Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The thing is, FaceID didn't happen overnight. It's not like they decided at the last minute "we can't get TouchID to work, we'd better throw something else together fast." Now maybe they wanted both TouchID and FaceID (I'm skeptical), but FaceID wasn't thrown in just because TouchID under the display wouldn't work.

My theory is that the hardware and software was there, but it wasn't originally intended for authentication. Probably for the Animoji stuff and AR. Auth was probably put together "last minute" (in the concept of software development) after TouchID wasn't possible.
 
Srouji team is really amazing, their Ax chips are an important part of iPhone and iPad's success.
It's a pity the average user doesn't even know what a CPU is, and focus only on the design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spacemnspiff
the naming of the chip bionic is really cringe worthy.

there is nothing bionic about it.

really cheesy marketing and i'm the biggest iphone fan here.
It's probably referring to the neural network inside the chip, used for recognizing things.

I like the name. But hey, I grew up in the '80s, and that word was thrown around a lot back then.
 
Ah, you don't say! I appreciate the input, I wasn't aware. Are most of the mainstream Qualcomm chips already applying this method? My current phone is running an eight core Snapdragon 810.

Are Apple processors just rebranded ARM chips? Apple has a lot of input on the design, no?

---Edit---
After further investigation, I see that ARM is a licensed technology. Even Snapdragon processors use it. Interesting.

Apple has an Architectural License on the ARM technology. They use it to do their own chip design.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: v0lume4
Question is are they ultimately looking at replacing Intel chips in the Mac. I think they want total control of their eco system so probably yes.
 
I think what amazes me, is that this A11 architecture was not developed overnight. It's interesting to think about the A11 Chip was in development three years ago during the iPhone 6 era. So it goes to show you, Apple is already thinking three or four years Ahead from now with new product designs. It would be fascinating to see what ideas/designs they have for 2020.
 
Last edited:
Srouji's team is absolutely killing it right now, and has been for years. They continue to amaze me with their chip designs, and nobody in the industry can come even close. I'm giddy right now even thinking about the stuff they're designing right now for release in 2020. It must be extremely rewarding to see these designs made real at each launch event after working on them for so long.
 
lol! I can't help but think of this when they said A11 Bionic...

DIu8eGQUMAA3u0s.jpg
 
Ah, you don't say! I appreciate the input, I wasn't aware. Are most of the mainstream Qualcomm chips already applying this method? My current phone is running an eight core Snapdragon 810.

Are Apple processors just rebranded ARM chips? Apple has a lot of input on the design, no?

---Edit---
After further investigation, I see that ARM is a licensed technology. Even Snapdragon processors use it. Interesting.

Credit to you for taking input so well and for doing research but it's a bit more complicated than that.

Essentially there are two ways to license ARM intellectual property from ARM. The first way is to license an ARM design which is effectively a blueprint that will allow you to fabricate a chip that ARM designed down to the transistor level. This is what Apple did up until it released its first 64 bit SoC, it took ARM cores that had already been designed by ARM and incorporated them into its own Apple A4, A5 etc obviously adding some Apple specific bits as well (interfaces etc).

The other way to license however is what Apple does now which is an architecture license, i.e. Apple is allowed to implement the ARM instruction set in its SoCs but how it actually does that is entirely up to Apple's engineers. If they can find a much more efficient way to implement multiplication or division (as a very simplified example) than ARM has done in its reference design then they are free to do so.

The analogy is maybe like someone licensing a car. Apple's pre-64-bit license was a bit like licensing the blueprints of the car and going to a factory and say "I want you to make this car for me using these blueprints". Apple's current architecture license is more like getting a license from the car manufacturer that says "OK, as long as what you build looks exactly like my car to the observer (same body shape, colours etc) and to the driver (all the controls are in the same position and work the same way) then you can build and sell your version of this car. That then leaves the licensee to swap out the engine with a fusion reactor, make it go at 500mph, allow the cabin soundproofing to be completely silent, etc, etc. From the outside it's the same car but it is way more capable in terms of how it performs.

Some of the above is somewhat simplified but hopefully gives you an idea of where Apple leverages off ARM technology (ARM designed the instruction set) and where Apple adds value (better implementation). Lots of companies incorporate ARM technology by licensing ARM-designed cores. Very few companies have the in-house chip design expertise and resources to redesign all the internals to make a better ARM core than ARM does.
 
Credit to you for taking input so well and for doing research but it's a bit more complicated than that....

[...remainder edited out for brevity]

That was an excellent explanation. I'm sure there's a ton more detail, but at least I understand a bit more.

Thanks.
 
Apple has an Architectural License on the ARM technology. They use it to do their own chip design.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3
Ahhh. That clears things up a bit. Thanks so much.
Credit to you for taking input so well and for doing research but it's a bit more complicated than that.

Essentially there are two ways to license ARM intellectual property from ARM. The first way is to license an ARM design which is effectively a blueprint that will allow you to fabricate a chip that ARM designed down to the transistor level. This is what Apple did up until it released its first 64 bit SoC, it took ARM cores that had already been designed by ARM and incorporated them into its own Apple A4, A5 etc obviously adding some Apple specific bits as well (interfaces etc).

The other way to license however is what Apple does now which is an architecture license, i.e. Apple is allowed to implement the ARM instruction set in its SoCs but how it actually does that is entirely up to Apple's engineers. If they can find a much more efficient way to implement multiplication or division (as a very simplified example) than ARM has done in its reference design then they are free to do so.

The analogy is maybe like someone licensing a car. Apple's pre-64-bit license was a bit like licensing the blueprints of the car and going to a factory and say "I want you to make this car for me using these blueprints". Apple's current architecture license is more like getting a license from the car manufacturer that says "OK, as long as what you build looks exactly like my car to the observer (same body shape, colours etc) and to the driver (all the controls are in the same position and work the same way) then you can build and sell your version of this car. That then leaves the licensee to swap out the engine with a fusion reactor, make it go at 500mph, allow the cabin soundproofing to be completely silent, etc, etc. From the outside it's the same car but it is way more capable in terms of how it performs.

Some of the above is somewhat simplified but hopefully gives you an idea of where Apple leverages off ARM technology (ARM designed the instruction set) and where Apple adds value (better implementation). Lots of companies incorporate ARM technology by licensing ARM-designed cores. Very few companies have the in-house chip design expertise and resources to redesign all the internals to make a better ARM core than ARM does.
Wowza! Thank you for taking the time to type all of that out. I learned a lot. Having kept up with tech for years and years, I've never actually done my research into learning the behind-the-scenes of Apple's (and many others') SoC origins. What a great jumping-off point. Cheers. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: needfx
Hardware has never been an issue neither has been the efficiency of processing power usage of ios. I mean a 5S is still certainly usable definitely on the slow side now but hey its a 4 year old phone now. Now not having the ability to group notifications by app and still having a spring board of all auto top left sorted icon is still a head scratcher for me. Haven't used it yet but don't think I'm going to be a fan of the new control centre either especially having to reach up for it on the X. I just wish apple change some of these ios annoyances and I wouldn't even have to think about an Android device. It would simply be inferior.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.