techsavvy
About
- Username
- techsavvy
- Joined
- Visits
- 8
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 50
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 7
Reactions
-
What's really going on with Apple's modem chip efforts?
Nice article but digital is easy, analog is hard. Apple is struggling with its own modems and likely will drop the investment altogether. However, they can afford to invest forever. They would be better served to let Qualcomm have this one.
One major correction. Apple bought Intrinsity in 2010 for the A4 processor. The PA Semi team integrated Intrinsity’s ARM processor into an SoC. The key to Apple’s processor success lies more in the Intrinsity acquisition than the PA Semi acquisition, although both are important. -
Editorial: How Apple beat Samsung in the 2010 global ARM race
bsimpsen said:AppleInsider said:
Samsung also used the Hummingbird core and PowerVR GPU in its chip, which was later branded as "Exynos 3." But rather than seeking to relentlessly advance its custom chip design technology in the pattern of Apple, Samsung initially took the more comfortable and affordable route of relying on ARM to deliver its Cortex-A CPU and Mali GPU designs. That didn't work out well.
Following is speculation, not fact. The Apple/PA Semi team, at the time, was either working on an iPhone core (that lost to Intrinsity's core) OR (more likely) they were working on the graphics and SoC that became the A4. At the time of the iPad announcement (2010) Intrinsity was already working on/releasing the next gen core...for Samsung and Apple. That core actually went into Samsung phones and Apple phones/iPads. (speculation over).
For sure Samsung did not lose Apples business due to lack of semiconductor technology. Samsung was ahead of TSMC at the time and is still neck and neck today. Apple shied away from Samsung foundries for competitive reasons AND because it is incredibly expensive to manage dual source at the bleeding edge as the processes are never 100% identical and you end up tweaking the core for each process at some point. At the bleeding edge, you have to pick a horse and ride it. The iPhone would be successful with either TSMC or Samsung foundries, Apple decided to ride TSMC.
Unlike PCs, smart phones are 'not about the CPUs'. Samsung silicon delivers just fine. If you read the competitive articles, they are close enough that both companies deliver great products. I can't find anything but speculation about Samsung layoffs, yet these articles tell it like 'fact'. Projects sometimes get killed or resources are redirected to do something with higher value add (ie like buy a core and instead design an AI chip since the AI chip is where more value to the end product can be realized). I doubt the rumors are as severe as the gossip. -
Apple to sell Apple Watch with blood oxygen detection removed to bypass ITC import ban
While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good. -
Apple won't license Masimo's patents despite Apple Watch import ban
I WAS going to buy a new Apple Watch this year but without Pulse Ox there is no reason to. My Watch 5 has all the same features. Apple is being really, really, stupid on this. They stole the engineering team and then used the IP (kinda hard to avoid when you steal the entire team). I actually hope Apple loses their shirt on this one...unless of course they really do have unique IP that is not from Massimo. My guess is watch sales will suffer this year and it will force Apple to settle. -
Jony Ive subject of new National Portrait Gallery commission
-
How the FCC's repeal of net neutrality could affect Apple
This a very good article that puts the issues into perspective. Of note, free markets fixed perceive unfairness within months. The FCC is a political organization and has no business being involved in the internet. It would take years to fight improper use with the FCC. I see a few posts making this issue a political game...which is exactly why a political commission should not be involved. The article only postulates there may be unfairness in the future and did not sight any case of unfairness in the past...that wasn't fixed by competitive pressure within a few months. It was nice to see the FTC was not part of any pressure on AT&T (or was it?) and allowed free markets to solve the issues.