Do we have an alternate source for these chips? Looks like our congressmen have decided to provoke China over Taiwan. Does Apple (or any US manufacturer) really want to rely solely on China to supply critical semis? And trust them not to engineer some "special sauce" into them?
Don’t know where to start with your train of questions.
Your questions seem to understand that Taiwan is not China, yet you still conflate TSMC as being Chinese. TSMC is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. It’s Taiwanese with most of its fabs in Taiwan. TSMC has satellite fabs in both China and the USA. You should not conflate the two.
Semiconductor manufacturing is a global enterprise. One of the key components is actually a Dutch company who makes the photolithography machines that go into the fabs. Japanese, Korean and Chinese companies, also multinationals, make the modules that the chips are put in. Then, the materials and sub-components come from all over the world too.
These are global multi-national companies. They are diversified and continually diversifying. They don’t do it as fast as the speed of politics perhaps, but they will do what they need to do to stay in business.
TSMC’s fabs are the most advanced fabs in the world. There isn’t a competitor. The nearest “competitor” is Samsung, and if Apple used their fabs, they would have slower and hotter chips. Apple has had a decadal and symbiotic relationship with them. It’s basically because of Apple that TSMC, and their own discipline and decision making, has the most advanced fabs. If Apple is to have TSMC diversify, it will be to get them to have more fabs elsewhere in the world, not primarily in Taiwan.
Lastly, there isn’t any special sauce. It’s plain old boring physics and economics. They take silicon and etch CMOS circuits onto them. Every stage from the silicon itself to the software that runs on them is validated at every stage. You don’t do anything by surprise as it could result in business destroying consequences. Apple, and every TSMC customer, knows precisely what happens to their chips.
I'm in agreement that Taiwan is not China. Yet. And I agree that TMSC there isn't a competitor at their level. Which would remain the same after a Chinese takeover. I also agree with your last statement that there is independent oversight of TMSC chips. For now. Where we disagree is what happens after China does the same thing they've done in Tibet, Macau and Hong Kong. China invading and taking over Taiwan is not a matter of "if." It's a matter of "when." Take it to the bank.
China and Taiwan will agree to merge sometime in the next 50 years and shot will not be fired, and at that time the USA will standing on the sidelines watching scratching it’s head like a monkey, that merger however won’t postpone the inevitable near term, China will be the number one economic power in the world by 2030.
Doubtful in every regard. China is staring into the maw of a massive financial crisis, and the CCP are stoking nationalist anger at Taiwan to distract from it. China's economic power is going to take a huge hit soon, and their relationship with Taiwan is going to get increasingly stretched as the political class cast around for someone to blame.
It would have been really weird to market both 5nm and 3nm chips under the same M2 label. The move from 5nm to 3nm warrants a new marketing label (M3).
Of course, apple can do whatever they want and they know more about marketing than me. But still — it would be pretty weird.
It’s perfectly fine. People put too much power into the name of something. The Apple media and some people has this strange fixation on how the name of the processor could confuse people. It’s crazy town thinking.
Apple tunes the performance per dollar and features per dollar at every single price tier, so that it encourages upsell and the buyer always gets more features and performance for their dollar.
M2 versus M1 Pro or 3nm M2 versus 5nm M2 is irrelevant. Apple will price in every performance improvement and feature. It seems more that Apple media don’t like the work of explaining stuff because of the names rather than just discussing things in terms of performance.
Nobody will be confused. Nobody will be “ripped” off. The more money someone spends, the less important the name of this or that feature becomes, and the more performance and features they buy.
The issue for me isn't about people being "confused" or "ripped off." (I always think it's interesting how people reply to things that aren't in a post -- like they're arguing with their own demons).
The reason I say it's 'weird' is that from a marketing perspective, the reason you increment a version number is to communicate that an important improvement has been made. For some products, Apple doesn't have version numbers -- the iMac is always just the iMac, for example. For others, they do (like the iPhone and Watch). For the ones where they have a number, incrementing the number means something, and they don't make meaningful changes without incrementing the number.
Moving from 5nm to 3nm is a really important improvement -- certainly bigger than the improvements made moving from M1 to M2. I would think Apple would want to make it as clear as possible that they have substantially improved the product.
Again, this isn't about people being 'confused' or whatever. It's just about Apple giving themselves full credit for an important improvement in their product. I think it would be weird if Apple chose not to give themselves that full credit.
