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.
Google Reportedly Developing Own Arm-Based Processors for Chromebooks After Being Inspired by Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So far, Samsung, Qualcomm, Google, Microsoft, AMD, and Mediatek are developing ARM based laptop.
Samsung will announce a new one with Exnynose 2200 with AMD GPU.
Qualcomm might be the biggest threat cause they are using Nuvia chip and plan to release in 2022.
Microsoft is planning to make ARM based laptop and server so far.
Mediatek already made prototype ARM based laptop with RTX 3060.
AMD is developing ARM based chip like M1 but no news so far.
But still, Apple is superior.
Samsung will announce a new one with Exnynose 2200 with AMD GPU.
Qualcomm might be the biggest threat cause they are using Nuvia chip and plan to release in 2022.
Microsoft is planning to make ARM based laptop and server so far.
Mediatek already made prototype ARM based laptop with RTX 3060.
AMD is developing ARM based chip like M1 but no news so far.
But still, Apple is superior.
I never thought the problem with Chromebooks was "slow processors"
I thought the problem was "it looks like a laptop but it only runs a web browser"
I thought the problem was "it looks like a laptop but it only runs a web browser"
AMD has server ARM machines out, but that's about it at the moment. I hope they'll get into consumer ARM chip sets. It would be interesting to see what they build.
If AMD makes a great ARM chip, then it can replace Nvidia Tegra and dominate the portable console device like Nintendo Switch. Since GPU is fine, it's just a matter of time.
Your link should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Ltd.
ARM architecture family - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Read the Founded section. And please investigate, before posting.
I'll see your wiki article and raise you by another.Acorn Computers founded ARM in 1981. The architecture has been around for quite some time. Apple formed an alliance with them in the late eighties to early nineties to work on ARM6, which morphed into the Newton PDA. Apple never founded ARM.
ARM architecture family - Wikipedia
"Founding
The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Acorn provided 12 employees, VLSI provided tools, Apple provided $3 million investment. Larry Tesler, Apple VP was a key person and the first CEO at the joint venture."
So Apple didn't found ARM but did cofound Advanced RISC Machines Ltd or Arm Ltd. (stylized as arm).
Which is correct.
In regards to this comment, this person is correct that ARM processors have been around for years. Apple didn't get involved until ARM6, first ARM chips were released in 1981. Otherwise, they were another chipmaker pushing the goodness of RISC.
Acorn Computers founded ARM in 1981. The architecture has been around for quite some time. Apple formed an alliance with them in the late eighties to early nineties to work on ARM6, which morphed into the Newton PDA. Apple never founded ARM.
ARM architecture family - Wikipedia
Apple was using ARM chips in the Newton. The CPU was ARM610, from the first group of ARM processor designs (ARMv3). Newton is the failed premature iPad product.
They asked Acorn to put it in separate company as they were competitors in producing computers.
Why do people think iPhone was Apple’s first ARM device.
Last edited:
It is pretty exciting that so many companies are jumping on custom ARM chips but I wonder if the Nvidia acquisition will sour the future of ARM. Maybe in the future more companies will jump to RISC-V since it is basically the Linux of chips.
en.wikipedia.org
Edit: Looks like I beat Apple to it 🤣
www.tomshardware.com
RISC-V - Wikipedia
Edit: Looks like I beat Apple to it 🤣
Apple Exploring RISC-V, Hiring RISC-V 'High Performance' Programmers
RISC-V gets interest from a major player
Last edited:
Wow. If you're going to use such a broad brush, you might as well use a roller to paint your premise.
I think not. EU, UK, and USA already concerned about the acquisition of ARM and many companies disagree about it.It is pretty exciting that so many companies are jumping on custom ARM chips but I wonder if the Nvidia acquisition will sour the future of ARM. Maybe in the future more companies will jump to RISC-V since it is basically the Linux of chips.
