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's ARM Plans in 2009? NetBooks, Tablets, Other?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No.
Apple will not make netbooks OR tablets any time soon. They're both sort of niche, hobbiest gadgets, and for the most part do not have a wide market.
Ask yourself - why haven't the current tablets fared all that well? Because overall, it is not a great way to input information in to a computer(I know Apple would do a MUCH better job than MS, but that is only part of it). You need a keyboard, and if you have one there are very few inputs(I'm not saying NONE) that would be more efficiently done via a tablet.
Netbooks are also a bit gimmicky. The margins are low, so Apple won't be interested. And they are just not fully functional computers. Tiny screen, cramped keyboard - good for casual use on the move, but most people wouldn't tolerate them as their primary computer. Bottom line is my iPhone does 3/4 of this and fits in my pocket.
I think that there IS a chance we might see a more compact laptop one of these days(I've certainly seen more people pine for a replacement for their 12" iBooks than netbooks). But even that might not happen. The Air already delivers low weight - you think about it and netbooks weigh 2 lbs with 9" screens, while Airs weigh 3 lbs with 13.3" screens. So I think there is a better chance Apple shaves some weight off the Air to get it to 2-2.5 lbs than they try to make a more compact computer. I've never fully understood the big deal about "footprint" - the weight is most of what determines portability. But who knows - a sub-2 lb 12" Air that still has a full keyboard? THAT sounds more like something Apple would do.
Apple will not make netbooks OR tablets any time soon. They're both sort of niche, hobbiest gadgets, and for the most part do not have a wide market.
Ask yourself - why haven't the current tablets fared all that well? Because overall, it is not a great way to input information in to a computer(I know Apple would do a MUCH better job than MS, but that is only part of it). You need a keyboard, and if you have one there are very few inputs(I'm not saying NONE) that would be more efficiently done via a tablet.
Netbooks are also a bit gimmicky. The margins are low, so Apple won't be interested. And they are just not fully functional computers. Tiny screen, cramped keyboard - good for casual use on the move, but most people wouldn't tolerate them as their primary computer. Bottom line is my iPhone does 3/4 of this and fits in my pocket.
I think that there IS a chance we might see a more compact laptop one of these days(I've certainly seen more people pine for a replacement for their 12" iBooks than netbooks). But even that might not happen. The Air already delivers low weight - you think about it and netbooks weigh 2 lbs with 9" screens, while Airs weigh 3 lbs with 13.3" screens. So I think there is a better chance Apple shaves some weight off the Air to get it to 2-2.5 lbs than they try to make a more compact computer. I've never fully understood the big deal about "footprint" - the weight is most of what determines portability. But who knows - a sub-2 lb 12" Air that still has a full keyboard? THAT sounds more like something Apple would do.
I don't think Apple will go the route of the typical PC tablets, which is more or less what you're describing.
If it has a touch screen, then it'll be some sort of handheld, i.e. smaller than a MacBook. That's my take.
It is completely different. And nobody cares. Take a random iPhone developer, and ask them how sure they are and what evidence they have that there is actually an ARM processor in the iPhone, and not an Intel processor, or PowerPC, or MIPS or SH5. MacOS developers know how to write code that doesn't care what processor is used.
iPhone OS = Mac OS. The only difference is that code for backward compatibility is gone (ancient things like QuickDraw, but also the complete Carbon frameworks), there is currently only one supported architecture (no 32/64/x86/PPC versions), and some software that is more intended for servers, like Apache, isn't there.
Netbooks with PA Micro Chips
Steve isn't stupid enough to miss the NetBook revolution. Yes, Apple can not afford the razor thin margins within the $300-$400 NetBook price range that most current vendors (ASUS, Acer, MSI, Samsung) are targeting, but Apple can offer an excellent NetBook solution in the $500-$600 range. Apple can differentiate this product through software (OSX and iLife apps), however, justifying the Apple price premium would be much easier if there are some hardware differentiators as well.
Must current netbooks consist of the Intel Atom chip coupled to a relatively power hungry legacy X86 chipset (NB/SB). Apple's new NetBook solution may be based on a derivative of the PA-Semi chip, which includes many of the chipset functions such as the memory controller, PCI-E controller, etc. on the processor die itself. This would enable Apple to reduce the cost, footprint and the power consumption of the motherboard while offering higher performance - either through increased clock frequency or through multiple cores.
Lower power consumption and smaller footprint may enable Apple to package a NetBook in a much more attractive form factor. Current notebooks are typically 1.10-1.25" thick, Apple may be able to offer a NetBook that is only .75" thick or even only .5" thick. Display port is much more amenable to extra thin form factors compared to the legacy VGA connector that is used on current generation NetBooks. Apple may also offer a 11" or 12" display and a slightly larger size keyboard. If the custom silicon solution can deliver significantly lower power consumption due to the elimination of the Northbridge and use of lower power DDR2 (or DDR3), Apple may be able to get 4-5 hours out of a 3-cell battery or 9-10 hours out of a 6-cell battery. Finally, Apple may chose to include digital audio in/out to make such a notebook very useful in the context of a home music center application.
