“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.
@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…