“One of the themes of the upcoming Intel Developer Forum (starting Tuesday) will be the chip giant’s foray into the smartphone and mobile Internet device (MID) markets. Intel’s current Atom chip is fine for Netbooks but has had little impact on MIDs [Mobile Internet Devices ]and zero impact on smartphones, where it is simply too power hungry to be usable,” Brooke Crothers reports for CNET.
“Enter Moorestown. A much more power efficient Atom chip, due by 2010, that should find its way into high-end LG smartphones, MIDs from Asian device makers, and tablets (from HP? Dell?),” Crothers reports.
“Just so happens that Apple is doing analogous chip development. When Apple acquired chip design firm P.A. Semi in March 2008 it got a team of very capable engineers that, almost certainly, are designing silicon for future iPhones, iPods, and tablets.
But it’s really not even necessary to speculate about the future. The Apple chip has already arrived. Some analysts believe that the Apple-branded chip in the iPhone is a fairly unique design and that Apple is simply using Samsung as a chip ‘foundry’ or manufacturer,” Crothers reports. “That would mean Apple is already competing with Intel’s Atom, not to mention the host of ARM chip suppliers such as Texas Instruments and Qualcomm.”
Crothers reports, “Apple has a current market capitalization of about $165 billion (Intel’s is about $110 billion). Two heavyweights with two competing visions of small devices.”
Full article here.
It’s time for Apple to get rid of those crappy Intel processors in all of their products and switch to PA Semi chips in everything. By 10.8, I say cut off all Intel support in the Macs.
I think it would be great to see another 2.5 year old computer deemed obsolete!!!
Go STEVE!!!!!!!!
Is Apple really competing with Intel if they are designing their own chips for their own proprietary devices but not making them available to anybody else?
It would be easier to accept the idea of PA-Semi everywhere had
Apple continued to keep that power-PC code around in the OS. Who knows, perhaps in 5-7 years we may all be running most of the things we use PC’s for now from super tablets running 5th generation iphone apps.
In that case, intel will be irrelevant.
Intel has no significant experience with developing consumer-facing software. So at best, they will be partnering with a company that has or can produce the software. And that is not very different from Microsoft partnering with a hardware company to produce Windows Mobile phones, just in reverse. Therefore, Apple will maintain their advantage, because they can do hardware/software integrated design like no one else, whether the market is computers, media players, iPhones, or whatever is upcoming.
In the personal computer space, Apple is not going to move away from Intel CPU’s. Apple may make it more difficult to hack Mac OS X to install on non-Apple hardware using some type of supporting custom chip, but the CPU will remain Intel. Why? Because while Mac market share is rising for many reasons, switching to Intel was the single most important factor in the recent surge of Mac users. “Intel inside” just made it easier for Windows users to “switch to Mac,” both psychologically and technically. Apple is not going to go back to using a CPU that no one else uses for personal computers. They just now fully completed “Intel transition” by dropping PowerPC support in Snow Leopard.
Also, as Apple continues to steadily grow Mac market share, if and when they get to around 25%, they will need to seriously entertain the merits of licensing Mac OS X. At that point, they will want Mac OS X to be running on Intel-compatible hardware.,
@ken1w: If Apple makes a profit, why should they give a damn what their market share is?
@ROFLCOPTER I don’t necessarily agree with ken1w, but maybe, Apple doesn’t do it for ‘a profit.’
@ Daner,
That’s exactly what I thought when I read that sentence.
As for Apple dumping Intel: Putting an efficient P.A. Semi designed CPU in an iPhone is one thing, but it’s not going to fly in a Mac Pro. I’m sure their desktop models will be Intel for quite sometime.
Daner wrote, “Is Apple really competing with Intel if they are designing their own chips for their own proprietary devices but not making them available to anybody else?” Of course not, Intel will be selling CPUs for hundreds of millions of Windows-based PCs and other handheld devices annually.
joetak wrote ,”In that case, intel will be irrelevant.” Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, fanboi. (see above)
Alx wrote, “It’s time for Apple to get rid of those crappy Intel processors in all of their products…” You bet! Steve Jobs is a complete moron for designing Macs with Intel chips.
ken1w wrote, “Intel has no significant experience with developing consumer-facing software.” Considering that Intel rakes in nearly 10 billion dollars annually they are doing quite well for being “inexperienced” developing software. Actually, I’m surprised Apple survived as long as it has, being inexperienced in designing CPUs.
ken1w wrote, “Apple will maintain their advantage, because they can do hardware/software integrated design like no one else, whether the market is computers, media players, iPhones, or whatever is upcoming.” You cannot name not one single CPU that is on the market much less in design stage. Thy name is vaporware.
ken1w wrote, “Also, as Apple continues to steadily grow Mac market share, if and when they get to around 25%, they will need to seriously entertain the merits of licensing Mac OS X.” Apple under Scully did license their software years ago, fanboi, and Steve Jobs nixed the whole process. For an Apple fanboi you are pathetically ignorant regarding Apple history. Actually, you are quite pathetic – period.
@ ROFLCOPTER
> If Apple makes a profit, why should they give a damn what their market share is?
Because there is some market share at which Apple can potentially make MORE profit licensing Mac OS X for use on non-Apple PC hardware, versus selling it for and with Mac hardware only. It doesn’t have to 25%; it may be 20% or 30% or whatever. As Microsoft knows well, the (per unit) profit margin on selling a plastic disc in a box is much much higher than for hardware, even if that hardware is a Mac. At some point, the unit numbers will be high enough so that Mac OS X licensing will become a consideration.
