As Apple's GPU plans go public, Imagination fears becoming a tech orphan

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2017
Ten years after Apple effectively created a viable, high-end mobile graphics business for Imagination Technologies--and a year after the iPhone maker publicly declined to acquire the company--the British graphics technology firm now appears to be in full panic mode that its mobile technology may end up abandoned like MIPS, PowerPC, Nvidia's Tegra and Texas Instrument's OMAP.

Imagination Technologies

Apple stifles the Imagination

Imagination develops silicon intellectual property reference designs for mobile graphics processors that are then customized and built by licensees, typically as part of an Application Processor.

Apple has licensed Imagination's PowerVR GPU technology in all of the A-series chips used in its iOS devices and Apple TV, as well as in the S-series chip package inside Apple Watch. (Apple's Macs use GPUs from other sources, including the Intel graphics built into Core x86 CPUs, as well as dedicated GPUs from AMD and Nvidia).

Apple contributes about half of Imaginations licensing revenues, so if future iOS devices replace the design firm's PowerVR graphics with a GPU developed within Apple (as Imagination declared today), it would obviously be devastating for the chip design firm (just as it was for PortalPlayer when Apple abruptly stopped using its chips in iPods).

Advanced mobile GPU development loses its iOS oxygen

Its not just Imagination that would suffer from the loss of Apple's GPU business. As Apple shifts to its own GPU technology, the licensing revenues that are supporting Imagination will collapse in half, forcing competitors to look elsewhere for advanced GPU technology.

Imaginations ostensibly promising, next-generation Furian mobile GPU technology was expected to debut over the next two years. However, without premium, mass market products to drive its adoption and pay for its ongoing development, it would appear poised to suffer the same fate as other highly-regarded but commercially unviable chip architectures such as Texas Instruments OMAP, Nvidia's Tegra, IBMs PowerPC, Sun Sparc and the MIPS CPU architecture that Imagination acquired in 2013.



A major problem for Apple's established mobile device rivals--as well the potential for a smaller disrupter seeking to emerge--is that advanced GPU technology is capital intensive to develop; it generally requires long-term investment, sustained by reliable, high volume sales. GPUs also involve a minefield of intellectual property patents. These factors previously prevented AMD and Nvidia from facing much competition in desktop GPUs.

Apple's focus on premium, high-end mobile devices has driven a relentless push in mobile graphics sophistication. By investing in Imagination--or licensing its technology, as most other chip fabs have--other manufacturers have benefitted from Apple's funding of PowerVR GPU development, paid for from its iPhone and iPad revenues. That obviously ends if Apple moves the iOS GPU ecosystem inside.

The AAPL giveth


Powerful graphics capabilities have been a differentiating feature of Apple's mobile product lineup since the iPhone first appeared in 2007, driven by a Samsung chip incorporating Imaginations PowerVR MBX GPU paired with an ARM CPU general processing core.

Putting a powerful GPU into a mobile phone targeting mainstream users was a key part of Apple's iPhone strategy, following the same accelerated graphics compositing concept that macOS Xs Quartz graphic layer had used to differentiate Macs from Windows between 2001 and 2006 (when Microsoft belatedly released Vista with a comparable modern graphics architecture).

The popularity of iPhone--fueled in part by its fluidly animated, GPU-accelerated user interface--helped establish Imaginations unique approach to GPU design at the top of the mobile market. Apple's iPad also created a Mac-sized new market for tablets with an even greater demand for powerful, efficient mobile GPUs than phones.

and the AAPL taketh away

In the same way that Apple telegraphed for years its intent to move its A-series chip production from Samsung's LSI fabs to Taiwan's TSMC to take advantage of the latters superior fab technology, Apple has also left plenty of breadcrumbs spelling out an intent to develop its own GPU technology.

Across the seven-year span of proprietary ARM CPU core development in Apple's A4 through its latest A10 Fusion chip, the company has introduced a series of major CPU architectural advancements, notably including the jump to a 64-bit architecture in 2013s A7.

While Apple has apparently also made some customizations to Imaginations reference designs on the GPUs side of those chips, it appears to have more closely followed the firm's public PowerVR roadmap, at least in hardware.