So, I suspect we will see M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/etc based on 5nm this Fall, with 3nm M3 coming next spring, M3 Pro/Max/Ultra coming next Fall, etc.
I also suspect that the first 3nm product from Apple will be something on the low volume side and something where performance/watt is really important -- aka, AR/VR glasses/goggles.
The reason I say it's 'weird' is that from a marketing perspective, the reason you increment a version number is to communicate that an important improvement has been made. For some products, Apple doesn't have version numbers -- the iMac is always just the iMac, for example. For others, they do (like the iPhone and Watch). For the ones where they have a number, incrementing the number means something, and they don't make meaningful changes without incrementing the number.
Moving from 5nm to 3nm is a really important improvement -- certainly bigger than the improvements made moving from M1 to M2. I would think Apple would want to make it as clear as possible that they have substantially improved the product.
I don't think Apple would brand it in such a specific fashion. They'll say it will have so and so performance improvements, like a big increase of 30 to 40%, but the branding will be the boring sequential numbering. Even during the heyday of Apple Silicon performance improvements on iPhones, from about 2009 to 2016 when CPU and GPU performance was improving 40%, 50%, 100% year over year, Apple was just branding their A series SoCs in sequential fashion. Today, the performance gains are a lot smaller because all the mid-hanging fruit have been picked, let alone the low hanging fruit.
The M2 Pro will like have 10% to 15% single CPU core perf improvements, 20% multi-core CPU, and 30% GPU improvements, plus dedicated hardware for media and ML. Whether that is with N5P or N3, the name will be the same. The perf/Watt may be a little bit better on TSMC N3, but I think it will be within the product-to-product performance variation there typically is. And, I think Apple wants it this way. Just simple branding names with mostly consistent performance improvements model-to-model.
You say buyer confusing is not what you are talking about, but how am I supposed to interpret what you mean when you say "weird". That word implies to me that the branding name will cause troubles.
Do we have an alternate source for these chips? Looks like our congressmen have decided to provoke China over Taiwan. Does Apple (or any US manufacturer) really want to rely solely on China to supply critical semis? And trust them not to engineer some "special sauce" into them?
Don’t know where to start with your train of questions.
Your questions seem to understand that Taiwan is not China, yet you still conflate TSMC as being Chinese. TSMC is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. It’s Taiwanese with most of its fabs in Taiwan. TSMC has satellite fabs in both China and the USA. You should not conflate the two.
Semiconductor manufacturing is a global enterprise. One of the key components is actually a Dutch company who makes the photolithography machines that go into the fabs. Japanese, Korean and Chinese companies, also multinationals, make the modules that the chips are put in. Then, the materials and sub-components come from all over the world too.
These are global multi-national companies. They are diversified and continually diversifying. They don’t do it as fast as the speed of politics perhaps, but they will do what they need to do to stay in business.
TSMC’s fabs are the most advanced fabs in the world. There isn’t a competitor. The nearest “competitor” is Samsung, and if Apple used their fabs, they would have slower and hotter chips. Apple has had a decadal and symbiotic relationship with them. It’s basically because of Apple that TSMC, and their own discipline and decision making, has the most advanced fabs. If Apple is to have TSMC diversify, it will be to get them to have more fabs elsewhere in the world, not primarily in Taiwan.
Lastly, there isn’t any special sauce. It’s plain old boring physics and economics. They take silicon and etch CMOS circuits onto them. Every stage from the silicon itself to the software that runs on them is validated at every stage. You don’t do anything by surprise as it could result in business destroying consequences. Apple, and every TSMC customer, knows precisely what happens to their chips.
I'm in agreement that Taiwan is not China. Yet. And I agree that TMSC there isn't a competitor at their level. Which would remain the same after a Chinese takeover. I also agree with your last statement that there is independent oversight of TMSC chips. For now. Where we disagree is what happens after China does the same thing they've done in Tibet, Macau and Hong Kong. China invading and taking over Taiwan is not a matter of "if." It's a matter of "when." Take it to the bank.
If China invades Taiwan, Apple's supply of SoC chips and reliance on Hon Hai for assembly are going to be the last thing we are going to worry about. As long as Taiwan as a nation does not want to be part of China, and if China can't blockade Taiwan, all they have is a meat grinder for young men and millions of people without jobs from sanctions.