Steve isn't stupid enough to miss the NetBook revolution. Yes, Apple can not afford the razor thin margins within the $300-$400 NetBook price range that most current vendors (ASUS, Acer, MSI, Samsung) are targeting, but Apple can offer an excellent NetBook solution in the $500-$600 range. Apple can differentiate this product through software (OSX and iLife apps), however, justifying the Apple price premium would be much easier if there are some hardware differentiators as well.
Must current netbooks consist of the Intel Atom chip coupled to a relatively power hungry legacy X86 chipset (NB/SB). Apple's new NetBook solution may be based on a derivative of the PA-Semi chip, which includes many of the chipset functions such as the memory controller, PCI-E controller, etc. on the processor die itself. This would enable Apple to reduce the cost, footprint and the power consumption of the motherboard while offering higher performance - either through increased clock frequency or through multiple cores.
Lower power consumption and smaller footprint may enable Apple to package a NetBook in a much more attractive form factor. Current notebooks are typically 1.10-1.25" thick, Apple may be able to offer a NetBook that is only .75" thick or even only .5" thick. Display port is much more amenable to extra thin form factors compared to the legacy VGA connector that is used on current generation NetBooks. Apple may also offer a 11" or 12" display and a slightly larger size keyboard. If the custom silicon solution can deliver significantly lower power consumption due to the elimination of the Northbridge and use of lower power DDR2 (or DDR3), Apple may be able to get 4-5 hours out of a 3-cell battery or 9-10 hours out of a 6-cell battery. Finally, Apple may chose to include digital audio in/out to make such a notebook very useful in the context of a home music center application.
Yes, but we're not there yet.
MP3 players were out for quite some time before the iPod and smart-phones were around for years before the iPhone.
Steve knows that being first matters little, but jumping in at the exact moment before the market explodes counts a lot. They timed the iPod and the iPhone just right. I suspect they'll do the same with netbooks, but that probably won't be for another year or two.
What I predict that Apple will release at Macworld 2009 is the MacBook Touch. Here are the specs:
8" touch screen
On-screen keyboard
ARM processor
50GB SSD
2GB RAM
Ultra-thin outer aluminum shell
Base price: $899
We'll see what happens at Macworld. Does anyone besides me think that Apple could be releasing a cheaper version of the iPhone to expand their cell phone line-up.
8" touch screen
On-screen keyboard
ARM processor
50GB SSD
2GB RAM
Ultra-thin outer aluminum shell
Base price: $899
We'll see what happens at Macworld. Does anyone besides me think that Apple could be releasing a cheaper version of the iPhone to expand their cell phone line-up.
OTOH, games developers care quite deeply, especially the ones who are trying to push as much performance for 3D as possible. This guy, for example. The iPhone ARM variant has a vector (SIMD) coprocessor which is very much unlike the SIMD functionality on PPC or x86.
Also, regarding the ARM "RISC" designation, modern ARM chips actually have two separate ISAs, ARM (RISC) and Thumb (CISC). The processor can switch between the two modes on a per-function basis (although most compilers only support the switching at the per-module level). Thumb code is significantly more compact, but also significantly slower since there's an extra instruction decode step.
I'd like to see those "measured in days" results as well. I've got an iPod touch that only gets about 4 hours of use for very low fps games (solitaire, etc). Pretty pathetic.
I agree 100%. Why won't you see a 10" $599 netbook from Apple? Because the $1800 Air is selling. There is no way Apple will shrink the screen just so they can sell a netbook for less money. Not gonna happen.
Sheesh
I refuse to get myself all worked up again over speculating whether or not a beautiful, crystal clear-screened, perfectly sized to fit in the palm of my hands, extraordinarily functional, tablet type of device slightly larger in size than the iphone will be released at the Macworld convention 2009. . . I refuse. I refuse . . Oh whatever! Yes, I'm still waiting.
I refuse to get myself all worked up again over speculating whether or not a beautiful, crystal clear-screened, perfectly sized to fit in the palm of my hands, extraordinarily functional, tablet type of device slightly larger in size than the iphone will be released at the Macworld convention 2009. . . I refuse. I refuse . . Oh whatever! Yes, I'm still waiting.
Netbook? I got the touch and apparently there are a lot of advancements being made so no need for a netbook at least for me
Tablet? Yes, I would love one 12" powerful enough for me to run photoshop etc. I think anything smaller then 12" is pointless. Especially if you expect it to run osx.
Tablet? Yes, I would love one 12" powerful enough for me to run photoshop etc. I think anything smaller then 12" is pointless. Especially if you expect it to run osx.
I could really see something taking over the Apple TV SKU that is a "Family Center" like this concept from MacLife. ARM could be good for this:
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/future_apple_design?page=0%2C4
Granted with out the holophone feature.....
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/future_apple_design?page=0%2C4
Granted with out the holophone feature.....