In 2014, Apple surprised developers with Metal, a new low-level, low-overhead API for iOS apps to more efficiently schedule graphics operations, reducing the load on the CPU while taking fuller advantage of available GPU cores.


Metal


The next year, Apple subsequently brought Metal to the Mac, demonstrating that the technology wasn't tied to Imaginations GPU but could also work on GPUs ranging from the Mac Pro's workstation-class AMD FirePro to notebook-class Nvidia GeForce and AMD Radeon GPUs in MacBook Pros and even basic Intel HD graphics in entry-level iMacs, Retina MacBooks and Mac minis.

Any illusion Imagination may have had that Apple was content being dependent upon its GPU designs for iOS devices should have been dispelled by Apple's reputation for switching back and forth between AMD and Nvidia GPUs on Macs, enabled first by OpenGL and then by Metal.

Five years of Apple GPU project rumors

Further, following Apple's acquisitions of PA Semi in 2008 and Intrinsity in 2010--which both contributed to the company's internal chip development team--the company branched out from custom ARM CPUs design in buying flash memory chip designer Anobit in 2011 and in the 2012 acquisition of fingerprint sensor designer AuthenTec.

Apple established silicon research and design offices in the Scientific Industries Center in Anaobit's headquarters in Haifa, Israel, as well as setting up a Melbourne Design Center in AuthenTecs high tech corridor near Orlando, Florida, apparently focused on perfecting Touch ID.

In 2012, Apple reportedly began hiring away Texas Instruments engineers located in Haifa and the Herzliya Pituah region of Israel. In addition to working on WiFi, Bluetooth and GPS silicon, TIs Israeli campus also developed OMAP, the Applications Processor Google had focused the development of Android 4.0 upon, and Amazon used for Kindle Fire. Like Apple, TI used PowerVR GPUs.

Facing bleak demand, TI abandoned future development of OMAP in 2012, erasing a significant and reliable source of competitive hardware from Apple's rivals.

In early 2013 Apple was similarly found to have hired a dozen former AMD graphics engineers working near Orlando. Apple also began posting job openings in Florida for positions including a reference model engineer who would specialize in "modeling GPU hardware." Other listings made mention of running iOS on "pre-silicon platforms." Additional references were made to an Orlando GPU team seeking additional job applicants with experience in leading "high performance GFX (or equivalent complexity) IP development teams."

In 2014, Apple was noted to be among companies "recruiting very aggressively and successfully from IBM and other struggling chipmakers like AMD and Freescale," particularly around IBMs fading facilities in Austin, Texas (where Apple has since established a major operations center, below).



In 2015 AppleInsider noted additional sources of rumors that Apple had been actively working on an internal mobile GPU design "under extreme secrecy for a few years."

In March 2016, Apple reportedly engaged in "advanced talks" with Imagination regarding a potential takeover. At the time, Apple owned about 10 percent of the company, while Intel owned an even larger stake. Apple did not make a formal offer to buy the company.

Buying Imagination for its GPU team and designs would involve divesting parts of the company unrelated to GPU development. It would also likely result in an abandonment of half of the group's revenues. Once acquired, nothing would stop Imaginations talent from leaving.

Instead, Apple continued its pursuit of Imagination talent. Last October, AppleInsider reported that Apple had hired away at least 25 employees from Imagination over the past two years, aligning with earlier rumors of an internal mobile GPU effort.

A license to kill

Imagination is apparently aware that Apple had been investing years of efforts into its own GPU designs, and is certainly aware that Apple has been recruiting away its talent over the past two years.

The firm's disclosure stated that Apple is "its largest customer" and had notified it that "it will no longer use the Group's intellectual property in its new products in 15 months to two years time." This appears to outline that the transition would require a new contract, given that once Apple begins using own technology it will dramatically scale back the volume of IP it is still required to license.

Imagination expressed skepticism in Apple's "assertion" that it "will no longer require Imaginations technology," stating that it "believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights."

