I don't mean to sound like an arrogant ***hole, but seriously, does anyone even bother to actually read anything before commenting? My god, it's like a panic room in here where nobody knows their ass from their face. Let's get some things straight:
1) PA Semi is a fab-less processor DESIGNER, NOT A MANUFACTURER.
2) The company is header by a former DEC engineer who helped create the DEC Alpha and DEC StrongARM lines of processors. StrongARM is a variant of ARM used in the original Apple Newton.
3) However, PA Semi does NOT develop any products based upon ARM, StrongARM, MIPS, Alpha, etc.
4) PA Semi's ONLY products (outside of R&D) are high-powered POWER-based embedded platforms that consume roughly 10 watts. Their power usage is definitely NOT IN THE IPHONE/IPOD RANGE! These are dual-core 2Ghz systm-on-a-chip processors with PCIexpress slot, 10 Gigabit Ethernet, etc that are used for high-end embedded systems in telecommunications, storage arrays, signal processing, etc.
Basically, this makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I'm guessing this is a case of one of two possible scenarios. Either they have been working with Apple on a special R&D project behind the scenes, totally unrelated to their current product offerings... Or Apple is just buying the company for their low-power IP and talent. The team is made up of engineers that have previously worked on Intel's Itanium and AMD's Opteron processors. I don't know if Apple would actually try to develop a new low-power ARM variant for use in their iPod/iPhones or what.
I think it is laughable for anyone to speculate that Apple would go back to the POWER architecture for their Macs. The intel switch was one of the best moves in Apple history. Intel's x86 processors are faster, more efficient, and have a great future ahead, including the Q4 release of Nehalem, which will be incredible. Intel is really firing on all cylinders. Most importantly, switching to Intel's platform allowed two MAJOR things to happen:
1) Using X86 processors created the ability to use Bootcamp for dual-booting Windows Xp, and likewise run high-speed virtualization via VMware and Parallels. Don't underestimate the power of being able to slowly ween off of windows and run legacy windows applications. I would even argue that this fact alone is responsible for a huge percentage of conversions from windows.
2) Intel's processors gave Apple the opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale that result from the enormous worldwide x86 market. This allowed Apple to become much more price-competitive in the market versus the PC manufacturers, while at the same time keeping their margins high for profitability. There is no way they could maintain this cost advantage in the the POWER market, especially if they used non-commodity, in-house processors that were contract manufactured. At the same time, POWER may be used for IBM's supercomputers and some other niche applications, however all the money is going into x86 and this will not change anytime soon. Intel and AMD x86 products will dominate the scene for the foreseeable future. See Nehalem and Sandy Bridge for details.
These two major advantages are what have made possible Apple's current success. Also, Think of the developers who have spent all their time in the last few years optimizing their applications for the x86 architecture, including Apple with their pro apps. Many people may think developing for POWER and x86 is just a matter of checking boxes in xCode, but the profiling and optimization of applications DOES depend do an extent on the architecture. I think developers would just about scream and leave Apple forever if they pulled this kind of move on them two years after moving to x86. You sum up all the problems associated with that, and Apple would be clincally insane to move away from x86 back to POWER.
As for the iPhone, as i mentioned above, PA Semi does not make low-power chips for small devices like smartphones or iPods. These processors use 50X more power than the iPhone does currently. Phone processors are measured in MILLIWATTS, not WATTS. Besides, the POWER architecture doesn't make ANY sense at all for the purpose. POWER was never designed to scale that low, sort of like x86, whereas the ARM architecture was created for just that purpose. With all the talk of switching to the future Menlow platform that has Intel's Silverthorne/Atom chip, I remind people to look at where ARM is heading.
The iPhone's ARM11 processor is by NO MEANS top of the line and current. ARM's new Cortex-A8 and Cortex-A9 cores offer much higher performance with the same or lower power use. These chips are available as dual-core and scale to over 1Ghz, way more than adequate for any future iPhone.
( As of a few weeks ago, I was unable to find information on Samsungs roadmap, and Qualcomm had to yank their mobile phone processor info off the web because of the Broadcomm lawsuit, but Texas Instruments has info on their newer Cortex-based ARM mobile phone processors on their website:
Texas Instruments OMAP3400 series high-performance mobile processors
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wt...lateId=6123&navigationId=11989&contentId=4682 )
Also, I point to all the work done already by Apple to optimize the "iPhone OS" kernel and all the system libraries to the ARM architecture. And again, the economies of scale definitely factor in here as well. Even though they would own the IP in house, it seems to me that not much would be saved when you look at how Qualcomm, T.I, or Samsung produces literally hundreds of millions of ARM cores. Apple would be stuck with contract manufacturing a few millions of their proprietary chips, and depending on contracts and manufacturing yields, it wouldn't save them any money at all and could in fact be more expensive.
