“Recent filings in the Apple-IBM-Papermaster case reveal that IBM is potentially raising a flag due to an upcoming technology that the company fears could be compromised by Mark Papermaster’s employ at Apple. The technology, noted in the Times Online (classified Exhibit 3 in the case), would allow portable consumer devices like the iPod to store exponentially more music, while also cutting battery drain to a fraction of what it is currently. The technology is dubbed ‘racetrack memory,'” Electronista reports.
“Racetrack memory allegedly uses an electron’s spin to keep track of data, increasing operational speed, and providing an operational time frame of ‘weeks’ on a single charge. The technology, in turn, would allow consumer electronics devices to store upwards of 500,000 songs, comparing to 40,000 in the 160GB iPod classic,” Electronista reports.
“The technology will also have virtually zero wear, and consequently carries a longer lifespan than flash memory, which can wear out over thousands of writes,” Electronista reports.
Full article here.
Apple doesn’t have the lab or engineering resources to even experiment with a low-level technology like this. It’s not what they do, or what they have ever done. This MIGHT make sense if Papermaster had moved to someplace like TI.
WOW. I want it.
This is rather stupid of them. If Apple wants to use racetrack memory, who are they going to buy it from? The patent holders. DUH.
Where’s Lou Gerstner when you need him? IBM management has gone stupid again.
-jcr
“Apple doesn’t have the lab or engineering resources to even experiment with a low-level technology like this.”
*cough*PA Semi*cough*
Firstly, IBM can’t be the only group aggressively developing this technology. Secondly, if this technology has not been patented yet it is still experimental, at best, theoretical, at worst. According to IBM, it is expected that racetrack technology to be commercially viable in 10 years. A lot can happen in two, five, or ten years – or not.
Well it seems IBM does indeed have a very strong argument against Papermaster working over at Apple. And this is especially the case since Papermaster was going to work with the PA Semi team.
Peter,
I thought PA Semi was just a design shop not a place of fabrication?
some of you need to come to Westchester county NY and take a gander at the enormity of IBM. While Apple’s campus is indeed large, IBM makes it look like a lemonade stand. Don’t get me wrong, I love my Apple products, and will never go elsewhere, but IBM is to be respected IMO.
“flash memory, which can wear out over thousands of writes,” Electronista reports.”
Hmmm, they never mentioned this before!!
Racetrack memory is a physically new product, much lower-level than chip design… PA Semi has nothing to do with it, they’re not even in that game.
In essence, PA Semi has engineers who know how to arrange transistors/etc on the surface of a microchip using pre-existing manufacturing processes. They don’t have any sort of lab and can’t even make prototypes of their own chips — their engineers would do basically all their work on a computer screen.
Racetrack memory is physical engineering that requires serious low-level lab work to play with. Many people don’t realize that IBM does this sort of research. Apple has never done anything remotely similar, and neither has PA Semi. IBM isn’t even at the point where they can build a prototype.
Seriously people — this rumor is obviously nonsense if you have any clue what these companies do, and how difficult this kind of R&D;is… not to mention the patent situation. Forget it.
wannabe is right. There is some other reason IBM is upset.
Yes, this caught my attention too:
“flash memory, which can wear out over thousands of writes”
But, according to Wiki:
“Most commercially available flash products are guaranteed to withstand around 100,000 write-erase-cycles.[citation needed]”
Whew …
Reckon we should be ok up in the 100,000 range
That seems a LOT of re-writes, for any drive
(well, as long as that potential ‘citation’ holds water)
This is a ridiculous argument for IBM to use, and their attorneys are most likely advising them against it. Apple would bring in an expert witness and shred IBM’s credibility.
Bad time to be an Apple Business Partner (retail salesperson)…
Apple (in court): “Hey, we just make toys for consumers!”
Apple Business Partner (with prospective client): “Trust me, Apple can solve all your business needs!” <adjusts collar>
“Hey, we just make toys for consumers!”
Well no-one actually sucessfully fools themselves into thinking Apple makes suitable products for large companies, do they? One man graphics design shops. yes, large companies, no.
@Olternaut
Yours is a fine example of how supposition and rumor becomes fact by repetition. Papermaster was hired to oversee the iPod and iPhone products as ‘Senior Vice President of Devices Hardware Engineering’. Apple has given no indication that he is to work with PA Semi and overseeing that Apple subsidiary would be a demotion from his announced position.
@Delusion
Axel Springer, see also: http://www.apple.com/business/profiles/
Papermaster was also head of IBM’s blade server division, not experimental memory lab divisions. So he likely doesn’t have the knowledge of the racetrack memory processes anyway, and even if he was somewhat familiar with what was being developed, he wouldn’t have the information to pass on to Apple so that Apple could jump-start a racetrack memory development team anyway.
Apple has never been in the memory development game, and likely won’t. That’s expensive research, with little gain unless you’re going to manufacture the memory. Apple doesn’t manufacture components. The most Apple has done is to develop processor/chip improvements (not even new chips), I/O technologies like FireWire, etc.
If this happens to be IBM’s best argument against Papermaster, IBM will lose.