you work for DED in the fiction department? From Cult of Mac:
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
No, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance. All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.
Do you work for DED in the fiction department? From Cult of Mac:
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
Actually, DED had an article on the ARM shares topic. Since he is a shareholder and is present on each shareholder's meeting, I'm inclined to believe him, not Cult of Mac. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Apple is one of the founders of ARM Holdings. Their initial investment is not considered just a stock purchase. And according to DED's article, Jobs sold almost all ARM shares in three years for a total of $1.1 billion, but not all. Apple still has a stake in ARM.
Quote:
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
The A4 chip is designed by Intrinsity, and produced by Samsung. There is no collaboration other than setting up and configuring Samsung's foundries to produce the chip. Contrary to general belief, that last part is in no way simple, and requires a lot of expertise, especially on the part of the foundries. Nevertheless, there is no collaboration on designing of the chip.
Quote:
No, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance. All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.
I'll point you towards an Article of Anand Shrimpi:
The A7 SoC seems to have only 2 cores, run at the same 1.3GHz frequency and easily beats 4-core, 1.7-2.0GHz quad-core Cortex A15 processors. And it generally preserves the energy consumption to A6's levels.
Transition to 64-bit architecture gives around 10% performance boost in real-world applications.
But, from what is seen in the performance tests of Anandtech, Apple did boost the performance to x2.
I didn't know cnet was a PRO-Apple fiction blog. I don't get you point here.
Quote:
From Cult of Mac:
“John Scully was running Apple at the time, and they were in real trouble, real financial trouble, and in fact they were about to go bust,” said Hauser. “The reason they didn’t go bust was because they sold their ARM stake that they had originally purchased for $1.5 billion for $800 million.”
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
According to your unreferenced quote fabrication from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993
Quote:
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
Again you're understanding is wrong here. Uses of ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences. The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is what license Samsung currently own.
In another hand the Architectural licences, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs. Intrinsity was an Architectural licensee and R&D shop to hire for Samsung, without Intrinsity Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like they do on there new and ridiculous Exynos Octo.
Quote:
No, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance. All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.
You don't seams to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Beside believing that having a new ARM architecture only benefit will be 64 bit addressing is dumb of you, I don't think 64bit (for what ever meaning you think of) alone miraculously boosted performance. But I do think doubling register size and counts, eliminating legacy architecture shortcomings, doubling the L1 and L2 caches and memory bandwidth do have a lots of benefits.
Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.
I didn't know cnet was a PRO-Apple fiction blog. I don't get you point here.
According to your quote from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993. My previous reference proves you and your meritless quote wrong.
Again you're understanding of maters is wrong here. Uses of ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences. The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is was licenses Samsung own.
In another hand the Architectural licences of which Apple unquestionably own since they helped founding ARM Holding, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs. Intrinsity was an Architectural licence and ARM R&D shop for Samsung to hire, without Intrinsity, Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like their new Exynos Octo.
You are the ignorant, you seams unable to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.
I'm gonna play Mr. Moderator here. Don't either of you have something better to do than argue about this subject matter?
I'm doing this because I get emails with your responses.
I mean SERIOUSLY, the whole thing is moot. And all of this knowledge right, wrong or indifferent will NOT get you a free cup of coffee at Starbucks or a Free McDonald's Happy Meal.
Comments
Well, there are a few alternatives: MonoTouch and Apache Cordova. I think there are others, but who cares
Like pure C or C++ in Xcode, those solution are wrapped around Objective-C
Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production. Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design.
For those who don't know, Intrinsity, an Austin, TX based firm, traces it roots back to the PowerPC x704 in the 1990s. For those who weren't born or were still babies at the time, the PowerPC x704 was a high clock rate PowerPC processor (~500 MHz!) that they tried to sell to Apple for use in Apple PowerPC Macs.
It caused quite the stir at the time as they were using an "exotic" biCMOS process to get those clock rates. Anyways, Apple killed Mac clones, and that basically killed the processor, and the company had to pivot.
What comes around, comes around again, and Apple ends up buying them a little over a decade later. It's not that Intrinsity was some unknown company doing circuit designs. Apple certainly knew of them.
And yes, the A4, A5, A6 and A7 are all Apple designed, and increasingly custom as time goes on.
You got great imagination, Apple didn't sold all participation in ARM Holdings and they didn't sold at loss: http://news.cnet.com/Short-Take-Apple-sells-ARM-shares/2110-1001_3-221149.html
Apple started to build the internal team for designing a custom ARM back in 2008 with the acquisition of P.A. Semi, Intrinsity team helped for the design of the A4 and then being acquired by Apple before sending the A4 design to production. Samsung as not be implicated into the A4 design.