TSMC and Hon Hai will want to stay in business. They and Apple will move major parts of their supply chain elsewhere for customers with sanctions/restrictions.
Do we have an alternate source for these chips? Looks like our congressmen have decided to provoke China over Taiwan. Does Apple (or any US manufacturer) really want to rely solely on China to supply critical semis? And trust them not to engineer some "special sauce" into them?
Don’t know where to start with your train of questions.
Your questions seem to understand that Taiwan is not China, yet you still conflate TSMC as being Chinese. TSMC is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. It’s Taiwanese with most of its fabs in Taiwan. TSMC has satellite fabs in both China and the USA. You should not conflate the two.
Semiconductor manufacturing is a global enterprise. One of the key components is actually a Dutch company who makes the photolithography machines that go into the fabs. Japanese, Korean and Chinese companies, also multinationals, make the modules that the chips are put in. Then, the materials and sub-components come from all over the world too.
These are global multi-national companies. They are diversified and continually diversifying. They don’t do it as fast as the speed of politics perhaps, but they will do what they need to do to stay in business.
TSMC’s fabs are the most advanced fabs in the world. There isn’t a competitor. The nearest “competitor” is Samsung, and if Apple used their fabs, they would have slower and hotter chips. Apple has had a decadal and symbiotic relationship with them. It’s basically because of Apple that TSMC, and their own discipline and decision making, has the most advanced fabs. If Apple is to have TSMC diversify, it will be to get them to have more fabs elsewhere in the world, not primarily in Taiwan.
Lastly, there isn’t any special sauce. It’s plain old boring physics and economics. They take silicon and etch CMOS circuits onto them. Every stage from the silicon itself to the software that runs on them is validated at every stage. You don’t do anything by surprise as it could result in business destroying consequences. Apple, and every TSMC customer, knows precisely what happens to their chips.
I'm in agreement that Taiwan is not China. Yet. And I agree that TMSC there isn't a competitor at their level. Which would remain the same after a Chinese takeover. I also agree with your last statement that there is independent oversight of TMSC chips. For now. Where we disagree is what happens after China does the same thing they've done in Tibet, Macau and Hong Kong. China invading and taking over Taiwan is not a matter of "if." It's a matter of "when." Take it to the bank.
China and Taiwan will agree to merge sometime in the next 50 years and shot will not be fired, and at that time the USA will standing on the sidelines watching scratching it’s head like a monkey, that merger however won’t postpone the inevitable near term, China will be the number one economic power in the world by 2030.
Yeah, not so much, but thanks for playing.
Having the largest GDP and on course to halving its population by 2060 doesn't seem like the recipe for success that China needs to get rich before it gets old, and isolation isn't going to solve that problem under Xi Jinping's rule. Meanwhile, the West, which drove the bulk of that economic growth, is moving supply chains out of China, and at an accelerating pace.
The U.S. still allows immigration, and the best and the brightest want to come to the U.S.,and the West, not China.
More to the point, Xi Jinping can't wait 50 years to "merge" with Taiwan, so a conflict is almost inevitable, likely by 2027, so, no, the U.S. won't be "standing on the sidelines scratching its head like a monkey".
You United Front Work Department propagandists need to be better prepared.
I think these confusing reports are trending toward two things:
[1] After its introduction soon for the new iPhone Pro and Apple Watch, Apple will also adopt a subscription model as an option for select Studio and Pro macOS and iPadOS devices with Apple Silicon.
[2] To do that, Apple needs to be able to produce new silicon at a regular pace, like they do for the iPhone. It doesn’t necessarily need to be annual, but it does need to be regular. I think, at any given moment, there will always be two generations available, with the subscriptions on the cutting edge.
There are various ways this could roll out. It’s folly to try to guess, but feel free.
Interesting theory. I suspect you're right. Apple wants to try and develop a continuous "IV drip" revenue stream across all products (and services).
Any reason you think this might be limited to "select Studio and Pro macOS and iPadOS devices"? Or do you think just to start?
I think consumers have become accustomed to buying things on payment (cars and houses for decades now). Phones more recently. Music, videos, games, and software-as-a-service even more recently. Why not your devices too?
No, sorry, the idea that it would only be for Studio/Pro devices is not based on anything. There are decent clues that hardware subscriptions are going to happen -- unfortunately I don't remember the details or where I read about it, but they've been laying the groundwork for it. I'll try to find that reference.
