Oh, I guess I look forward to what Apple's going to do then. The A chips have been pretty good.
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.
Imagination Tech Shares Plunge as Apple Ends Deal With British Firm
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pretty good is a understatement they've been industry leading
I don't check industry standards, I just use what fits my needs.
It means we're going to see even better and incredibly more powerful iPhones in the future. I'm excited to see what Apple creates.
well what fits your needs happens to be the best available so enjoy
[doublepost=1491229397][/doublepost]
Apple has never done a gpu before anyone else concerned the first try might be a stumble and a step backwards from what is a currently availble from other companies
Or by adding a few percent of efficiency.
Considering what Apple has been able to do with the cpu in the iPhone, I wouldn't at all be surprised if they can now do the same thing for the gpu.
I learned this a long time ago (like late 90s/early 2000s when I was still a kid), but I thought that you couldn't really patent chip technologies, or at least prove the patent was violated? I remember learning about "clean rooming" that AMD would do against Intel to mostly copy their chip designs. Couldn't Apple do something similar, or is that too difficult to achieve nowadays? I'm not saying it's something that is ethical to do, but is it legal?
As for the Imagination GPUs, they've been falling behind companies like Nvidia with their Tegra chips, etc. The X2 is pretty beefy, but I haven't looked into it enough to know if it could withstand the TDP of the iPhone. I know my Nintendo Switch uses the X1 and has a vent on top, but they also clock it faster when docked and it doesn't put out much heat when used in the mobile configuration. The X2 is supposedly more efficient than that (and I'm kinda irritated they didn't use it for the Switch).
Anyway, when I hear news like this I can't help but think that Apple is working on a unified chip platform for iOS/macOS devices that they can scale by cores, memory, etc. They would save money on doing everything in house for both platforms, they would be able to keep things more secretive, and they would be able to further unify software between platforms so that teams could more easily work together on the same OS with different input methods/UI configs in a single binary. It's coming at some point, it's just a matter of when?
As for the Imagination GPUs, they've been falling behind companies like Nvidia with their Tegra chips, etc. The X2 is pretty beefy, but I haven't looked into it enough to know if it could withstand the TDP of the iPhone. I know my Nintendo Switch uses the X1 and has a vent on top, but they also clock it faster when docked and it doesn't put out much heat when used in the mobile configuration. The X2 is supposedly more efficient than that (and I'm kinda irritated they didn't use it for the Switch).
Anyway, when I hear news like this I can't help but think that Apple is working on a unified chip platform for iOS/macOS devices that they can scale by cores, memory, etc. They would save money on doing everything in house for both platforms, they would be able to keep things more secretive, and they would be able to further unify software between platforms so that teams could more easily work together on the same OS with different input methods/UI configs in a single binary. It's coming at some point, it's just a matter of when?
Did they poach them? Sounded like the laid off a bunch of folks before this happened, Apple picked them up, and realized they didn't need the company.
Apple is the worst kind of parasitic, nickel-and-diming company - to its retail employees, its customers and its business partners.
[doublepost=1491230497][/doublepost]
Bad luck us - we are the world.
[doublepost=1491230497][/doublepost]
Bad luck us - we are the world.
Does this mean that in a few years, Apple will finally have a GPU in the iPhone that doesn't cause stuttering when scrolling through Settings (and a myriad of other places) in iOS? I'm amazed that my iPhone 7 continues to do this even after upgrading to 10.3.
I really don't know all that much about chips and the like anymore, but from the snippets I've seen, one of the factors that negatively impacts Apple's ability to evolve the Mac line is being handcuffed to Intel's roadmap and inevitable delays. A quarter billion is chump change to Apple compared to the ability to launch products to their timeline...
Apple disappoints me on a regular basis now. They should have just bought Imagination Tech. Even if Apple can completely roll it's own GPU without any infringement on patents, it's still a low blow to a trusted partner of nearly 10 years. What kind of message does that send to anyone else who's considering partnering with Apple on anything?
It's a low blow, but this is business. What kind of CEO in their right mind would buy a company when it's way way cheaper to develop the technology in house?
It could start off as a dedicated GPU part alongside Intel processors, start to take more and more of the SoC BoM....
It has nothing to do with being "mean", it is illegal. If Apple buys this company or picks off their engineers one by one as they are let go, this is all open for a lawsuit.
$20 says this is some kind of BREXIT political payback deal.
Cuz, Tim Cook.
Cuz, Tim Cook.
