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 Plans for P.A. Semi? Not Interested in the Chips?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
RE: the defense contracts.
Do Apple employee's currently hold DoD Security Clearances? I.E. is anything in Cupertino laced with the all hallowed TS level clearance (literally...)? That would be a powerful deterrent for leaky lips. Something about jail time (for the rest of your life) can cause people to think twice about spilling secrets.
I would be surprised if Apple spun off a section to work on defense contracts and it not be the same people that are working on the stuff now (anything with clearances tied to it makes DoD act funny).
Do Apple employee's currently hold DoD Security Clearances? I.E. is anything in Cupertino laced with the all hallowed TS level clearance (literally...)? That would be a powerful deterrent for leaky lips. Something about jail time (for the rest of your life) can cause people to think twice about spilling secrets.
I would be surprised if Apple spun off a section to work on defense contracts and it not be the same people that are working on the stuff now (anything with clearances tied to it makes DoD act funny).
Cause and effect, guys. Cause and Effect
Before you go pooh-poohing someone's suggestions think back a bit.
First: P.A. Semi designs and makes PPC chips.
Second: Apple, with IBM and Motorola, originally designed the PPC chip.
Third: Motorola stopped research on producing faster PPC chips.
Fourth: Apple was forced to move to a readily-available platform if they intended to remain a relevant desktop computer manufacturer.
Fifth: Certain companies are attempting to create their own Macintosh clones without permission from Apple using off-the-shelf x86 hardware.
Effect: Apple needs to find a way to have full control of PPC chip design for its computers and revert to the PPC for security.
The PPC chip way back at the G1 proved that clock tick-for-clock tick, it was roughly twice as fast as the x86. Apple must find a way to return to that speed advantage and regain the malware security that the PPC chip gave them in their computer products.
This move could also give Apple an 'in' to the government contract system, allowing them to get Apple products into the military as well.
Before you go pooh-poohing someone's suggestions think back a bit.
First: P.A. Semi designs and makes PPC chips.
Second: Apple, with IBM and Motorola, originally designed the PPC chip.
Third: Motorola stopped research on producing faster PPC chips.
Fourth: Apple was forced to move to a readily-available platform if they intended to remain a relevant desktop computer manufacturer.
Fifth: Certain companies are attempting to create their own Macintosh clones without permission from Apple using off-the-shelf x86 hardware.
Effect: Apple needs to find a way to have full control of PPC chip design for its computers and revert to the PPC for security.
The PPC chip way back at the G1 proved that clock tick-for-clock tick, it was roughly twice as fast as the x86. Apple must find a way to return to that speed advantage and regain the malware security that the PPC chip gave them in their computer products.
This move could also give Apple an 'in' to the government contract system, allowing them to get Apple products into the military as well.
Technically the same would have to be asked of Apple as well, since the only place you can get OS X is through Apple (by buying a Mac). I seem to recall software not quite falling under the same sole source requirements that hardware falls under. I will ask around (DoJ folks) to get more info.
Ah America...
Department of Defense > Apple Inc.
The thing is, no it's not, not in law.
"As it turns out, this may cause some resistance to the acquisition, as P.A. Semi's chips are reportedly used in a number of ongoing Department of Defense projects."
This statement from the original news item makes no sense. If P.A. Semi is privately held, there are no shareholders to whom to answer. Almost certainly any venture cap firms will be happy with an Apple buyout, and release P.A. from any long-term commitments that may exist other than getting paid whatever was agreed upon.
Defense has no particular recourse, whether they care or not. P.A. Semi's engineers who have government security clearances will be forbidden to discuss certain aspects of work they may have done for Defense, Apple as new owner of P.A. Semi will be responsible for delivering any Defense orders for which P.A. Semi is contractually obligated, or face a lawsuit -- but Defense's position here is really no different than other plaintiff's.
Ultimately, the last thing you'd see in the States is Defense queer a buyout deal through some bizarre subterfuge. Military involvement in private commercial affairs makes us nervous enough as it is. Defense directly interfering with free trade within in our own borders is anathema to the foundation of markets and rights in this country.
That terminal paragraph is a non sequitur. "Arn" does a fine job aggregating Apple product rumors, usually well-distinguishing leaks with substance from hoax and gossip, but I wouldn't go to him for your legal, political or business analysis.
Uh, yeah, what he said. Exactly. To the letter. Defense could not, would not queer a buyout deal advantageous to a commercial supplier. They might whine about it, but to act upon it and get caught would cause in Defense a housecleaning of grand scale.
Am i the only person who actually wants Apple to return to its PowerPC roots?
