Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:02 PM   #126
uMac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
If apple no longers supports Intel/PC/Windows programs with these chips then that is a bad thing for all of us (even if you use exclusively mac).
__________________
Mac Pro - 2.0GHz / Asus EeePC / iPad / Nikon D90 / Nikon D70s-IR, Flip UltraHD
HayPhoto.ca - Ottawa based Photographer and Filmmaker
uMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:04 PM   #127
Amdahl
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin_B View Post
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.
Compilers do not hide the underlying architecture. A better architecture is more important than 5 years ago, because CPUs are no longer on a continuous single-thread speed race. When every core needs a complex instruction decoder or out-of-order-execution units in order to run at a decent speed, you start looking at more efficient silicon.

Apples move to Intel was contrary to these forces. What intel had was a more efficient factory and the exact products Apple needed, exactly when IBM and Freescale didn't have them. But Intel still makes cruddy widgets, and their advantages are fleeting.
Amdahl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:13 PM   #128
gkarris
macrumors 604
 
gkarris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: "No escape from Reality..."
The Intel switch was one of the best things to happen. Now look at Apple, people are buying up the computers.

Steve, you're a genius:

Intel for Computers in one hand, and P.A. Semi for Specialty Devices in the other...

(waits for Ballmer's comments....)
__________________
"This gate's plastic." Captain Carter, Stargate SG-1, "Touchstone"
gkarris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:13 PM   #129
Amdahl
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2spitfire88 View Post
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.
It isn't an issue of switching. They can continue to sell both. Running Windows isn't a core feature of a Mac, and Apple never intends it to be. How many ads have you seen where Mac points out to PC that he can run Vista too?
Amdahl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:20 PM   #130
eastcoastsurfer
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmadlena View Post
If Apple and P.A. Semiconductor designed a chip that was more powerful and less expensive, etc...
Good luck with that. Not that it can't be done, but Apple is in the business of making consumer devices and not processors. If they think they'll be able to beat the big players out there, then go for it. IMHO, this deal screams of Apples arrogance getting in the way of sense. But like I said before, there could be some IP in the company that the press release didn't mention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl View Post
Compilers do not hide the underlying architecture. A better architecture is more important than 5 years ago, because CPUs are no longer on a continuous single-thread speed race. When every core needs a complex instruction decoder or out-of-order-execution units in order to run at a decent speed, you start looking at more efficient silicon.

Apples move to Intel was contrary to these forces. What intel had was a more efficient factory and the exact products Apple needed, exactly when IBM and Freescale didn't have them. But Intel still makes cruddy widgets, and their advantages are fleeting.
The core and core2 architectures from Intel have been and are pretty impressive. Just ask AMD, who was doing pretty well against Intel until the Core came out. Besides, Intel chips are mostly RISC now and just have hardware x86 decoders sitting on the front end. What would you do right now to make "more efficient silicon?"
eastcoastsurfer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:25 PM   #131
Mr Maui
macrumors 65816
 
Mr Maui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peel View Post
As a boutique chip manufacturer, P A Semi's p ...
As i read this thread, I wonder if anyone read the original Forbes article, or if somehow I just missed something within the Forbes article.

I believe the article said PA Semi was a chip "designer" not a chip manufacturer. Apple designs their computers, their iPhones, etc. but they DO NOT MANUFACTURE THEM! Designing chips specifically for Apple then having someone like Intel or another major player fabricate them is the likely scenario here. Unlike the current chips, designed by Intel with help and/or motivation from Apple, Intel controls the chips so they can be sold to anyone Intel wants.

I liked the one post referencing that after Apple proved to be the driving factor for the setup used in the current Macbook Air, Intel went on to market it to every other PC manufacturer so those comptitors could compete directly with Apple, to the benefit and profitability of Intel (legally allowed), but at the potential expense of Apple (since the other companies were not involved in the costs, etc of the design). If Apple (via PA Semi) designs chips THEY want, and simply has Intel or another volume fabricator "manufacture" them, Intel would have no such authority to market or sell the designs or chips to any other companies, without Apple's approval. Thus, Apple would have control of its own designs, concepts and setups (just like in their computer designs), without having the rug (aka marketshare) yanked from under them by other competitors, after Apple invested their time, effort and money into a chip's design while the other companies did not.