RISC-V - Wikipedia
RISC-V isn't well used and they dont have any main uses. For example, x86 is for computer and ARM is for mobile devices. Of course, Apple is slowly change ARM to computer but the transition from x86 to ARM is extremely difficult and even now, Apple is the only one. If x86 to ARM is difficult, using RISC-V will be way more difficult cause the majority uses x86 and slowly with ARM. Changing the architecture is very difficult so it will take another decades to solve the problem.
iOS lacked the ability to add widgets to the home screen for a very long time, something that Android has had the ability to do for a very long time. Would you say that Apple copied that idea off of Android? Android devices had split screen abilities for a few years before iOS did. Did Apple copy from Android for that, too? And who can forget about Microsoft's Windows 8 which changed the direction from a 3D look to a 2D look. Did Apple copy that from Windows?
Back in the 80s System Software (classic Mac OS) did not have any multitasking capabilities whatsoever. Multitasking took until the very early 90s to show up on the Mac. Windows 1 had cooperative multitasking from the get go and had preemptive multitasking from Windows 95 onwards. It would take for the release of Mac OS X for Apple to get rid of the inferior cooperative multitasking system.
None of those examples I gave you would result in anyone on this forum claiming that Apple copied those things from others. But to sit there and claim that Android an OS that began development years before the iPhone was only successful from copying iOS is a faulty argument. Android is successful because it's cheap to use for the manufacturers and is on far more platforms than just Apple.
Google maps is a carbon copy of mapquest. Google search is a carbon copy of altavista. I mean, as long as we’re being absurdly reductionist here.
I am genuinely curious about your definition of competition. If Apple is IN a market, then by definition, they are competing in that market. If they are forced to exit that market due to a... um... competitor, then there is competition.
I fully agree that Apple's business model is not to race to the bottom. As it stands, they ARE competing with the mid to low-end iPads. The market will determine if they are nudged out due to this competition.
$15B in expenditure for a mature company that knows what it is doing must mean the return is a whole lot more. I agree Pixel devices are a drop in the bucket. Android as an income vehicle (Android user here) cannot be understated.
I feel a little apprehensive going head to head with one of MacRumor's best posters, but I can't see an objective analysis that calls Android anything but a huge success for Google. We've both been around long enough to remember the first time we saw Google's search page (a friend who wrote for MacWorld turned me onto it pretty early). What a amazing look to their clean, concise white search page that gave much better results, especially as a welcome relief from yahoo's train-wreck of a search page. Like most other's, I jumped ship immediately, and google has never looked back once they began monetized that data into ads.
To me Android serves to hover up mobile data and feed the money maker at Google. Other than cloud services, I agree that they've never really made money on any products outside of search/maps.
Here's a five year old article, where an Oracle attorney disclosed $31 billion in revenue and $22 billion in profit for Android:
Oracle just revealed how much money Google makes from Android
And $22 billion in profit
www.theverge.com
Last edited:
It certainly is. I have no idea what Google's bottom line financial benefit is from their search deal with Apple. My point is simply that they wouldn't do it if they didn't benefit in an appreciable way. The shareholders wouldn't allow it.
Not sure why people think the iPhone is the first ARM product from Apple. They probably haven't been using Apple products either since the switch to Intel or first iPhone. My first Mac was a PowerMac Performa 6400/180, so I've been using these products since 1996.
I was highlighting ARM chips have been in use for years, even before Apple and Acorn's alliance. I was confirming the other comment that the chips have been around since 1981. Apple and Acorn teamed up, basically, for the Newton early on, then the iPods (from the 2007 Classic onwards, except for the Shuffle) started to use them. ARM dominated the mobile phones business well before the first iPhone as well with having over 98% of the market in 2005.
Last edited:
Exactly.
It's obviously worth it for Google to keep paying this money to Apple... or else they wouldn't do it.
Google gives Apple $15 billion... because they'll make $20 billion in ads. Or $30 billion in ads. Or whatever.
Or maybe Google Search just breaks even on iOS devices... but they want to remain visible to capture people's attention to sell ads on other devices.
Who knows. But Google must be doing it for some reason. They're not giving Apple $15 billion out of the goodness of their hearts.