Apple has similar issues with Qualcomm, which it is now suing over licensing issues--described as extortion, monopolistic practices and price-gouging--related to baseband mobile technology. However, Apple pays Qualcomm billions of dollars per year, while its licensing costs related to PowerVR GPUs is less than $100 million annually.

This suggests that Apple's move away from Imagination--a company it has a small vested stake in--is not driven by costs as much as a desire to move to radically new technology that Imagination itself couldn't deliver and that Apple doesn't want to share with its competitors.
patchythepirate
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    I think you need to edit a bit. Nvidia Tegra is hard to say its a failure. If you look at what it is in:
    • Nvidia Shield
    • Audi 
    • Nintendo Switch 
    • A few different phones
    I'm sure I am missing a few other products but you get the point. 

    If you look at PowerPC as a name has kind of lived on in the Power Architecture of IBM. 
    1983mwhite[Deleted User]jasenj1williamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 23
    "Metal to the Mac, demonstrating that the technology wasnt tied to Imaginations GPU but could also work on GPUs ranging from the Mac Pros workstation-class AMD FirePro to notebook-class Nvidia GeForce and AMD Radeon GPUs in MacBook Pros to even basic Intel HD graphics in entry level iMacs, Retina MacBooks and Mac minis."

    That was uncomfortable to read, like someone trying to type that barely speaks English as a third language. 
    iqatedocognomen42williamlondon
  • Reply 3 of 23
    evev Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    Have you guys at AppleInsider just given up on apostrophes? You've got one in the headline, but there are many, many words in this story that are incorrectly bereft of apostrophes. Shoddy, shoddy editing.
    iqatedocognomen42williamlondon
  • Reply 4 of 23
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    "Metal to the Mac, demonstrating that the technology wasnt tied to Imaginations GPU but could also work on GPUs ranging from the Mac Pros workstation-class AMD FirePro to notebook-class Nvidia GeForce and AMD Radeon GPUs in MacBook Pros to even basic Intel HD graphics in entry level iMacs, Retina MacBooks and Mac minis."

    That was uncomfortable to read, like someone trying to type that barely speaks English as a third language. 
    You should read more then.  I found the sentence easy to understand. 
    missiongrey[Deleted User]fotoformatcharlesgreswilliamlondonedredpatchythepiratejbdragonai46watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 23
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,312member
    carnalimr said:
    I think you need to edit a bit. Nvidia Tegra is hard to say its a failure. If you look at what it is in:
    • Nvidia Shield
    • Audi 
    • Nintendo Switch 
    • A few different phones
    I'm sure I am missing a few other products but you get the point. 

    If you look at PowerPC as a name has kind of lived on in the Power Architecture of IBM. 
    Tegra is dead in mobile, including tablets, but if you can name some current smartphones or tablets that use it, I'm willing to reevaluate my claim. Nvidia Shield and Nintendo Switch are game machines, and don't have the same power or form factor constraints as smartphones.
    williamlondonedredjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 23
    DanielEranDanielEran Posts: 290editor
    carnalimr said:
    I think you need to edit a bit. Nvidia Tegra is hard to say its a failure. If you look at what it is in:
    • Nvidia Shield
    • Audi 
    • Nintendo Switch 
    • A few different phones
    I'm sure I am missing a few other products but you get the point. 

    If you look at PowerPC as a name has kind of lived on in the Power Architecture of IBM. 
    Nvidia shipped 4 major generations of Tegra that were all failures and then gave up on smartphones.
    Yes, there is a Tegra K1 and it is used in a couple gaming tablets. As a mobile platform it was a certified failure. Switch is expected to sell 100m units over its lifetime. If that occurs, there there will be a silver lining to the failure cloud that flopped along for nearly a decade. Its not hard to say Tegra has been a failure. 

    PowerPC is not Power Architecture. PowerPC is dead. Power Architecture is still slowly dying. 
    williamlondonjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 23
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,020member
    To me, I think Apple will not reveal their GPU plans until the product is shipping. Why give access to Apple IP so that Imagination can go back and steal right from Apple? Or furthermore, make Apple's plans public, so that the competition can try to one up them.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 23
    BenCBenC Posts: 13member
    Where did all the apostrophes go? Long-time AI reader but driven to make my first post. Interesting article as always from DED, but frustrating to read!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 9 of 23
    hammerd2hammerd2 Posts: 50member
    "In March 2016, Apple reportedly engaged in "advanced talks" with Imagination regarding a potential takeover. At the time, Apple owned about 10 percent of the company, while Intel owned an even larger stake."

