The article contains a factual error.. The 16” MacBook Pro is a Coffee Lake (9th generation Core i9) processor, not a 10th generation (Ice Lake) processor as asserted in the article.
Intel’s failures are relevant, but probably not determinative. Jobs’ position for many years was to fully control the Mac experience, soup to nuts. When Apple started purchasing chip developers many years ago, the die was cast.
Intel’s failures are relevant, but probably not determinative. Jobs’ position for many years was to fully control the Mac experience, soup to nuts. When Apple started purchasing chip developers many years ago, the die was cast.
Cast for mobile chips, yes. Nobody was sure what the result would be for the Macintosh until just a few years ago, when lab results proved conclusive.
Why is Intel failing to fabricate these 7nm chips at acceptable volume while other chips makers are? Is there something inherently different about Intel’s CPUs that makes yield worse? ...
The usual answer to your first question is “they got complacent” — but that doesn’t mean much until you realize what that meant in the real world. What led up to it is a long story (think stock prices), but, ultimately, Intel’s management began cutting costs by laying off engineers.
The rest is easy to understand. It turns out — who knew?! — that engineering is hard and experience matters. On top of that, highly-skilled engineers with years of experience at Intel don’t actually have any trouble finding work. Imagine that! Apple, TSMC, and others snapped these people up.
Why is Intel failing to fabricate these 7nm chips at acceptable volume while other chips makers are? Is there something inherently different about Intel’s CPUs that makes yield worse? ...
The usual answer to your first question is “they got complacent” — but that doesn’t mean much until you realize what that meant in the real world. What led up to it is a long story (think stock prices), but, ultimately, Intel’s management began cutting costs by laying off engineers.
The rest is easy to understand. It turns out — who knew?! — that engineering is hard and experience matters. On top of that, highly-skilled engineers with years of experience at Intel don’t actually have any trouble finding work. Imagine that! Apple, TSMC, and others snapped these people up.
Can you cite some sources for this info? It’s not that I disbelieve you, I’m just hoping for more detail. Thanks!
Why is Intel failing to fabricate these 7nm chips at acceptable volume while other chips makers are? Is there something inherently different about Intel’s CPUs that makes yield worse? ...
The usual answer to your first question is “they got complacent” — but that doesn’t mean much until you realize what that meant in the real world. What led up to it is a long story (think stock prices), but, ultimately, Intel’s management began cutting costs by laying off engineers.
The rest is easy to understand. It turns out — who knew?! — that engineering is hard and experience matters. On top of that, highly-skilled engineers with years of experience at Intel don’t actually have any trouble finding work. Imagine that! Apple, TSMC, and others snapped these people up.
Can you cite some sources for this info? It’s not that I disbelieve you, I’m just hoping for more detail. Thanks!
Intel began their programme of layoffs with 12,000 employees in 2016, as it began to shift its focus away from PC processors and move towards IoT and data centres.
What has lead to this 'cut and run' strategy was detailed in a Vox article a while back:
It was the same strategy that caused Microsoft's fall from grace under Ballmer: trying to protect an existing monopoly by turning their back on innovation.
Mistake #1:
There was just one problem: The PC era was about to end. Apple was already working on the iPhone, which would usher in the modern smartphone era. Intel turned down an opportunity to provide the processor for the iPhone, believing that Apple was unlikely to sell enough of them to justify the development costs.
Oops.
Oops indeed
To be honest, no one could've have predicted the effect that the iPhone would have on the future of computing, but that doesn't excuse Intel for not realising that the PC was on something of a plateau and they should've been looking for fresh opportunities, instead of scuppering their own internal projects to protect their existing x86 market.
Mistake #2:
Intel had not just one but two opportunities to become a major player in the mobile chip market. One was the opportunity to bid on Apple's iPhone business. The other was its ownership of XScale, an ARM-based chipmaker Intel owned until it sold it for $600 million in 2006.
Intel sold XScale because it wanted to double down on the x86 architecture that had made it so successful. Intel was working on a low-power version of x86 chips called Atom, and it believed that selling ARM chips would signal a lack of commitment to the Atom platform.
Oops squared.
Intel thought they could protect their license to print money from the mobile onslaught by hacking the x86 down into a mobile processor.A few years later, Apple realised they could divorce themselves from Intel's failings by scaling their architecture to a laptop/desktop/server platform.
Intel's delay is simply a byproduct of their new strategy: scaling back their interests in the PC market. They've missed the opportunity to get a foothold in the mobile processor space, so they're looking at the next big thing: iOT and data centres.
Intel’s failures are relevant, but probably not determinative. Jobs’ position for many years was to fully control the Mac experience, soup to nuts. When Apple started purchasing chip developers many years ago, the die was cast.
This is the bit I can't work out: when did Apple decide to move to their own architecture for the Mac?
Comments
The rest is easy to understand. It turns out — who knew?! — that engineering is hard and experience matters. On top of that, highly-skilled engineers with years of experience at Intel don’t actually have any trouble finding work. Imagine that! Apple, TSMC, and others snapped these people up.
https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/news-release-intel-announces-restructuring/
Intel began their programme of layoffs with 12,000 employees in 2016, as it began to shift its focus away from PC processors and move towards IoT and data centres.
What has lead to this 'cut and run' strategy was detailed in a Vox article a while back:
Intel made a huge mistake 10 years ago. Now 12,000 workers are paying the price.
It was the same strategy that caused Microsoft's fall from grace under Ballmer: trying to protect an existing monopoly by turning their back on innovation.
Mistake #1:
Oops indeed
To be honest, no one could've have predicted the effect that the iPhone would have on the future of computing, but that doesn't excuse Intel for not realising that the PC was on something of a plateau and they should've been looking for fresh opportunities, instead of scuppering their own internal projects to protect their existing x86 market.
Mistake #2:
Oops squared.
Intel thought they could protect their license to print money from the mobile onslaught by hacking the x86 down into a mobile processor.A few years later, Apple realised they could divorce themselves from Intel's failings by scaling their architecture to a laptop/desktop/server platform.
Intel's delay is simply a byproduct of their new strategy: scaling back their interests in the PC market. They've missed the opportunity to get a foothold in the mobile processor space, so they're looking at the next big thing: iOT and data centres.
This is the bit I can't work out: when did Apple decide to move to their own architecture for the Mac?