I suppose it could extend to an entry-level flagship like the MBA or iMac, but I don't see that. My assumption is the margins are tighter on those lower-end, higher-volume devices, and dealing with the turnover for each generation would be more trouble than it's worth. But what do I know?!
I think some of the same advantages apply to hardware subscriptions that apply to software subscriptions. The pressure to produce significant leaps between generations (to entice people to upgrade) is gone, and the developer can focus on introducing new features and updates more organically, instead of holding everything for the next upgrade. Apple Silicon will be more agile. It's not inconceivable we're already seeing this, if this rumor is right and M2 Pro+ are all on the enhanced N5P process instead of the delayed N3, then that could be evidence of that agility. Instead of being stuck waiting for the next big thing, Apple just moves on, with the enhancements that can be delivered on time. The subsequent N3 leap won't be as dramatic as it would have been without the intermediary step, but it doesn't matter to subscribers.
How you're getting anything regarding Mac hardware subscriptions from this article is bizarre. All of the details here are even more bizarre.
Well, it just started from a general comment about subscriptions and what effect that might have. Then designr asked a question so I answered it. I don’t deny it’s a leap, but whatever. I don’t think Apple Silicon is business as usual, and the ramifications of the shift are still coming into focus.
I don’t recall that AI covered it, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t. I stumbled across something that pointed to recent corroborating evidence for it, but I still can’t find what or where that was. Maybe on Six Colors, I’m not sure.
Nowhere does Gurman's report mention Macs. With the wide range of Mac hardware and prices, it's hard to imagine a subscription model that would work. And, especially, you're thinking it'd be focused on high-priced Pro hardware which doesn't make a lot of sense when businesses don't really flinch at the prices, which can go up to the tens of thousands per Mac. They already offer 12 month payment plans for Macs to individuals so no benefit there. It doesn't make much sense.
Comments
The reason I say it's 'weird' is that from a marketing perspective, the reason you increment a version number is to communicate that an important improvement has been made. For some products, Apple doesn't have version numbers -- the iMac is always just the iMac, for example. For others, they do (like the iPhone and Watch). For the ones where they have a number, incrementing the number means something, and they don't make meaningful changes without incrementing the number.
Moving from 5nm to 3nm is a really important improvement -- certainly bigger than the improvements made moving from M1 to M2. I would think Apple would want to make it as clear as possible that they have substantially improved the product.
Again, this isn't about people being 'confused' or whatever. It's just about Apple giving themselves full credit for an important improvement in their product. I think it would be weird if Apple chose not to give themselves that full credit.
So, I suspect we will see M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/etc based on 5nm this Fall, with 3nm M3 coming next spring, M3 Pro/Max/Ultra coming next Fall, etc.
I also suspect that the first 3nm product from Apple will be something on the low volume side and something where performance/watt is really important -- aka, AR/VR glasses/goggles.
The M2 Pro will like have 10% to 15% single CPU core perf improvements, 20% multi-core CPU, and 30% GPU improvements, plus dedicated hardware for media and ML. Whether that is with N5P or N3, the name will be the same. The perf/Watt may be a little bit better on TSMC N3, but I think it will be within the product-to-product performance variation there typically is. And, I think Apple wants it this way. Just simple branding names with mostly consistent performance improvements model-to-model.
You say buyer confusing is not what you are talking about, but how am I supposed to interpret what you mean when you say "weird". That word implies to me that the branding name will cause troubles.
TSMC and Hon Hai will want to stay in business. They and Apple will move major parts of their supply chain elsewhere for customers with sanctions/restrictions.
Having the largest GDP and on course to halving its population by 2060 doesn't seem like the recipe for success that China needs to get rich before it gets old, and isolation isn't going to solve that problem under Xi Jinping's rule. Meanwhile, the West, which drove the bulk of that economic growth, is moving supply chains out of China, and at an accelerating pace.
The U.S. still allows immigration, and the best and the brightest want to come to the U.S.,and the West, not China.
More to the point, Xi Jinping can't wait 50 years to "merge" with Taiwan, so a conflict is almost inevitable, likely by 2027, so, no, the U.S. won't be "standing on the sidelines scratching its head like a monkey".
You United Front Work Department propagandists need to be better prepared.