    Daniel, Intel had already sold their stake (Feb 2015) when the Apple approach to take over Imagination happened (Mar 2016).

    JinTech, Imagination's assertion is that they feel after 10 years (plus another 1-2 before being ditched) of supplying IP, engineering and integration manpower and confidential knowhow to Apple, added to the fact that a good number of their top GPU designers left to go to Apple, they do not see it as possible/likely that Apple will be releasing a GPU core that will be different enough - from base principles to metal - to not have infringed ANY of their IP. Imagination are not going to "steal" a GPU design from Apple ! Apart from the obvious, where else could they use it ?

    Bottom line is that even if Apple do infringe, Imagination has zero money and to take Apple to court over infringing their IP is inconceivable as they simply can't afford it, and Apple know this.

    For the sake of transparency, I used to be an Imagination shareholder til 3-4 weeks ago - thankfully !!! - and am still an Apple shareholder, but if Apple have done the dirty deed then it stinks. Anyone who uses then steals another company's IP is a bit scummy, whether it's Apple, Samsung or anyone else.

    But we'll just have to wait and see if they have and what happens next. Little point in labouring the point much further as all will be supposition until Apple release their own in-house GPU.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 10 of 23
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    sflocal said:
    "Metal to the Mac, demonstrating that the technology wasnt tied to Imaginations GPU but could also work on GPUs ranging from the Mac Pros workstation-class AMD FirePro to notebook-class Nvidia GeForce and AMD Radeon GPUs in MacBook Pros to even basic Intel HD graphics in entry level iMacs, Retina MacBooks and Mac minis."

    That was uncomfortable to read, like someone trying to type that barely speaks English as a third language. 
    You should read more then.  I found the sentence easy to understand. 
    Could definitely use an extra comma or three, and I'm not sure that quite so many examples were necessary to get the point across; the sentence became far too long because of them.

    Missing a few apostrophes too.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    I think this news ties in with Tim Cook's recent comments on AR (Augmented Reality). He said that he views AR like the silicon used in the iPhone’s chips, in other words as a “core technology” and “not a product per se.

    I would hazard a guess that Apple's coming AR implementation will be configured in Apple designed silicon and Apple will be able to keep others from copying by making it impossible or very difficult to reverse engineer.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 23
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    hammerd2 said:
    "In March 2016, Apple reportedly engaged in "advanced talks" with Imagination regarding a potential takeover. At the time, Apple owned about 10 percent of the company, while Intel owned an even larger stake."

    Daniel, Intel had already sold their stake (Feb 2015) when the Apple approach to take over Imagination happened (Mar 2016).

    JinTech, Imagination's assertion is that they feel after 10 years (plus another 1-2 before being ditched) of supplying IP, engineering and integration manpower and confidential knowhow to Apple, added to the fact that a good number of their top GPU designers left to go to Apple, they do not see it as possible/likely that Apple will be releasing a GPU core that will be different enough - from base principles to metal - to not have infringed ANY of their IP. Imagination are not going to "steal" a GPU design from Apple ! Apart from the obvious, where else could they use it ?

    Bottom line is that even if Apple do infringe, Imagination has zero money and to take Apple to court over infringing their IP is inconceivable as they simply can't afford it, and Apple know this.

    For the sake of transparency, I used to be an Imagination shareholder til 3-4 weeks ago - thankfully !!! - and am still an Apple shareholder, but if Apple have done the dirty deed then it stinks. Anyone who uses then steals another company's IP is a bit scummy, whether it's Apple, Samsung or anyone else.

    But we'll just have to wait and see if they have and what happens next. Little point in labouring the point much further as all will be supposition until Apple release their own in-house GPU.
    Apple has been heavily modding the imagination GPU for 2 years and has hired TONS of GPU guys from all over for the last 4 (and has been rumored to be doing their own GPU since that time).

