“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.
@k1w,
I think that I may be the only one who caught your joke in your post:
“What? Your obviously cannot write not one response that makes any sense.”
That was a joke wasn’t it?
Apple won’t get away from intel for the very reason, ENTERPRISE will never truly adopt them if they do so. The beauty of running any OS along side MAC OSX is a selling point. PA is for iPod and iPhone steve said so. go check. Intel is not a bag of hurt, they have already showed that they can work very closely with Apple, remember the secrecy of the Macbook Air. So no Macs are intel powered for a long while, remember they stripped all the PPC coding out of Snow Leopard, wouldn’t make sense to go back that route if they were designing their own chips to knock that off. But making a special chips for the iPhone and touch makes a lot sense. Apple then controls their roadmap for the iPhone/touch, not intel. Intel is years ahead of everyone else in the PC processor market.
Apple is going to use Intel just custom chipsets in handhelds like the iPhone and MacBook Touch or whatever? they will overall save money and keep secrets sealed tighter than Steve Jobs liver transplant. Apple is the real deal, so to Hell with Google, Microsoft, Sony plus any other stupid company who think that can do better.
@Cubert
No, I caught that little jab as well.
@justme2
No, Apple did not switch to Intel chips so that users can dual boot. Apple switch to Intel because IBM could not get the PowerPC chip to operate at speeds (Clock) that were commercially competitive with Intel.
Now, before everyone gets there nickers in a twist, I know that the PowerPC chips were actually in many cases faster than the comparable Intel chips. However, with Intel able to post up clock speeds at 3.0GHZ and IBM’s continued failure to live up to there promises to raise clock speeds, I think Apple felt they had to make a move.
The ability to dual boot to Windoze was just a really good marketing tool and an added bonus.
As for switching off of Intel chips and on to P.A.
I highly doubt it will ever happen. From what I understand, P.A. is building chips for Phones, not full blown pc’s like a Pro Mac.
Apple will use chips as new ideas emerge regarding chop usage. We all think so linearly. It’s not just that Apple might switch to this chip or that, but maybe use dual chips again or Apple-designed chips for specific uses.
There was a clear reason in mind when they bought PA Semi. I’d guess that their experience with those chips will soon pay off.
If they do continue to gain market share, it will because of their current business model works. Changing it just because they have increased market share isn’t good business. If the market is willing to pay for iMacs and Macbooks, Apple isn’t going to change direction unless they are forced to. I just do not think that the government is going to force Apple to do anything. They have very low market share in the PC market. The iPhone doesn’t dominate the market share in the smartphone market yet. Coming from a PC background, I can understand the reason people want to install OS X on anything they want. But, that’s not Apple’s plan, so we can either buy a Mac or not. There isn’t any anti-trust issues because there is a choice.
As far as new chip for the iPhone, I can see them using a P. A. chip. They will not leave Intel for the Macs. If for no other reason, public perception.
> before everyone gets there nickers in a twist <
Neigh Joe, where you goin’ with that pun in your hand?
I agree, I am not that impressed with the intel chip, my powerbook G4 has more pop and speed in opening apps. Although the intel chip has let apple move into more mainstream develoment, over all I would love to see apple move to a new chip platform that has the power and pop of the G4 and G5–which my wife still runs for her photoshop and it still screams and feels more like macs used to
@Dave you can’t be serious – The PowerBook G4 didn’t have performance even close to the Core Duo MacBook Pro. When my PB died from the (well known) memory slot issue and Apple replaced it with a MBP, I couldn’t believe the difference.
Apple dropped PPC because they couldn’t source a decent laptop CPU. The G4 was old, stale and slow compared to the Core Duo of the day. Like many Apple fans I was sad to see the PPC go – like I was sad to see the back of the 68K – but the PPC had clearly reached the end of the line, and with no improvements in sight, Apple had no choice.
@ kenw1 (and thousands of others with the same assumptions)
“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.”
This Apple licensing canard has been hashed to death for years already, but I’ll respond to this point anyway.
There are many reasons why Apple should not and won’t license their operating system to 3rd parties, but I’ll talk about the 3 reasons already mentioned here, and one that no-one has yet talked about in this thread.
1. It’s a bit facile, but the reason already stated in this thread stands: If Apple is making tonnes of money with the model as it is (unlicensed), why would they fix something that ain’t broke?
2. Also previously pointed out here, Apple is making lots of money with increasing hardware and software sales now. With increased and increasing market share, there is no need to license their OS, since it is already being adopted.
Not only is the OS being adopted, it’s being purchased as part of a very profitable bundle for Apple – the OS plus the Apple hardware. The incentive to license Apple’s OS continuously decreases with the increasing hardware+OS adoption rate.
3. Licensing the OS would mean Apple would not control the user experience and hardware quality and compatibility. This is huge, and one big reason why the Windows experience is so painful.
4. Here’s what no-one has mentioned here;
Licensing the OS to 3rd party manufacturers would mean anyone could run the OS on any (most?) hardware.
So, Apple sells some “plastic disc(s) in a box” for a hundred and some dollars, and then:
– Hackers, Apple-haters, and even casual hobbyists, remove any software protections, or post programs to break Apple software serial numbers.
– Torrents start cranking.
– Burned copies start getting “loaned” to friends, co-workers, bosses, in-laws, and high school crushes.
Soon Apple is making no money from hardware or software sales.
A few days later, Apple hangs a hand-lettered, cardboard, “Out of Business” sign across the locked gates at 1 Infinite Loop.
Crickets chirp.
Microsoft claims market domination due to its culture of innovation.
On the subject of CPU’s in the article above by Brooke Crothers for CNET where it is mentioned that the Intel Atom chip is too power hungry to be used in Mobile Internet Devices, MID’s as the iPhone undoubtedly is along with the Touch.
In my opinion it is for this reason why Apple has had to find another source/fab factory for the cpu inside an iPhone and the only solution was to buy out PA and make their own ‘custom’ chip.
Things are going to get more interesting when Intel deliver the Moorestown chip to market, according to the above article due 2010. The iPhone is here and now and would not wait for Intel to catch up, have no doubts that Apple would have held talks with Intel prior to buying their own foundry.
Crystal ball gazing: ‘will Apple then decide to dump their own iPhone cpu for Moorestown’?
If so, sell PA to Intel and thereby enable higher rates of production of Moorestown cpu’s, perhaps the cynics out there would argue that Apple is already in a co-venture agreement with Intel over PA for this reason.
Well Apple could sell part of knowledge to Intel by some licensing…