JMO
__________________
UPCOMING APPLE PRODUCTS - The NEW "iWantItAll" and "iWantItNow"
Big brother Gates is watchin' ... an' he ain't likin' ... 8.5% market share!

Last edited by Mr Maui; Apr 23, 2008 at 02:33 PM.
Mr Maui is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:27 PM   #132
k2spitfire88
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: in your mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl View Post
It isn't an issue of switching. They can continue to sell both. Running Windows isn't a core feature of a Mac, and Apple never intends it to be. How many ads have you seen where Mac points out to PC that he can run Vista too?
Correct, but people buy them, because if they wind up not liking what they get, or they have apps that can only run on Windows, they realize that they will be good even with a Mac. They can run windows when needed, and all I was saying is that is a huge part of their increasing marketshare.
__________________
Collector's Edition
UMB 2.4 Ghz
k2spitfire88 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:29 PM   #133
cube
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlight View Post
So, are you saying that you think laptops would be faster now in PowerPC ?
Intel is not a foundry. There are other big companies for that.
cube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:29 PM   #134
carlitofox
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
i dont think that anybody has asked

has intel had a hand in this too ???

if semi PA wouldn't play with intel maybe Apple brought them and will shaire the tech with Intel.

look at what happened with fingerworks apple brought them, tucked them under their wing and we all know how that worked out.

what if intel, Semi PA and apple have been working on something undercover and now Apple have brought them up in the same vain as Fingerworks.
carlitofox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:34 PM   #135
Nano-tube
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Interesting news. Just the other day I saw again the session in D5 where bill gates and steve jobs talked together about the industry and their visions. Jobs clearly stated that Apple is a SOFTWARE company.

Buying this chip company doesn’t necessarily contradict his claim - after all chips are designed to run software, but nevertheless it means that apple will now have a hardware division designing and building chips and this means that additional resources are going to be allocated to hardware research and development. This is not exactly a SOFTWARE company.

In the end, what’s important is what Apple will DO with these chips and I also wonder what impact, if any, it will have on Apple’s relations with Intel in light of the later efforts in the mobile processors market and the Atom cpu.

You know, if Apple is going head to head with Intel this is not good news for Apple. Whatever they can crank out of this chip and company, Intel will just do 10 times the efforts, with 10 ties the money. Eventually apple won't be able to keep up.

Let's hope for the best.
Nano-tube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:39 PM   #136
donlphi
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Seattle (M$ Country)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer View Post
Good luck with that. Not that it can't be done, but Apple is in the business of making consumer devices and not processors. If they think they'll be able to beat the big players out there, then go for it. IMHO, this deal screams of Apples arrogance getting in the way of sense.
Aren't you the same guy that said, "If they think they'll be able to beat the big players out there, then go for it. IMHO, this screams of Apples arrogance...", back when they first announced the iPhone? Just kidding...

But seriously, you sound like one of those guys saying Apple is crazy for getting in the phone business.

Apple has always been consistent about a couple things.

1. They don't care what other people are doing - it's about the consumer, not the other companies.

2. They like to keep things "in house" whenever possible.

You keep hearing people say, "10 years ago this..." and "10 years ago that...". I think Apple is pretty aware of the steps they have taken to get where they are today. There are always going to be unexpected detours - it's called LIFE.
__________________
8Mhz Mac Classic, 933Mhz PowerMac G4 Quicksilver, 2.33Ghz Macbook Pro, 2 x 2.8 Quad Core Mac Pro, Dell Mini 9 Hackintosh, Slingbox Pro, AppleTV, 32GB iPhone 4, 64GB iPad 3G
donlphi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:41 PM   #137
Stridder44
macrumors 68040
 
Stridder44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by fowler. View Post
It seems like a lot of you are in panic mode right now. Do you really think that after 1-2 year transition, Apple would move any part of their line back to PPC?

Seriously, think about it... the time and effort that would go into that.

Most likely, these are going to make their ways into future products... maybe iPhones, touches and regular iPods.

Relax...
No kidding. Jobs may be finicky, but he's not an idiot. Moving from Intel would be the stupidest move they could possibly make. I have no idea what this is for, but there's no way it's a replacement for Intel. It's not like Intel has been bad to them or anything, unlike IBM...

