I agree.
Though I wouldn't call or consider the iPad a toy. It's a tool with a different mission scope than a full fledged PC. Just as an iPhone or iPod isn't a toy. Each has a different mission scope.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Threatened to Abandon Intel Chips over Power Consumption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree.
Though I wouldn't call or consider the iPad a toy. It's a tool with a different mission scope than a full fledged PC. Just as an iPhone or iPod isn't a toy. Each has a different mission scope.
Apple's excuse to abandon Intel because they want to slap a iphone motherboard into a laptop case and still charge $1000 plus. Can't have mac ios without phone hardware.
Is it me but isn't that going backwards for the consumer? I thought magical movies were made with powerful computers. But I guess crappy hardware should be enough for browsing the web and playing angry birds.
Is it me but isn't that going backwards for the consumer? I thought magical movies were made with powerful computers. But I guess crappy hardware should be enough for browsing the web and playing angry birds.
Except AMD lags behind Intel chip for chip.
If it wasn't for Apple, we'd be living in caves.
These comments are about as insipid and uninspired as I've ever seen.
Apple is NOT tiny... they have a rather LARGE market share these days, right up there with manufacturers like Dell, HP, etc. They also have an enormous impact on the market... hell, they have an impact on the global economy now. Indirectly, anyway.
PC hardware would be "as horrible now as they was ten years ago"? [sic]
The Intel Core 2 architecture was out before the switch to Intel, and it matched or eclipsed the G5 in performance. Apple had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, nor with Core i7s. This is mindless drivel.
Well said. I would actually fall over laughing.. all these Intel Mac hardcore fans would have to switch to a new platform... and within 3 years their precious Mac Pros wouldn't be supported by Mac OS 10.9.
three things.
1. Nvidia needs high end core to attach their GPUs to. AMD and Intel moving GPUs to the same die as the CPU is going to freeze them out of much of the market over time.
That doesn't mean that the offering is going to get much of an uptake.
NOTE also that Nvidia is also persuing building A15 designs for cellphone/tablet market. Where these 64 versions are heading is unknown.
If Windows/ARM doesn't take off and Intel's and AMD offerings get much better, then this is a dead-ender.
[ NOTE: Windows NT had multiple ports that didn't go anywhere either. Like Apple sticking it to Intel , similar issue with Microsoft pushing an ARM port. If Intel just becomes a better dance partner they other will get dropped. ]
2. The statement from the ARM CEO came after the Nvidia announcement. ARM knew full well there were folks running around talking up forks. They aren't going there yet. Nor do I think they are going to feel obligated to buy into the designs banged out by Nvidia. Once the ARM goes 64 bit internal, add in superscaling , and pipelining to keep up with AMD and Intel performance then it isn't so clear there will be a large gap between ARM designs and x86 ones. ARM power efficiencies come in part because of the stuff they leave out by making a power vs. performance tradeoff. Once those are partially reverse it isn't so clear the "big win" is going to be there. Especially, since Intel can just "out process" you. Your fab is at 32 when they are at 28.
If ARM can get a decent hook into the "high energy efficient" server market with just a variant of the A15 they will probably persue that course. If the A15 can't crack the market they they may go down the 64-bit path. I don't think they really want to go that way if they don't have to. Until 3-4GB of RAM gets common in mobile devices ( very far from that at the moment) there isn't lots of pressure to go 64 bits.
3. One reason why Apple has $70B in the bank is that they outsource lots of stuff to people who have lots of customers to spread R&D costs over. Apple buys cheaper and sells with a higher margin. That gap is what built that $70B.
Tweaking the ARM baseline is one thing. Venturing off the baseline will substantially increase R&D costs. Nvidia is going to need a much broader customer base than the number of Macs Apple sells for their 64-bit fork to pay off. Apple somewhat redundantly doing the same work just for the Mac market is a much bigger gamble. Apple isn't a big gambler.
They spin stuff as being big gambles but most thingst they do these days are not.
LOL. Point taken but it's grossly exaggerated. Grossly.
Eh, just a bit.
Though I would say alot of the hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread is...well...hyperbole. Intel isn't lagging behind, sitting on it's laurels, while companies like Apple spur it towards innovation. It's more to say that they're ultimately moving in different directions.
Intel likes powerful. They like finding ways to cram more power into tighter designs, regardless of watt usage. Their most recent achievements show them doing just that. I mean just look at their new designs for 3D transistors. It's pretty swanky, exciting stuff. Probably uses a crapton of power, too.
Their smaller, more efficient designs are sort of a side project to them. They've got some focus on it, but obviously not all.
Apple, on the other hand, is mostly known for it's portable computers. They'd like processors that are efficient at low power consumption. Saves on battery life and all that good stuff. This isn't Intel's main focus.
Just because it's not, doesn't mean that they're not an innovative company. Rather, they're innovating in a different direction. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Also, I think "innovative" is a word being used way, way, way, way too damn much these days.
Why would Apple haters spread rumors about increased adoption of ARM processors in Apple products?
Sharp.
Sure. And a lot of them wish for a Mac. You got your needs, and then . . . you got your WANTS.
But many are drooling over Apple gear. Especially in a recession, for some reason (when similar "tools" are available for much less from competitors, who have to slash prices in order to avoid losing share.)
Entry fee is typically $1000+. Not everyone is able to swing that.
It is not clear that AMD's cross licensing deals for x86 implementations will survive a buy-out. Buying AMD is a dubious option. AMD can't make money being an "apple only" supplier.