I don't know from how long you are using a computer, but I've heard those denial for so many time before. My first mac was 24/32 bit (not 32 bit clean) and the A7 will be my third transition to 64bit platform (other was the G5 and Intel C2D). And at each new generation, I hear people having the exact same critics as yours,
You're narrowing you mind on the over 4GB limit which is merely one consequence of 64 bit addressing. Just like the G5 or the Athlon 64 before, going 64bit will bring performance boost on many levels which every apps gain benefit from things like doubling internal I/O bandwidth, we don't know yet all the specs of the A7, no one as got a chance buy one yet. I can't wait to read Chipworks analysis.
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
No, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance. All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
Actually, DED had an article on the ARM shares topic. Since he is a shareholder and is present on each shareholder's meeting, I'm inclined to believe him, not Cult of Mac. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Apple is one of the founders of ARM Holdings. Their initial investment is not considered just a stock purchase. And according to DED's article, Jobs sold almost all ARM shares in three years for a total of $1.1 billion, but not all. Apple still has a stake in ARM.
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
The A4 chip is designed by Intrinsity, and produced by Samsung. There is no collaboration other than setting up and configuring Samsung's foundries to produce the chip. Contrary to general belief, that last part is in no way simple, and requires a lot of expertise, especially on the part of the foundries. Nevertheless, there is no collaboration on designing of the chip.
I'll point you towards an Article of Anand Shrimpi:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review
The A7 SoC seems to have only 2 cores, run at the same 1.3GHz frequency and easily beats 4-core, 1.7-2.0GHz quad-core Cortex A15 processors. And it generally preserves the energy consumption to A6's levels.
Transition to 64-bit architecture gives around 10% performance boost in real-world applications.
But, from what is seen in the performance tests of Anandtech, Apple did boost the performance to x2.
Actually, DED had an article on the ARM shares topic.
Who's DED?
Who's DED?
Daniel Eran Dilger, the article is http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/12/iphone-patent-wars-apples-11-billion-arm-injection-ignites-a-mobile-patent-race
Daniel Eran Dilger, the article is http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/12/iphone-patent-wars-apples-11-billion-arm-injection-ignites-a-mobile-patent-race
Oh, that guy. Oh, OK. Just checking. Thanks.
I didn't know cnet was a PRO-Apple fiction blog. I don't get you point here.
That’s a staggering $700 million loss, but if not for selling ARM, Hauser says, Apple might not even be here today to give us iPhones and iPads."
The sales of ARM stakes started in 1998 and sold its entire stake in ARM over the next 2-3 years.
According to your unreferenced quote fabrication from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993
Samsung started making ARM based SOCs since 2006 and the first generations of iPhones, for instance, were based on ARM's vanila reference design. Apple bought PA-Semi two years later. Intrinsity was later brought on for their high-speed/low-power tech, F14, which culminated in the A4 based on Samsung's Hummingbird in 2010. Apple bought Intrinsity after the Samsung-Intrinsity collaboration produced the A4.
Again you're understanding is wrong here. Uses of ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences. The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is what license Samsung currently own.
In another hand the Architectural licences, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs. Intrinsity was an Architectural licensee and R&D shop to hire for Samsung, without Intrinsity Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like they do on there new and ridiculous Exynos Octo.
No, you just have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like one of those Microsoft serfs who got duped into believing that 64bit miraculously boosted their desktop performance. All mobile devices are designed with limited resources (storage, memory, power) in mind and, likewise, the performance gain from 64bit is little or none.
You don't seams to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Beside believing that having a new ARM architecture only benefit will be 64 bit addressing is dumb of you, I don't think 64bit (for what ever meaning you think of) alone miraculously boosted performance. But I do think doubling register size and counts, eliminating legacy architecture shortcomings, doubling the L1 and L2 caches and memory bandwidth do have a lots of benefits.
Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review
I didn't know cnet was a PRO-Apple fiction blog. I don't get you point here.
According to your quote from Cult of Mac, It was during Scully presidency they had financial trouble and sold ARM stake, John Scully left Apple in 1993. My previous reference proves you and your meritless quote wrong.
Again you're understanding of maters is wrong here. Uses of ARM IP consist of two licences, the ARM Core licenses and ARM Architectural licences. The first gives reference schematics and design to produce "vanilla" ARM core, other SoC components and final integration is up to the mfg, this is was licenses Samsung own.
In another hand the Architectural licences of which Apple unquestionably own since they helped founding ARM Holding, gives liberty to implement and extend ARM design to whatever needs. Intrinsity was an Architectural licence and ARM R&D shop for Samsung to hire, without Intrinsity, Samsung cannot implement their own new core, the only way they got is multiplicating cores, like their new Exynos Octo.
You are the ignorant, you seams unable to differentiate software from hardware here. I don't have time to waste for educating you about CPU architecture. Here is a non-partisan article that could be a eyeopener for you.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review
I'm gonna play Mr. Moderator here. Don't either of you have something better to do than argue about this subject matter?
I'm doing this because I get emails with your responses.
I mean SERIOUSLY, the whole thing is moot. And all of this knowledge right, wrong or indifferent will NOT get you a free cup of coffee at Starbucks or a Free McDonald's Happy Meal.
NeXT topic of discussion.
Thank you.