So please, fanboys, stop claiming the sky is falling.
__________________
iPhone 6 128GB
MacBook Pro 2.53GHz/120GB SSD/750GB HDD/4GB RAM
iMac G4 800MHz/80GB HDD/512MB RAM
Stridder44 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:42 PM   #138
surferfromuk
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
So....Apple just bought Steve Wozniak MkII and his personal team of uber-talented designers.

I think they are planning to build something VERY SECRET and very complicated and TRULY UNIQUE that CANNOT be 'contracted out' to a third-party contractor...

Given that the 'Apple Mac' lead directly from such a secret fusion of home-grown H/W and S/W we can only deduct that *something* equally phenomenal needs 'the same magic mix' for a 2010 release time frame...

This is a very interesting day...
__________________
Why do I love Apple - Simple. They make products that enhance my life in a positive way.
surferfromuk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:42 PM   #139
EagerDragon
macrumors 68020
 
EagerDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MA, USA
To those fighting about PPC versus Intel.

IBM is up to G6 and is playing with 6 Ghz systems, not sure if this company Apple purchased is stuck with G4 architecture or not. But that aside .....

We do not know how well a 8-core PPC based system would run in comparison to a Intel 8-core system.

I think it is a bit early for this fight, don't you think?
__________________
Security is a state of mind, Nothing can ever be fully secured and be functional.
Therefore iBricks are fully secured.
EagerDragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:43 PM   #140
icelord
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
All Wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by strikeinsilence View Post
I just love how Apple keeps the whole industry on their toes, if you know what I mean. There's no telling what they'll so next.

You guys are all wrong. This is for non-Mac based products. iPhone perhaps, but unlikely. Think about it....

Apple TV/Some new Media server?? something that has no benefit from Intel processors (ie doesn't need virtualization or cutting edge) or benefit from the existing ARM platforms.

Think different . Think appliances, TV, mediacenters, routers, etc.
icelord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:45 PM   #141
icelord
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by surferfromuk View Post
So....Apple just bought Steve Wozniak MkII and his personal team of uber-talented designers.

I think they are planning to build something VERY SECRET and very complicated and TRULY UNIQUE that CANNOT be 'contracted out' to a third-party contractor...

Given that the 'Apple Mac' lead directly from such a secret fusion of home-grown H/W and S/W we can only deduct that *something* equally phenomenal needs 'the same magic mix' for a 2010 release time frame...

This is a very interesting day...
Exactly!!!
icelord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:50 PM   #142
deputy_doofy
macrumors 65816
 
deputy_doofy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagerDragon View Post
To those fighting about PPC versus Intel.

IBM is up to G6 and is playing with 6 Ghz systems, not sure if this company Apple purchased is stuck with G4 architecture or not. But that aside .....

We do not know how well a 8-core PPC based system would run in comparison to a Intel 8-core system.

I think it is a bit early for this fight, don't you think?
Actually, it would be the "G7." If I'm remembering correctly, IBM's POWER4 was the G5. So, following that, the POWER5 would be the G6 and the POWER6 would be the G7.

Nonetheless, I don't think we're seeing a move to include Gx processors as an optional CTO.
__________________
Person A: Did you get the new iPhone?
Person B: No. I got more damn dung from Samsung™, featuring Randroid™!
deputy_doofy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:51 PM   #143
dongmin
macrumors 68000
 
dongmin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebomberman View Post
Hard to evaluate this maneuver. The idea of Apple buying a chip manufacturer isn't a clear win by any means - they don't have a great deal of institutional experience fabricating microprocessors and Apple's last attempt in the chip business over a decade ago didn't go well at all.
1. As other's have pointed out, ARM Ltdl. was a joint venture by Apple, Acorn, and VLSI. Apple has a long history of being directly involved in designing microprocessors, especially in the low-power, embedded variety. ARM-based processors dominate the phone/PDA market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastsurfer View Post
IMHO, this is a bad move on Apples part. Even if they wanted to use this companies chips, it didn't make much sense to buy them. Apple makes it's money on the combination of many parts. Why do they need (or want to) control something like the processor?=
2. Apple may be buying talent here as much as anything else. And this direct knowledge and individual talent will give Apple a major advantage over others in the phone/pda/tablet field that looks to be a major growth market for apple.