It doesn't makes sense for Apple to get into the compete "head to head with Intel on their home turf" business. Smallish mobile SOCs ... ok , because so far that isn't a core compendence for Intel. PC class microprocessors .... not!
Frankly, it is better for Apple to have two vendors to play off against each other "Intel, I'll go off to AMD if you don't act right" , "AMD, if you want my business then I need you to meet my specs". It is much better than the PowerPC situation because there are enough customers to go around so that the "other" can survive even if Apple doesn't pick them. ( as opposed to Apple being the only bulk purchaser of a solution).
As long as Macs are primarily competing against x86 based PCs then having AMD/Intel x86 vendors are the better move.
So far, Apple is keeping Macs out of the ARM product price zone. Market pressures ( competition from ARM and between the two) can help to push prices lower so Apple can keep or improve Mac margins. However, it isn't like Macs don't have comfortable margins now.
apple fans are hilarious, the whole world doesn't resolve around apple
Most likely intel have just realised more and more net books and ultra portables are becoming popular and their is a demand from the whole market for more or should i say less power consumption .
this thread along with the nintendo one is laughable.
Most likely intel have just realised more and more net books and ultra portables are becoming popular and their is a demand from the whole market for more or should i say less power consumption .
this thread along with the nintendo one is laughable.
smug alert
I would consider that a negative, unless you're wearing Gucci rose-coloured sunglasses.
No one can question the oft-heard phrase "I don't mind Apples, it's the Apple users that I can't stand".
I would consider that a negative, unless you're wearing Gucci rose-coloured sunglasses.
No one can question the oft-heard phrase "I don't mind Apples, it's the Apple users that I can't stand".
Doesn't Uncle Steve sell rose covered glasses? May Apple will buy Oakley or Maui Jim.
Oakley and Maui Jim actually have some useful technology.
The "prestige" crowd will want Gucci or something similar - the GG logo on the temple is more important than whether they are good sunglasses.
Mother loving, so intel gives Apple the best reason to exit the intel mac market back to purist Power PC and non-intel ARM based market, and they put pressure on them instead. Real bad move for the consumers. Apple needs to just kill of dead dog Intel(and x86) and let us flourish with better Power PC, ARM, and graphine architecture. When will Apple learn from this unfortunate mistake.
I forgot, form over function.
I wear Maui Jim's, because Oakley fails the "form over function" test for me.
I have rather long and lush eyelashes, and most of the Oakley models are "wrap-around" glasses that are too close to my eyes, and my eyelashes brush against the lenses. Very annoying. I like the Oakley look, but can't deal with the eyelash issue. My Maui Jim's aren't as close to my eyes, so no problem.
Same with Apples. Some people like glossy screens, some are ambivalent, and others buy a different computer. No right or wrong, just different styles.
To lilo777:
Mac-haters will always degrade Apple's market share by half of the truth, and still think the world's largest company
Apple pips Exon
is going out of business. In the U.S., Apple is 9.7% and is the fastest growing brand. No one, including Intel, really cares about what people in the villages of India and China buy. I have lived in Asia for 8 years and can assure you the common folk buy the cheapest, flimsy junk they can find (and that isn't Dell or Asus) that can run the Windows XP they can buy for one dollar on any street corner. It is some local brand you never heard of using Atom or low-power Pentium processor. Nothing Intel does in their specialized processor lines will change anything about the people buying 75 dollar junk boxes running XP in western China.
Apple also sells more iPads than all their Macs combined. Do we call an iPad a computer? Although tablet computers are excluded from these market share stats, Intel is very interested in total computer share, not just "PC" share.
What is it that disqualifies an iPad from the stats? It surely isn't lack of optical drive, or lack of removable internal drive, because MacBook Air now goes in that category.
Mac-haters will always degrade Apple's market share by half of the truth, and still think the world's largest company
Apple pips Exon
is going out of business. In the U.S., Apple is 9.7% and is the fastest growing brand. No one, including Intel, really cares about what people in the villages of India and China buy. I have lived in Asia for 8 years and can assure you the common folk buy the cheapest, flimsy junk they can find (and that isn't Dell or Asus) that can run the Windows XP they can buy for one dollar on any street corner. It is some local brand you never heard of using Atom or low-power Pentium processor. Nothing Intel does in their specialized processor lines will change anything about the people buying 75 dollar junk boxes running XP in western China.
Apple also sells more iPads than all their Macs combined. Do we call an iPad a computer? Although tablet computers are excluded from these market share stats, Intel is very interested in total computer share, not just "PC" share.
What is it that disqualifies an iPad from the stats? It surely isn't lack of optical drive, or lack of removable internal drive, because MacBook Air now goes in that category.
Without Apple PCs would be as horrible as 10 years ago? You forgot that the whole reason Apple switched to Intel is because x86 was so much faster than PowerPC.
It's got more to do with Intel just sitting on their laurels after defeating AMD, as they no longer have any real competition. They don't feel that they needed to improve as quickly, since PC makers are more likely to use their chips anyway.
It is ironic that Apple is the one to spur Intel to improve, and not another chip maker.
Is that why Intel produces the 990x and Sandy Bridge? And is getting Ivy Bridge ready for the market? Without Apple, non of the cutting edge cpu's would exist today?
Of course Intel has to improve, otherwise AMD would eventually catch up. What i'm saying is that it's ironic that Apple, who's not a direct competitor to Intel, would contribute to their improvement.
Funny how everyone voted it up....
Of course Intel has to improve, otherwise AMD would eventually catch up. What i'm saying is that it's ironic that Apple, who's not a direct competitor to Intel, would contribute to their improvement.
Now I understand what you meant.