    You're reaching a hell of a lot there will that spiel about steeling intel property. If Imagination has any legal argument at all (meaning they actually took it) in this, they'll just wait till Apple uses it then find some deep pocket investors to back them to go after Apple.

    I'm pretty sure that won't happen cause undoubtably Apple's been doing their own thing, possibly by modifying the GPU from the ARM license, which they're already allowed to do.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 23
    hammerd2 said:
    "In March 2016, Apple reportedly engaged in "advanced talks" with Imagination regarding a potential takeover. At the time, Apple owned about 10 percent of the company, while Intel owned an even larger stake."

    Daniel, Intel had already sold their stake (Feb 2015) when the Apple approach to take over Imagination happened (Mar 2016).

    JinTech, Imagination's assertion is that they feel after 10 years (plus another 1-2 before being ditched) of supplying IP, engineering and integration manpower and confidential knowhow to Apple, added to the fact that a good number of their top GPU designers left to go to Apple, they do not see it as possible/likely that Apple will be releasing a GPU core that will be different enough - from base principles to metal - to not have infringed ANY of their IP. Imagination are not going to "steal" a GPU design from Apple ! Apart from the obvious, where else could they use it ?

    Bottom line is that even if Apple do infringe, Imagination has zero money and to take Apple to court over infringing their IP is inconceivable as they simply can't afford it, and Apple know this.

    For the sake of transparency, I used to be an Imagination shareholder til 3-4 weeks ago - thankfully !!! - and am still an Apple shareholder, but if Apple have done the dirty deed then it stinks. Anyone who uses then steals another company's IP is a bit scummy, whether it's Apple, Samsung or anyone else.

    But we'll just have to wait and see if they have and what happens next. Little point in labouring the point much further as all will be supposition until Apple release their own in-house GPU.
    What stops another large company like Samsung from buying Imagination and then taking legal action to prevent Apple from using the technology?
  • Reply 14 of 23
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    carnalimr said:
    I think you need to edit a bit. Nvidia Tegra is hard to say its a failure. If you look at what it is in:
    • Nvidia Shield
    • Audi 
    • Nintendo Switch 
    • A few different phones
    I'm sure I am missing a few other products but you get the point. 

    If you look at PowerPC as a name has kind of lived on in the Power Architecture of IBM. 
    Nvidia shipped 4 major generations of Tegra that were all failures and then gave up on smartphones.
    Yes, there is a Tegra K1 and it is used in a couple gaming tablets. As a mobile platform it was a certified failure. Switch is expected to sell 100m units over its lifetime. If that occurs, there there will be a silver lining to the failure cloud that flopped along for nearly a decade. Its not hard to say Tegra has been a failure. 

    PowerPC is not Power Architecture. PowerPC is dead. Power Architecture is still slowly dying. 
    Not entirely accurate on the "failure of 4 generations" front Daniel. Yes talking simply smartphones the power demands are too high for todays handsets (for the most part). Tegra and a smartphone aren't a good match, not unlike many other processors. In some other tech uses, automotive in particular, Nvidia's Tegra is pretty successful. 

  • Reply 15 of 23
    freeperfreeper Posts: 77member
    Much of this is ... well ... not true.

    Calling Tegra a failure - and then moving the goalposts by claiming that it is only a failure in MOBILE when the article itself referenced GPUs for Macs - is simply wrong. Nvidia makes much more on their Tegra line than Imagination ever did. In fact, Nvidia has a new Tegra chip coming out in a few months!