I think I'm one of the few that wishes Apple goes back to Power PC, and bring the PowerBook back!!
Don't get me wrong, the MacBook Pros are great, but Intel keeps coming out with new products every month, it kills the enjoyment of the past when your Mac was the latest model for a year or so.
For me, Apple machines use to have this magic feel. 
"magic feel"? Is that the feeling you get when you notice that Apple hasn't updated their laptop processors in years? And I just can't believe how many of you old-timers actually yearn for SLOWER progress. You actually would rather slow development progress just so you don't have to acknowledge that your year old computer isn't the top of the line when the new models come out? That HAS to be a sign of clinically insanity. What's next? Telling Honda they shouldn't make a new Accord because you want your old car to feel "top of the line" ??
From what I'm seeing, this looks like it would be a particularly good chip for a future version of AppleTV. The crypto is what really got me thinking in this direction, because NBC has stated that they would reconsider an iTunes presence if there were more reliable DRM capabilities. I think this might be the ticket. It also differentiates Apple TV from the Mac Mini, in that it would be PPC based and perhaps even allow Apple to make it for a lower price point.
That isn't even realistic. Why in the world would Apple want to support the OSX kernel and libraries on all THREE architectures? What purpose would that serve at all? There are plenty of capable x86 processors for the AppleTV. And it's not as if ultra-low-power technology is even't relevant since the AppleTV is a stationary, AC power product.
Finally some good news. My 8 core XEON at work tends to lag even w/ 8gb ram and leopard. Welcome back POWER! These in a Xserve, or Mac Pro (correction Powermac hehe)...
Is that sarcasm? 8-core Xeon with 8GB of ram lagging? That certainly wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the processor. You obviously have something software and/or driver related going on.
Some of you may not agree, but we are all grasping at straws any way.
These low power chips will be going into iPhone, iPods, Apple TV and other upcoming devices. For two reasons:
a) Less heat and low power utilization
b) Less clones
While they are currently PPC compatible, the next iteration could have new instruction sets added to facilitate some operations like media, encryption and other functions, also the memory handling could be different and the I/O could be different. As Apple would control the supply of the chips, others can not insert those chips on their clones.
I totally agree with you about the "grasping at straws" bit. However, The POWER processors made by PA Semiconductor run at 5-10 WATTS, not even in the same realm as something that would run a future iPhone or iPod. Secondly, so-called "Iphone clones" rip off the interface and hardware form-factor of the iPhone. Replacing the ARM in the iphone would certainly do nothing to curtail that. And the idea that Apple would create its own INSTRUCTION SET is just crazy. Way too much R&D for no apparent real benefit.
Groundbreaking Apple products have never been based on Intel. Three years passed since the switch and the design of Apple PC's became more and more PC'ish (thick bezel with ugly hinges) and also the magic went away. There is no difference to work on a good PC notebook like HP or a MacBook, but my "old" Titanium is still something special. Imagine what one could pack into that enclosing with today's technology!
So somehow the x86 instruction set has kept Apple from creating ground-breaking products? It's very IRONIC that you are implying that Apple had to make their computers thicker and bigger to support Intels processors, since in fact it was the VERY POWER ARCHITECTURE'S G5 that ran so hot and required massive cooling. Intel's processors actually ALLOWED THE MACBOOK AIR TO BE DEVELOPED.
Good, now Apple can put on the roadmap to stop fiddling with this x86 crud and make real computers again.
The CPU ISA of x86 is horrible. I am not interested only in pretty looks and good software running on a rotten architecture.
But Intel still makes cruddy widgets, and their advantages are fleeting.
Rotten architecture? HAHAHAHA... Ever look at any benchmarks during the G5->Core Duo transition of the Mac Pro? G5's get eaten alive by x86. Just wait till Nehalem is out. On a side note, whats with all the crazy old-school POWER zealots? I apparently am too new to the Mac scene to understand.
Yes!
In both cases, Motorola and IBM eventually broke up with Apple and quit providing them the chips they needed. So I see Apple repeating the same thing with intel. Just when they get to the point where intel is developing new designs exclusively for Apple. 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.
I don't think a direct comparison between Apple's relationship with IBM and their relationship with Intel is a fair one, as it is significantly different. Intel was never developing "custom chip designs" for Apple. At most, they provided them with future products a little eariler than others receiveed them. Even if IBM felt it wasn't worth the small market to help Apple with POWER, Intel is a different beast. Their x86 line for PCs is by far the most dominant in the entire world.