3. PA Semi is a "fab-less" semi-conductor company meaning they farm out the manufacturing to others. So Apple will not be directly manufacturing chips.
dongmin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 02:57 PM   #144
eastcoastsurfer
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by donlphi View Post
Aren't you the same guy that said, "If they think they'll be able to beat the big players out there, then go for it. IMHO, this screams of Apples arrogance...", back when they first announced the iPhone? Just kidding...

But seriously, you sound like one of those guys saying Apple is crazy for getting in the phone business.
If as a user I directly interfaced with a proc for some reason, then Apple could probably improve that experience. The last time I built a machine it had a ZIF socket which worked pretty darn well though. I guess they could color the procs like fruit so when I open up my next iPhone I can say it has a grape inside.

Apples core competency is designing trendy consumer devices. I worry that now having to design and somehow manufacture their own chips is going to end up distracting them from their core.
eastcoastsurfer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:00 PM   #145
137489
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by morespce54 View Post
LOL.
For my part, I don't want to go back to PPC for Macs.... Intel (for Windows specific apps) and OS X (for all the rest) is pretty much the perfect combination for me... right now.


...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!!!!
I agree, while I already dumped 1/2 my software since I switched, there are still some Windows apps I need (no good equivelant that keeps me compatible with the rest of the world). Intel allows the best of both worlds in one computer.

As for those mentioning that PPC is slower, I remember and article that came out during the switch to Intel. the reasons for the switch were:

1. Hotness of PPC which atributed to running slower.
2. While Intel is a slower chip (not by much), it ran cooler and with Dual Core and faster buses/cache, it out-performed PPC.
3. PPC manufacturers could not keep up with the demand for the CPU/chips.
4. A G5 laptop was never made as it would run too hot.


I think apple has a good thing going in the Mac lineup with Intel. if they ever changed and we could not run the good MS apps which most businesses rely on, then I think apple would start losing sales and I would have to reconcider my decision on buying another Apple once my macbook is no longer relevant (which will be many years down the road). And I was just thinking of dumping my 4 year old HP desktop to get my wife a mini that she could do more than just surf the new (that is all the 4 year old HP media center is being used for these days).
137489 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:00 PM   #146
shawnce
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jouster View Post
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.
The iPhone and iPod touch don't use Intel or PowerPC chips. They use ARM which Xcode now supports as well. This really isn't an issue.

Anyway this has NOTHING to do with moving off of Intel. No small internal group can keep up with Intel (or AMD). This is about some specific need that Apple cannot find a good solution for "off the shelf".
shawnce is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:02 PM   #147
shawnce
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=207401605

Quote:
Apple has not publically detailed its plans for the acquisition, but may speak on the issue during an earnings cal scheduled for today (April 23). P.A. Semi customers were told the acquiring company was not interested in the startup's products or road map, but is buying the company for its intellectual property and engineering talent.
shawnce is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:34 PM   #148
kornyboy
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

This is very interesting. I wonder if this will lead to cheaper manufacturing of core components of the iPhone and a savings that can be passed along to the consumer.
__________________
Stuff
kornyboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:35 PM   #149
GraduatedMac
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Fayetteville, AR
I like...this gets me all warm and melty inside!
__________________
Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and He will give you everything you need

(or want )
GraduatedMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 23, 2008, 03:40 PM   #150
TheNightPhoenix
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amdahl View Post
It isn't an issue of switching. They can continue to sell both. Running Windows isn't a core feature of a Mac, and Apple never intends it to be. How many ads have you seen where Mac points out to PC that he can run Vista too?
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/ap...he_480x376.mov

I think what "shawnce" is very interesting, perhaps Apple has no interest in the design of chips but simply wants some extra engineers and some of the intellectual property they have. For all we know they have a patent on some kind of none processor technology that Apple wants all for themselves and didn't want to see it licensed to other people.

Last edited by TheNightPhoenix; Apr 23, 2008 at 03:47 PM.
TheNightPhoenix is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Deal in Sight for Apple to Acquire Waze MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 66 Jun 12, 2013 03:30 PM
Apple Hires Key Chip Designer from Samsung MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 151 Nov 5, 2012 11:07 AM
[Mod change] Why Apple should acquire Nokia Corporation smoledman Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 13 Oct 7, 2012 04:20 PM
Key Apple Chip Designer Jim Keller Returns to AMD MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 28 Aug 3, 2012 04:03 PM
What I don't get: Why doesn't apple acquire companies like corning? brinycbri iPhone 25 Jun 5, 2012 02:13 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC