Apple to Acquire Chip Designer P.A. Semi for $278 Million

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by bluebomberman

Still not comfortable with Apple essentially making their own microprocessors, but it does make some sense.

It's not like they were one of the three companies responsible for the creation of ARM or nuttin...

[cube]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

What is not elegant ? The OS is the same, the enclosures are the same... did you open yours and are staring at the intel chip as you work ?

The CPU ISA of x86 is horrible. I am not interested only in pretty looks and good software running on a rotten architecture.

[Much Ado]

Originally Posted by digitalbiker

Apple turns around and buys a semi-conductor company so now I wonder if intel is going to just forget about developing custom cpu designs for Apple. It just isn't going to be profitable for them to try and garner that meager market share as well as compete with Apple's own semi-conductor designs.

Custom CPU designs?

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by Antares

Oooh.....could this mean the return of Power PC chips in Macs? Or Apple creating/producing their own CPU's? That is an exciting prospect.

If by "exciting" you mean nauseating & repugnant then yep.. I gotta agree with you... :lol:

In all seriousness I like the fact that we no longer have such a stigma associated with our choice in computers (nee OS)... Apple going Intel was the best move they could have made and its surging market share is a measurable testament to it.

Dave

[dicklacara]

Originally Posted by stargurl84

why do you think mac will stay intel based?

At this point in time, it is in Apple's best interest to be Intel-based, because it allows easy migration from other OSes running on the Intel platform.

This is true for the Mac as a general-purpose computer.

Other devices that Apple makes (iPods, iPhone, Airport, Time Capsule, AppleTV) are more like appliances or have no need to migrate legacy apps. So these devices can run on any chip that makes sense for that particular device at that point in time.

Apple is in the cat-bird seat as OS X runs (or can easily be made to run) on any chip that makes sense.

[Moonlight]

Originally Posted by cube

The CPU ISA of x86 is horrible. I am not interested only in pretty looks and good software running on a rotten architecture.

ok, well, I will take faster processors and faster model updates and windows support and market share increase and dual core laptops ANY DAY

[Moonlight]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

Apple going Intel was the best move they could have made and its surging market share is a measurable testament to it.

Dave

Thank you !!

[cube]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

ok, well, I will take faster processors and faster model updates and windows support and market share increase and dual core laptops ANY DAY

You assume too much that because it's Intel it will be faster.

[Moonlight]

Originally Posted by cube

You assume too much that because it's Intel it will be faster.

So, are you saying that you think laptops would be faster now in PowerPC ?

[cgc]

Could Apple incorporte those chips in future Macs as a coprocessor?

[morespce54]

Originally Posted by zap2

apple should team up with some other big companies too, maybe motrola and IBM?

LOL.
For my part, I don't want to go back to PPC for Macs. Being a Mac user since 1987, I would never think I'll say this but: Intel (for Windows specific apps) and OS X (for all the rest) is pretty much the perfect combination for me... right now.

At least, since my Performa 5200

Now, using a PPC chips in iPod or iPhone, that's an other business. That could be interesting. This way, you get PPC chips for every iPod/iPhone users (more control, lower cost, specific instructions...) and Intel for their Mac so they can run Windows. But eventually, they'll get used to OS X and will only use OS X applications and then, they can finally get rid of their Windows needs and habits.... And then, Steeve shall rule!
Mouhahahahaha!!!!

[cube]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

So, are you saying that you think laptops would be faster now in PowerPC ?

Freescale hasn't cared for computers for years and IBM focuses on servers.
P.A. Semi has been focusing on embedded, like Freescale.

[dicklacara]

Originally Posted by cube

The CPU ISA of x86 is horrible. I am not interested only in pretty looks and good software running on a rotten architecture.

Then, I assume, you must drive a steam car!

[digitalbiker]

Originally Posted by Much Ado

Custom CPU designs?

Maybe I should a have worded this "Custom chipsets" AKA macbook air custom merom motherboard and chipset.

[ckurowic]

well, who knows. I don't see Apple putting PowerPC's back into their computers, but who am I to comment?

[jouster]

Originally Posted by Amdahl

Ya, right! No chance Apple is going to put their own CPU in their own computer, that their OS has been running on(and still does) since day zero! Whatever.

Sure. Keep thinking that. I'm positive the software developers, who just went through the PPC-X86 conversion process would be delighted to do it again in reverse. Whatever.