    Second, this article (falsely) implies that Apple alone was driving advanced mobile graphics, and that their taking their designs in house was somehow going to harm the competition. For this to be true, it would have to mean that A) Imagination relied on Apple's designs and B) competitors such as Mali, Adreno, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Intel etc. all subsequently copied the Imagination designs. Neither is true. Imagination developed their own IP which Apple licensed. This is why Apple considered buying Imagination, and then why they hired Imagination's talent, and is also why Imagination is leaving open the option of suing Apple for IP infringement. This would not be the case if Apple supplied Imagination the IP in the first place, as Apple did to Samsung and TSMC on the Ax processors. Second, the competing GPU tech is not based on Imagination design. They have their own IP and do not pay licensing fees to Imagination. If they did, Imagination would not be dependent on Apple as their primary source of revenue. Instead, they would be receiving royalties for every LG, HTC, Motorola, Huawei, Samsung etc. mobile device also. That is why "What stops another large company like Samsung from buying Imagination and then taking legal action to prevent Apple from using the technology?" as asked above is not going to happen ... there is no need to do so because Imagination isn't the only GPU outfit out there and it isn't even the best. The only reason why anyone would consider it to be the best or most significant GPU company - when there are plenty of others that are larger, more successful and whose tech drives much better and intensive graphics - is because of Apple. You can claim that Apple has the best graphics for mobile devices if you want, but no one claims the same for Macs ... not even close. This speaks nothing of high res monitors - which Apple doesn't make anymore, preferring instead to do business with LG - or high def TVs.

    Imagination's losing Apple's business does not keep them from seeking other clients. But good look with that, because virtually no one else in the mobile world uses their IP. That is why losing merely $100 million per year from Apple is such an existential threat to them, in comparison with Nvidia and other companies who make billions annually on graphics components. The competition instead uses GPUs from such competitors that they like better. And again, the opinions that the GPUs offered by the competition are inferior to those in Apple products are just that - opinions - that are only shared by the Apple faithful. They are welcome to those opinions, but they have very little to do with the marketplace. Now if Apple creates their own IP that is legitimately better than what can be found in other mobile devices and PCs, good for them, but we would have to wait until it actually happens first before declaring that they are going to. In order to pull this off, Apple is going to have to step a bit outside of their wheelhouse - taking tech developed by others to make great products - and instead try to beat the basic component manufacturers at their own game, and do it in a way where they maintain a consistent advantage over companies that have been designing GPUs and other components for decades. Getting Apple fans to claim that an Apple design that is used only in Apple products is better than the rest is one thing. Getting the rest of the industry to acknowledge that Apple's graphics outperform those of Nvidia, Mali, Intel and the rest is an entirely different matter.

    So this is just a story for Apple and Imagination. It has nothing to do with the rest of the mobile or tech industry.
    edited April 2017 gatorguy
  • Reply 16 of 23
    hammerd2hammerd2 Posts: 50member
    foggyhill said:
    hammerd2 said:
    "In March 2016, Apple reportedly engaged in "advanced talks" with Imagination regarding a potential takeover. At the time, Apple owned about 10 percent of the company, while Intel owned an even larger stake."

    Daniel, Intel had already sold their stake (Feb 2015) when the Apple approach to take over Imagination happened (Mar 2016).

    JinTech, Imagination's assertion is that they feel after 10 years (plus another 1-2 before being ditched) of supplying IP, engineering and integration manpower and confidential knowhow to Apple, added to the fact that a good number of their top GPU designers left to go to Apple, they do not see it as possible/likely that Apple will be releasing a GPU core that will be different enough - from base principles to metal - to not have infringed ANY of their IP. Imagination are not going to "steal" a GPU design from Apple ! Apart from the obvious, where else could they use it ?

    Bottom line is that even if Apple do infringe, Imagination has zero money and to take Apple to court over infringing their IP is inconceivable as they simply can't afford it, and Apple know this.

    For the sake of transparency, I used to be an Imagination shareholder til 3-4 weeks ago - thankfully !!! - and am still an Apple shareholder, but if Apple have done the dirty deed then it stinks. Anyone who uses then steals another company's IP is a bit scummy, whether it's Apple, Samsung or anyone else.

    But we'll just have to wait and see if they have and what happens next. Little point in labouring the point much further as all will be supposition until Apple release their own in-house GPU.
    Apple has been heavily modding the imagination GPU for 2 years and has hired TONS of GPU guys from all over for the last 4 (and has been rumored to be doing their own GPU since that time).