Because personally, while the Intel Macs are big on performance, bugs are an issue.
My old iMac G4 and my friend's iBook G4 never had a kernel panic up to this day, while my 1 yr old Macbook already had 4. In fact, you almost never see kernel panics on PPC Macs.
And, according to may websites, PA Semi makes fully 64bit compliant, low power dual core PowerPC processors with performance to rival those Intel's Core 2 and AMD's AthlonX2.
Because personally, while the Intel Macs are big on performance, bugs are an issue.
My old iMac G4 and my friend's iBook G4 never had a kernel panic up to this day, while my 1 yr old Macbook already had 4. In fact, you almost never see kernel panics on PPC Macs.
And, according to may websites, PA Semi makes fully 64bit compliant, low power dual core PowerPC processors with performance to rival those Intel's Core 2 and AMD's AthlonX2.
I asked around, and I was told that the sole source requirements only apply to contracts for people to perform work. Software and Hardware do not fall into those rules since by nature software can (ultimately) only come from one vendor. If there were sole source requirements for hardware and software Apple would have a hard time getting their stuff in because you can only get the hardware from them (just to even get to the software).
Yeah, diamond.g, that's right. When it comes to, say, toothpicks for the Pentagon break rooms, you could reasonably apply sole-source requirements to that contract. But when it comes to OTC Zyrtec (an allergy medication) for the on-site clinic, Zyrtec is still protected by a drug patent, there is no generic, only one drug company can make it, it has unique, desirable qualities that differentiate it from other such products, Defense can, for now, only go to one manufacturer to procure it. To make Defense meet sole-source requirements for Zyrtec might mean, subject to interpretation of the unique benefits of the drug, Defense can't get Zyrtec for its clinic.
That's a goofy analogy, but I wanted to take it out of the realm of computer technology. The point is, of course, *an* operating system can run PCs, *the particular* operating system can run particular software on a certain class of PCs. Actually Apple would be far more shutout of Defense sales if sole-source requirements were applied to existing product as well as the product of certain kinds of labor. At least Windows will run on PCs from numerous vendors; Mac OS X will only run on PCs from one vendor.
Defense runs Windows, Linux and OS X as need requires. The overwhelming majority of OS software in use at Defense is Windows. As Windows established itself as the de facto standard in desktop computing operating systems, this only makes sense. The nature of my education and profession, I've never need use anything but a Mac. At this point, I never would; I don't even use Boot Camp; I won't even buy another vendor's WiFi product now, I've had such problems with poor quality of expensive third-party products, even for my limited needs. I love my Mac, its OS and my other Apple gear and software. But I still wouldn't want to pay via my income tax for Defense to reevaluate their OS of choice and replace all those PCs with Macs running OS X, nor would I even want to pay for the resources, training and support to convert all those existing PCs to Linux. There is better use at Defense for that money.
I'd like to bring up a point that people seem to have mostly missed. Given Apple's slow exploration of the "computing appliance" space - most predominantly the AppleTV, AirportExpress/Extreme etc - could it be that we will see the IP go into this area? A lot of these devices are getting more and more complicated while consuming less energy. I've always been of the opinion that x86 was enough for the big boys, but for these embedded devices it's simply overkill. Perhaps one of these dual 64bit chips tied with an NVidia or AMD low end graphics core will be the center of the next Apple appliance?
Dare I suggest another possibility - the resurgence of the Pippin? As I see it, this eventuality is more likely then Apple's return to PPC for their main computing arm. As others have stated the move to x86 (not specifically Intel, more just x86) has brought compatibility advantages that Apple has never before been able to achieve. For all of his Mac-centric dominance, Steve realises that compatibility with the wider Windows world is what will keep the Mac platform afloat no matter what else happens within the company. If Apple intends to continue in the PC market, compatibility is Apple's life buoy. They can hardly go back now.
Dare I suggest another possibility - the resurgence of the Pippin? As I see it, this eventuality is more likely then Apple's return to PPC for their main computing arm. As others have stated the move to x86 (not specifically Intel, more just x86) has brought compatibility advantages that Apple has never before been able to achieve. For all of his Mac-centric dominance, Steve realises that compatibility with the wider Windows world is what will keep the Mac platform afloat no matter what else happens within the company. If Apple intends to continue in the PC market, compatibility is Apple's life buoy. They can hardly go back now.
According to MOSR, Apple bought PA Semi to use coprocessor chips in future Macs.
http://macosrumors.com/2008/04/24/future-macs-to-include-coprocessor-chips/
http://macosrumors.com/2008/04/24/future-macs-to-include-coprocessor-chips/