“Intel Corp. said its investment arm is allocating $300 million to help encourage innovation around a breed of ultra-thin portable PCs that the chip maker calls Ultrabooks,” Don Clark reports for The Wall Street Journal.
“Intel is quick to acknowledge that the Ultrabook effort was in large part inspired by Apple Inc.’s iPad tablet and particularly its sleek MacBook Air,” Clark reports. “The latter was recently updated with Intel’s latest microprocessors and has been selling much more briskly than most laptop PCs running Microsoft Corp.’s Windows operating system.”
Clark reports, “‘To date if you wanted that sleek design you had to buy a Mac,’ said Greg Welch, director of Intel’s Ultrabook group, in an interview last week. ‘There are people who want a PC in that form factor.'”
MacDailyNews Take: A Mac is a “PC” (personal computer). So much so that it can even slum it by running Windows natively or via fast virtualization.
Clark reports, “Welch said Apple informed Intel that it better drastically slash its power consumption or would likely lose Apple’s business. ‘It was a real wake-up call to us,’ he said.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple’s A6 processor for iOS devices: 28-nm, 3D IC and likely made by TSMC; could show up in future Macs – July 15, 2011
TSMC in trial manufacture of Apple ‘A6′ chips – July 15, 2011
With ‘A6′ chip, Apple likely to move SoC production away from Samsung in 2012 – June 27, 2011
RUMOR: Apple inks deal with TSMC foundry for A5 processor; possible setback for Samsung – March 9, 2011
RUMOR: Apple to dump Intel for Apple ARM-based chips within 24-36 months – May 6, 2011
Ouch.
But what will apple do?
Go amd? Or make their own x86 chip?
Use ARM (A6 or what ever)
Remember that apple pushed Xcode to developer to make the OS Processor Independent.
Intel has become hostile to Apple by subsidizing a “sleek form factor” project (they don’t seem to think an un-sleek OS matters).
Steve Jobs enjoyed Apple having a unique chip back in the RISC Power PC days. Jobs is dissatisfied with Intel’s approach to chip development. Apple has already developed their own mobile chip.
Apple has $76B sitting around earning low interest.
I don’t think Intel has become hostile to Apple by this move. Just the opposite, this move is intended to advance low power consumption chips, which is what Apple is demanding. It does not make business sense for Intel to design only for Apple, so it has to design chips which it can sell to other sources (e.g., other PC makers).
Intel quite obviously values Apple’s business, but Intel has operated for years on the theory of more power = faster chip = better chip. Apple will actually help save Intel from itself with its demands. If Intel doesn’t develop some seriously power-thrifty chips in the next year or two, it is going to lose a LOT of business. The computing world is going mobile very fast, and people don’t want to have to plug in their mobile devices several times a day.
Hell yeah it would make sense to develop solely for Apple if need be since Apple is selling a LOT of machines but it will have the side benefit of being available for PCrap machines as well.
I think Intel can be their own worst enemy. Listening to Apple will have them take the ride a little longer.
“…this move is intended to advance low power consumption chips….”
Bizlaw, that a beautiful story, unfortunately there’s no evidence for it, at least in the accompanying article. Intel’s statement, as reported, exclusively deals with “sleek form factor” not chip development. The clear intention is to target Apple products by subsidizing the creation of something sort-of elegant out of the fat, tired, and ugly wintel eco-system. So here we go again: innovation means copying what Apple has done, and fool customers into buying crap. That seems hostile, as well as desperate.
Apple is already designing their own chips for iOS devices that run circles around Intel products, and some of Apple’s billions could be put to use doing the same thing for the MacBookAir and other Mac computers. Then as in the PowerPC days Apple would have a unique and uniquely superior chip.
The only place.ARM beats Intel is in power consumption.
Performance wise hardly the core arch is a beast when it comes to performance
Steve Jobs, shot caller. Intel would be wise to do this, Samsung is ripe for the picking as an Apple supplier some day.
When the next Mac OS (after Lion) is released, it will be a MAJOR overhaul that supports running on both Intel and Apple’s A-# CPUs. That’s what I think…
The low power consumption needs for Mac will then be filled by Apple’s own chips, not Intel’s. By then, it will be a quad-core “A7.”
The migration (that starts with MacBook Air) may continue across the lineup, until only the Mac Pro is left using Intel’s Xeon.
Maybe even have both. Much like the higher end MacBook pros have 2 gpus for heavy and everyday processing
I’m amazed that Intel ever needed to be told that low power was a key issue. I’m even more amazed that they regarded it as a wake-up call. The writing has been on the wall for several years.
When Apple purchased PA semi in 2008, it was well known that their expertise in developing ultra-low power microprocessors was what made them so attractive to Apple. There was a great deal of discussion about that at the time. I can’t believe that Intel never noticed.
Obviously low power is crucial in an device that is battery operated, but low power technology is also valuable in mains operated systems too because you then have to dissipate less heat, which gives you more freedom with the styling, can be cheaper and simpler, can also offer quieter operation, together of course with reduced power consumption.