I should have been more clear. Yes, they share a common foundation but the USER EXPERIENCE is clearly different, as is the development environment.
What form factor this netbook/tablet ends up being is intricately tied to what kind of software platform Apple bases the device on.
As an ARM assembly coder from back in the day (and by back in the day I mean for Acorn, who invented the ARM chip before they spun off ARM to handle it) I have a very positive feeling about this.
Apple has much experience with OS X on ARM, and likely has internal XCode with ARM as a checkbox option. Their use of universal binaries supports more than just two architectures. It would be trivial from Apple's POV to use the forthcoming drop of PPC support to add ARM support.
One of the most attractive features of the ARM chipset is price. Back when I was designing boards around the ARM7500, one could be had for $5, or less in quantity. That is for the processor and entire chipset, including video. Granted, back then it was a 40 or 50MHz device, but it drew less than a watt. Now, we have 600 and 800MHz parts that equal the performance of the Atom, draw similar currents and have bluetooth, wifi, ethernet PHY and video on die.
So, picture if you will that Apple decides to support the ARM architecture with OS X... Think a simple line of low cost 10" netbooks, think of possibly sub-$300 OS X based consoles (or STBs as we used to call them before we knew what to do with them!)
When thinking of some of the accomplishments of ARM, remember: ARM is the definitive architecture for STBs, embedded boards, controllers, and cellphones. ARM cores outsell EVERY other architecture. There are more ARM cores in the world than every other architecture combined.
They are cheap at every level: cheap to license, cheap to fab, cheap to design boards with (so many reference designs), cheap to manufacture (you can buy full ARM computers for under $100) and have very cheap power budgets - usually around 1W.
If Apple has an ARM license, a chip design house with ARM experience and two existing products with ARM cores and good OS X support, it would be simply good use of resources to use this IP more broadly.
How? Well, that's what this thread is all about
Apple has much experience with OS X on ARM, and likely has internal XCode with ARM as a checkbox option. Their use of universal binaries supports more than just two architectures. It would be trivial from Apple's POV to use the forthcoming drop of PPC support to add ARM support.
One of the most attractive features of the ARM chipset is price. Back when I was designing boards around the ARM7500, one could be had for $5, or less in quantity. That is for the processor and entire chipset, including video. Granted, back then it was a 40 or 50MHz device, but it drew less than a watt. Now, we have 600 and 800MHz parts that equal the performance of the Atom, draw similar currents and have bluetooth, wifi, ethernet PHY and video on die.
So, picture if you will that Apple decides to support the ARM architecture with OS X... Think a simple line of low cost 10" netbooks, think of possibly sub-$300 OS X based consoles (or STBs as we used to call them before we knew what to do with them!)
When thinking of some of the accomplishments of ARM, remember: ARM is the definitive architecture for STBs, embedded boards, controllers, and cellphones. ARM cores outsell EVERY other architecture. There are more ARM cores in the world than every other architecture combined.
They are cheap at every level: cheap to license, cheap to fab, cheap to design boards with (so many reference designs), cheap to manufacture (you can buy full ARM computers for under $100) and have very cheap power budgets - usually around 1W.
If Apple has an ARM license, a chip design house with ARM experience and two existing products with ARM cores and good OS X support, it would be simply good use of resources to use this IP more broadly.
How? Well, that's what this thread is all about
What you're attempting to discern are the differences between dynamically typed and statically typed languages and the accompanying dynamic runtime which is part of ObjC.
ObjC being a superset of C still doesn't have a f'n thing to to do with Chip instruction sets which are sets of assembly language calls.
There will need to be a battery revolution for this to happen. Current cell phones and smart phones only have long lives because you are not using them for intensive applications, not to mention you likely use them for minutes at a time instead of like a computer where it is for long bouts.
I don't care how efficient you make the chip, lithium ion is just not power dense enough to power modern computers for "days" of use. And that is not what a mobile computer is meant for. It is meant to be used for school/work/fun during the day, away from home, then to be plugged in at night. Having a laptop that does not need to be charged for a second day's use has no use (to me, at least). So long as it will get through a full day, which a more efficient chip CAN do, I will be more than happy (and 95% of all other laptops users as well)
Ok, that way it makes no sense.
But it is conceivable, and would be very cool, if the instruction set of the new microprocessor were the IR (Intermediate Representation) of the LLVM compiler that Apple is actively developing (and already using on the iPhone).
That is now a "virtual" instruction set of an imaginary 64 bit processor.
That would not be ARM then, just like if x86 supported PPC as its instruction set it won't be x86 anymore. And if you are thinking about ARM + LLVM - that would increase the die size and complexity and along with it power consumption.
That aside, Obj-C is compiled to native code unlike say Java which compiles to its own bytecode which is then JITed to machine native code - so really the "Obj-C instruction set" thing does not make any sense.
Of course it will be no ARM. And it does not need the extra complexity of an ARM instruction set one on-die.
But it will be for sure more optimized for the compiler they are using, without losing compatibility with x86 computers. Those are just a JIT compilation away from the IR.