Also, the “anti-trust” issues will become a REAL consideration, if and when Mac OS X market share gets to around 25%. Again, it may not be 25%, but at some number, Apple will probably have to let other companies legally build and sell Mac OS X computers. They should plan for it and execute “the plan” under their terms; I’m sure they are actively planning for that eventuality right now.
@ ken1w,
If Apple ever achieves 25% market share there is no advantage to licensing their OS. By default, they would have no need. Besides, you ranted about the superiority of Apple’s hardware-software integration, and Apple would lose all control of hardware-software integration if they were to license their OS to third parties.
In one breath you actually contradict yourself twice and ignore relevant history. Amazing, simply amazing.
@ Hooray
> For an Apple fanboi you are pathetically ignorant regarding Apple history. Actually, you are quite pathetic – period.
For someone who thinks I’m “pathetic,” you sure to pay attention to what I write. You quoted me three times and answered with stuff like
“You cannot name not one single CPU that is on the market much less in design stage.”
What? Your obviously cannot write not one response that makes any sense.
ken1w wrote, “Because there is some market share at which Apple can potentially make MORE profit…”
Oh, do you mean companies other than ATT to provide service to owners of iPhone and Apple selling more iPhones?
ken1w wrote, “Also, the “anti-trust” issues will become a REAL consideration…”
Oh, do you mean like Apple and ATT’s exclusive relationship?
@ Hooray
> In one breath you actually contradict yourself twice and ignore relevant history. Amazing, simply amazing.
Not very imaginative, are you? Apple, of all enterprises I know, is not afraid to change. Just because it makes sense to create beautiful integrated hardware/software products when Mac market share is at 10%, it does not mean it will make sense at 25%. Apple stays successful because they see opportunities for big change and they are not afraid to make that change.
Ken1w has a good point; the big selling point of the Intel move was the ability to run Windows, either dual-boot under Boot Camp or via emulation with Parallels or others, so Windows users could use a Mac and still be able to run Windows-specific software.
But by the same token, if it’s an Apple-designed chip in the iPhone, it would make sense to put that chip in the rumored Tablet.
@Hooray: I think ken1w was quite safe in his ratiocination by employing words like ‘can potentially,’ ‘doesn’t have to (be) 25%,’ ‘a consideration,’will probably,’ ‘should plan’ etc.
You on the other hand came across ‘unreasonable’ when you laboured on your keyboard with accusatory words like ‘fanboi,’ ‘pathetically ignorant,’ ‘ranted about,’ ‘quite pathetic’ etc.
To quote you, “Amazing, simply amazing.”
@ Hooray
> Oh, do you mean like Apple and ATT’s exclusive relationship?
Yes, IF Apple’s market share was actually something like 25% (or some higher number) of total smartphone sales. It is not currently. By the time it is, the exclusivity strategy will probably be over (because Apple is not afraid to make changes), and because Apple can make up for in volume whatever it loses from not having the exclusive arrangements with carriers.
ken1w wrote, “Your obviously cannot write not one response that makes any sense.”
OK….whatever that means, but you have not identified a single CPU by name or spec that Apple has on the brink of commercial release.
@ Alex,
It seems that PA Semi’s talents are designing CPUs for handheld devices. Do you have any evidence that Apple has plans to install these chips in their Mac models and eschew Intel chips all together? I really want to know!
@ Hooray
> but you have not identified a single CPU by name or spec that Apple has on the brink of commercial release.
That’s why I said your response makes no sense. When did I say anything about Apple releasing a CPU? I was arguing that Apple will KEEP USING Intel CPUs in their personal computer products, and why they keep using Intel.
@ Hooray
It seems that PA Semi’s talents are designing CPUs for handheld devices. Do you have any evidence that Apple has plans to install these chips in their Mac models and eschew Intel chips all together? I really want to know!
What are you, on Microsoft’s payroll?? If you want an Intel processor, go get a crappy Dell. Apple will switch to PA Semi processors and drop Intel support. You’re obviously too poor or too cheap to buy a new platform every few years. We Apple fans don’t mind because we do whatever Steve tells us to without questioning.
PA Semi’s processors are going to be a much more elegant solution and I have been told that they are enclosed in cases that are delicious and just gorgeous . Let’s face it, Intel processors are really a bag of hurt. I hope Apple doubles the prices off all new Macs to so I can feel special and important
Go STEVE!!!!!!
Don’t stir a pot that doesn’t need stirring.
Mayby INTEL will fab the P.A. Semi designed ARM chips, then it will be a win win situation for both companies.
Apple will need more then 50 millions of those chips per year and INTEL have the most advancend fabrication process and sold their ARM licence, so they can´t copy Apples chip design even it they want to.
Fe Fi Fo Fum I smell the blood of an Englishman. You can’t win Hooray, they are going to eat you alive and you deserve it.
Sometimes when I come to this site and read through the contacts, I begin to feel like I’ve walked in on someone busy pleasuring them-self.
@ lolcat,
I think that I would equate it to walking in on someone taking a big dump.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”confused” style=”border:0;” />
Alx is the new Rattymouse–incoherent, sad, and unfunny.