[Kevin_B]

Originally Posted by cube

The CPU ISA of x86 is horrible. I am not interested only in pretty looks and good software running on a rotten architecture.

Unless you're writing machine level code, why would you even care?!? That's just taking a position for the sake of arguing. The desired end result we're all looking for is better performance, usability, rapid improvments in speed and cost. The transition to Intel has facilitated all of those desired end results, so your position of how we get there is irrelevant.

[Moonlight]

Originally Posted by Kevin_B

Unless you're writing machine level code, why would you even care?!? That's just taking a position for the sake of arguing. The desired end result we're all looking for is better performance, usability, rapid improvments in speed and cost. The transition to Intel has facilitated all of those desired end results, so your position of how we get there is irrelevant.

Some people just like to argue, maybe he has a crush on PowerPC ?

[cube]

Originally Posted by Kevin_B

Unless you're writing machine level code, why would you even care?!? That's just taking a position for the sake of arguing. The desired end result we're all looking for is better performance, usability, rapid improvments in speed and cost. The transition to Intel has facilitated all of those desired end results, so your position of how we get there is irrelevant.

Now that Macs are just PCs, let Apple make a cheap functional expandable plain box and see all the designers here complain. I have the same right to require elegant engineering even if I rarely drop to Assembler (I refuse to learn x86 crap).

[Xfujinon]

I would find it unlikely that Apple will be abandoning the Intel chips for its computers. However, a good long look at Apple's latter-day business success points more closely to the success of the iPod, iPhone, and the like. Sure, Macs do make a significant amount of money, but the iPod and iPhone are what paves the way toward new innovation. Computers change less dramatically, but the market for personal micro-computers (iPhone-like PDAs, or tablets) is the future. Apple wants to go to where the puck is going, not where it has already been, right?

I imagine Apple is looking closely at the replacement of the laptop. As soon as it is possible to smash the power of a Macbook Pro into something about 1.5x as large as the iPhone, the nature of personal computing will be profoundly changed. People will connect it to their 30" monitors or 50" LCD TV's at home, and when they are out and about they will use their iPhone-like thing. Seems like a logical progression to me. In order for this to work, low power will be critical. Today's acquisition is moving in that direction.

Wonderful time to be an Apple fan, and what an exciting time to be a computer enthusiast!

[eastcoastsurfer]

Originally Posted by Much Ado

Exclusivity.

(And the power to shape the product roadmap.)

And this buys Apple what? So what if Samsung has access to the same chip that's in the iPhone. It's not the chip that makes it work, but how Apple brings the pieces together (look at the MB, MBP, MP, etc...) Procs are commodities now and yields are where it is at. Intel gets some the best (if not THE best) yields in the business and has patents etc... around getting those yields. If Apple wanted to guide the direction to something for their needs (and again which chip maker right know isn't fixated on making lower power, more efficient chips??), I'm sure there is someone at Intel that is willing to listen. Unless the company has some IP that Apple wanted that isn't clear from the press release, this seems like a very odd move for Apple.

[deputy_doofy]

I think it's a good thing.
1) They can potentially control the types of chips they need for their iDevices.
2) They can continue to make sure that OS X and OS XI (or whatever it will be called) is universally compatible.

I don't think it has anything to do with leaving Intel, considering Apple has had excellent treatment by Intel thus far (publicly, anyway).

[k2spitfire88]

Originally Posted by Amdahl

They believe it for the same reason that people thought it would stay PPC based. It shakes one of the pillars of current Apple canon. People apparently believe Apple is locked in to Intel because that's the only way not to run OS X.

I disagree, they are not locked into Intel, but why switch when it is making them so much money? That is what is allowing people to feel comfortable with switching, which is making them more money, and is a business, which means they want to make money. Its what is allowing them to increase their marketshare, which makes them more money. Simple business.

[jmadlena]

Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer

And this buys Apple what? So what if Samsung has access to the same chip that's in the iPhone. It's not the chip that makes it work, but how Apple brings the pieces together...

If Apple and P.A. Semiconductor designed a chip that was more powerful and less expensive, etc... it would be in Apple's interest to keep it for itself and not allow competitors to utilize their work.

Comparative advantage.

[Amdahl]

Originally Posted by jouster

Sure. Keep thinking that. I'm positive the software developers, who just went through the PPC-X86 conversion process would be delighted to do it again in reverse. Whatever.

How do they have to do it in reverse? They already support PowerPC.