Intel’s response to Apple’s bitching about power consumption seems rather strange. You would think that Intel would put that $300M into its own R&D so Intel engineers could figure out how to make more effiicient chips. Instead, Intel wants to invest in companies that can make computers like Apple’s.
Intel’s investing in lipstick when they should be investing in their pig.
300 mil is a drop in the bucket for these companies. They are already investing in their own products, this is a side project to inspire wintel products that Dell couldn’t sell.
Yep good u Apple, when people get fat ad complacent, they need a shake up. Good on Intel for discussing that with us as well. Shows a bit of transparency..
My sentiment exactly w.r.t. Intel’s response.
Remember, Apple has an amazing amount of money in the bank. Apple COULD design its own chip sets for the Mac, like it does for the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. They now have the App store for OS X, so they could add a compiler in X-Code to to compile existing apps to the new chip set. In the past, Apple has been adept at creating compatibility layers to allow legacy apps run on new processors, such as when PowerPCs could still run 680x apps or PowerPC apps on Intel machines, albeit at degraded speed. A lot of people were unaware when they were running PowerPC programs until Apple cut off support for them. They need the compatibility layer to let the largest software companies like Adobe and Microsoft time to port their behemoth code bases to the new platform. Then they could keep companies like Intel from undercutting them.
This is very tru. However, apple still has to make use of a microprocessor which would mean they would have to use other people like intel or amd due the x86 patents. The way apple does with arm for the a4 and a5 chips. But, if they were to spend there pot of gold on a company like cyrex who holds there own processor they could make a serious splash into that market as well.
Intel should realize that a CPU should be as energy efficient as possible. Since a large portion of computers are mobile.
Apple would like to cut the cost of packaging the CPU and the related loss in weight would be dramatic. Thinner, lighter, and cheaper.
The crack of the whip, a swirl of the future, and vision to bend the moment so another paradigm will shift design from the darkened halls of Apples R&D!
Am I missing something? Will the Air not run Windows under Bootcamp? If so, doesn’t that full fill the need of Windows users for an ultra-thin portable PC? Why would they possibly need a POS from anyone else? Maybe Intel should just promote Apple products more and save $300M.
Say hello to the 3ghz g6 PowerPC chip to power future macs. Welcome back to the Mac!
Intel will probably start manufacturing legacy-stripped versions of it’s chips, reducing the chips consumption (less transistors to “feed”)
I think Apple and Intel have a great relationship, much better than Intel does with Microsoft. Intel and Apple agree that hardware is where it’s at!
I don’t think apple thinks the hardware is where it’s at. They have shown time and time again that it’s the os and apps that are the big deal. If it was the hardware apple would be behind because there are so much more powerful systems on the market then anything apple has in it’s arsenal.
slash – power consumption or – lose our business !!! HOLY !!!
“It was a real wake-up call to us”.
WAS — past tense. APPLE threatens to jump ship – yes BUT !!!!
I believe this is a QUOTE pulled from years ago and remembered by Welch as a good experience – LEARNT from APPLE who demanded at the time – the QUALITY and FORESAW the need and FUTURE for lower power consumption. At the time, yes AMD most likely was the alternative – but not NOW !!!
THAT STATEMENT is OUT OF CONTENT – confusing the POINT !!!
So, did Apple tell Intel this last week or 3 years ago?
Did this result in todays low power hungry chips or is Apple unhappy with todays chips because they can see what the A4, A5, and A6 can do?
Apple is on it’s own path to the next revolution and probablybwell on it’s way to an exclusive chip manufacturing supply. If Apple can buildniPad manufacturing plants for Their Chineese manufacturers in Brazil and equip their other hardware suppliers, does anyone doubt they are planning their chip independence?
now the attack of the macbook Air clones!!!!
Intel has always sold thru market manipulation.
And even now putting up 300 million to enforce such ideas is crude.
Their ultra portable Sandy bridge chips even their high end chip in laptops re powerful but inefficient.
Power consumption is terrible as is its graphics.
Apple cannot be beholden to Intel for saving its mac business.Apple was blind in the past to stick with IBM CPU despite having horrible performance and power consumption and is going down the same path with Intel.
That said Apple should be more flexible and also use AMD chips.
I would say that Apple own A* series chips will take a few more years to develop to used for mainstream .
It is not easy….
Intel is about as inept as Microsoft. They’ve been riding the fat, more power, more MHz/GHz train for too long. It took Apple and ARM to wake them up. They really should have been driving efficiencies on their own. They could have if they weren’t lazy and in bed with Microsoft.
i don’t think the time frames here are completely understood. I don’t believe Apple just now told them this, I could’ve been said as far back as when the Intel transition began. Apple released the original MacBook Air in 2008 and had a smaller form factor, low voltage custom CPU in it. I think whatever process Intel used to build this chip, they want to capitalize on it and reduce costs by selling a lot of them to more OEMs. Unfortunately to date, there aren’t many making these ultra books, so Intel is now trying lure OEMs into building them.