A GPU 100,000 times faster won't fix that issue because it has nothing to do with the GPU. It's probably due to the way the long list of 3rd party app icons is loaded into memory. I'm sure Apple could fix this if they felt it were high priority
I guess they have the expertise now
Such a dirty move. Buying them out is a drop in the bucket to Apple. I suppose you don't get to be the world's richest company playing fair.
With AR/VR as "the future," it could be that Apple's plans for the technology are not supported by current GPU designs (or those already in the Imagination pipeline). In that case, they have a choice of paying someone like Imagination to custom-design their next-generation technology, or do it themselves.
Would Apple disclose its design requirements (which, if leaked, would give the competition a pretty good idea of what its overall AR/VR strategy would be), or keep that locked (relatively) securely within its own walls?
In-house control of silicon design has become a key part of Apple's "secret sauce." Hardware exists to run software, so the more control you have over hardware, the more efficiently it can run the software.
In the end, this isn't a matter of nickel-and-diming on chip manufacture (though money may be saved). It's a matter of trying to give your products unique advantages. Using "stock" silicon designs restricts your options in that regard.
I believe that Steve Jobs' vision for Apple, from the beginning, was to be a consumer products version of the traditional IBM - closed systems, full control over hardware, software, sales channels... The only fly in the ointment was the silicon. Prior to the IC microprocessor, IBM designed and built everything from the ground up. And while IBM eventually got into the microprocessor business, it was too little, too late. The IBM PC that set the standard for personal computing was non-proprietary, opening the door for commoditization. Rushing its "Apple Killer" to market eventually cost IBM its dominant position in computing.
Control of silicon design is part of a very long term strategy that has likely been in place long before Tim Cook took up the reins. iPhone finally gave Apple the financial wherewithal. While for now, the fruits are being harvested for "traditional" mobile devices, the real benefits are going to be seen in succeeding generations of computing/robotics/AI.
Would Apple disclose its design requirements (which, if leaked, would give the competition a pretty good idea of what its overall AR/VR strategy would be), or keep that locked (relatively) securely within its own walls?
In-house control of silicon design has become a key part of Apple's "secret sauce." Hardware exists to run software, so the more control you have over hardware, the more efficiently it can run the software.
In the end, this isn't a matter of nickel-and-diming on chip manufacture (though money may be saved). It's a matter of trying to give your products unique advantages. Using "stock" silicon designs restricts your options in that regard.
I believe that Steve Jobs' vision for Apple, from the beginning, was to be a consumer products version of the traditional IBM - closed systems, full control over hardware, software, sales channels... The only fly in the ointment was the silicon. Prior to the IC microprocessor, IBM designed and built everything from the ground up. And while IBM eventually got into the microprocessor business, it was too little, too late. The IBM PC that set the standard for personal computing was non-proprietary, opening the door for commoditization. Rushing its "Apple Killer" to market eventually cost IBM its dominant position in computing.
Control of silicon design is part of a very long term strategy that has likely been in place long before Tim Cook took up the reins. iPhone finally gave Apple the financial wherewithal. While for now, the fruits are being harvested for "traditional" mobile devices, the real benefits are going to be seen in succeeding generations of computing/robotics/AI.
Wow... what a development. $2.5 billion down to $750 million in a matter of hours. I hope they packed fresh undies this morning.
How do you know that? Are you privvy to the existing contract between the two companies?
Do you not thing that a transitional arrangement might be in the contract?
They can circumvent this, in fact it has already been done.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10268...ms-joint-venture-for-x86-server-socs-in-china
"The deal will, in a nutshell, see AMD provide the joint venture with x86 and SoC IP, along with significant engineering and other technical resources, while THATIC provides the remaining technical resources and the financing behind the venture."
"In a brief call with AMD, the company made it clear that this is an x86 play for the Chinese server market, with AMD licensing/contributing their high performance x86 IP along with their SoC IP."
"Also not immediately obvious is where this falls under the Intel/AMD x86 cross-licensing agreement. AMD has of course done their own research and says that this doesn’t violate the agreement. However whether Intel agrees with that remains to be seen; it will likely take them some time to form their own legal opinion."
- Well it's been a year and Intel doesn't seem to care enough to even engage their legal department, so it would seem AMD's legal department got it right.
I'm not saying this is something Apple would do or would feel comfortable doing, just that it is possible. Apple could go into a "joint venture" or "partnership" with AMD, in making their own x86/AMD64 SoCs - in effect sub-licencing the x86 architecture from AMD.
But you are right that there is no way, that Apple can independently make x86 CPUs/SoCs, ever.