    You're reaching a hell of a lot there will that spiel about steeling intel property. If Imagination has any legal argument at all (meaning they actually took it) in this, they'll just wait till Apple uses it then find some deep pocket investors to back them to go after Apple.

    I'm pretty sure that won't happen cause undoubtably Apple's been doing their own thing, possibly by modifying the GPU from the ARM license, which they're already allowed to do.
    Maybe you should read what I wrote. I didn't mention anything about anyone steeling (sic) Intel's IP. I merely laid out what the Imagination press release said and the basis behind their belief that Apple would find it very difficult to produce a GPU architecture from scratch that infringed none of Imagination's IP. 

    I ended by saying that IF it turned out Apple had been naughty then they would have acted quite scummily. I didn't say that they had acted scummily or that they couldn't develop a whole new GPU architecture from scratch that didn't infringe. At least we can agree that we have to wait and see what happens in about 2 years' time. 
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 17 of 23
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    Guess this is just the way companies do business these days.  Reading Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald's by Ray Kroc, he talks about all the other companies that he made commitments to.  If they would invest in the machines to make his buns, for example, he would guarantee he would get them from them.  All on a hand shake.  How far have we fallen in integrity... (just the opinion of one person)

    Ray Kroc made many other millionaires along the way too.  The book is a good read if anyone cares to get it.  It is about a McDonald's that may not quite be recognizable these days.

  • Reply 18 of 23
    DanielEranDanielEran Posts: 290editor
    freeper said:
    Much of this is ... well ... not true.

    Calling Tegra a failure - and then moving the goalposts by claiming that it is only a failure in MOBILE when the article itself referenced GPUs for Macs - is simply wrong. 
    Tegra is Nvidia's name for the mobile-optimized version of its desktop GPUs. That's a project that failed.

    There is no "Tegra" relevant to desktop GPUs in Macs. 

    Nvidia can reuse the Tegra brand to describe other things, but that's irrelevant.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 23
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    freeper said:
    Much of this is ... well ... not true.

    Calling Tegra a failure - and then moving the goalposts by claiming that it is only a failure in MOBILE when the article itself referenced GPUs for Macs - is simply wrong. 
    Tegra is Nvidia's name for the mobile-optimized version of its desktop GPUs. That's a project that failed.

    Wouldn't Tegra be whatever Nvidia says it is rather than however you decided to define it? http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra.html
    Perhaps you simply confused the Nvidia GPU and CPU products and misspoke when referring to Tegra. Maybe Cuda was what you meant?
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 20 of 23
    freeper said:
    Much of this is ... well ... not true.

    Calling Tegra a failure - and then moving the goalposts by claiming that it is only a failure in MOBILE when the article itself referenced GPUs for Macs - is simply wrong. 
    Tegra is Nvidia's name for the mobile-optimized version of its desktop GPUs. That's a project that failed.

    There is no "Tegra" relevant to desktop GPUs in Macs. 

    Nvidia can reuse the Tegra brand to describe other things, but that's irrelevant.  
    uhh.... I think you are missing the point entirely. Tegra was Nvidia's SOC. Not graphics on a mobile platform. Tegra as the SOC platform is becoming an extreme success. 

    I think you now are kind of boxing yourself into Tegra was a failure because you classified it as mobile only and mobile being tablet and phone, nothing more)... 

    tmay said:
    carnalimr said:
    I think you need to edit a bit. Nvidia Tegra is hard to say its a failure. If you look at what it is in:
    • Nvidia Shield
    • Audi 
    • Nintendo Switch 
    • A few different phones
    I'm sure I am missing a few other products but you get the point. 

    If you look at PowerPC as a name has kind of lived on in the Power Architecture of IBM. 
    Tegra is dead in mobile, including tablets, but if you can name some current smartphones or tablets that use it, I'm willing to reevaluate my claim. Nvidia Shield and Nintendo Switch are game machines, and don't have the same power or form factor constraints as smartphones.
    You are aware that Switch's main point is to be a mobile gaming tablet right that can be used both as a tablet and home console....

    You are also aware that Nvidia shield isnt meant to be just a gaming machine but another Android TV device that has the capability to do gaming and PC streaming... 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.