Reasons Behind Apple's Strategic Shift Into Chip Design

[designgeek]

Oh crap -- really? In a few months I may be getting a 15" MBP and was jazzed to hear the graphics had been upgraded. I am not jazzed to hear about the increased heat. Maybe I'll just get a MacBook instead ... how warm do these get now?

Nah, if you want graphics the pro is the only way to go. You'll just be dissapointed with a mac book. They do get warm but that's to be expected I think with desktop replacement machines, especially since the graphics are as good as they are.

And to answer your question, hot. I frequently get temp readings just shy of 170 and rarely around 180 (but not for long) and really nothing the cooling system can't handle.

 

[Peruchito]

It's like Ren and Skimpy. A plot to take over the world.

I need a job. Good vibe, thoughts and prayers please. First year anniversary in a few days, vacation cancelled as I was let go. Hugely depressed and bummed.

i think you mean Pinky and The Brain.

 

[Kwill]

According to individuals "familiar with the matter" Apple's current chip plans include lower power designs to prolong battery life... Jobs reportedly told P.A. Semi engineers that he specifically wanted to develope (sic) chips within Apple to prevent knowledge of them leaking out.

So much secrecy.

 

[je_wallace]

Power, Maybe...Lock-in Definitely

Maybe the new chip will be about power or graphics or both, but I think it's definitely about hacking.

Apple doesn't have to create a new processor to prevent Hackintoshing; all they have to do is create a system on a chip and direct the CPU or GPU to call that chip for instructions.

Apple might be concerned about power consumption, although without providing for removeable batteries in the iPhone & Touch you really wouldn't know it. And the might be concerned about graphics, beauty/simplicity/form/function is everything to Apple.

But my money is on Apple's concern with Hackintoshes & their development on netbooks, Kindles & other handhelds. Dell, HP et al are committing economic suicide right now with race to the pricing bottom.

Apple hasn't followed them. It's not likely to either. Apple often says it's happy to be the BMW or Mercedes of the computer market - smaller marketshare, bigger profit margins.

Since Apple started using Intel chips, it hasn't found a way to prevent hackintoshing. Apple tried locking up it's system. No good, hacked on both the computer and the handheld OS versions. [In fact, it's noteworthy that Apple seems to have started down their path of designing a new chip - shortly after the first iPhone jailbreaks.] It's trying to lock up it's system through it's suit with Psystar, but given the judge's recent rulings on that matter, Apple is likely to fail.

Meanwhile, before the hardware floodgate totally opens up on them, they are putting together a crack team of chip engineers who can produce a chip which will lock down their ecosystem and insure Apple's profit margins.

 

[miketcool]

Interesting that Apple is turning to designing their own chips to stay competitive. They're trying everything to stay ahead of the curve, the next few years hold some interesting twists. Apple controlling their hardware and software has always been the recipe for their success. Methinks Jobs is looking toward more and more copies of his beloved OS making onto lower priced plastic clad value machines.

 

[miketcool]

It's like Ren and Skimpy. A plot to take over the world.

"You Eeeediot!"

 

[MattInOz]

Wasn't it Ballmer who said, referring to Apple of course, that a company just can't survive trying to produce the software and the hardware at the same time?

If so, looks like Jobs is trying to make Ballmer shove it.

Who was that Steve Quoted in a keynote
"people who want make good software should make their own hardware"
first it seemed odd for Steve to quote someone, but it really underline Apple plan.

It seems now instead of just putting chips together, they have moved to putting cores together in the chips, soon enough some of chips will need custom cores to do what they want as well. They just bring the talent on board as needed.

Apple is spending a lot on LLVM which could mean they want a custom message hub that sits in the middle slicing out bits of LLVM code to the processor that best handles it. PA semi where known for their PCI hubs.

But iPhone system on chip does seem most likely. Maybe it's one and the same. edit:[after all apple making own track pad, ipod scroll wheel and iPhone touch screen control, which could be folded in to a single chip.]

Doing anything just to stop Hackintosh is a no win game, can't see that even coming in to it. After all they can't draw a line in the sand clean enough to stop such things.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Proprietary parts and design. Increased per unit costs. Sounds like a grea fit for Apple. Brilliant.

 

[MattInOz]

Proprietary parts and design. Increased per unit costs. Sounds like a grea fit for Apple. Brilliant.

not when that part goes in to every product bar the mac pro

 

[dernhelm]

Actually, there are 2 errors.

1) As you mentioned, Pinky and the Brain wanted to take over the world - well, the Brain did.
2) It's Ren and Stimpy, not Skimpy. lol

Yeah I wondered about that, but was too lazy to actually look into it. Never saw Ren and Stimpy - were they trying to take over the world too?

I'm not sure why, but we make a lot of Pinky and the Brain references around my office. I've actually gotten pretty good at Brain's voice. I often wonder if I could get a job at apple just be channeling "Brain" in an interview.

I agree, but...this kind of secrecy is not about paranoia per se, it's about future innovation and marketshare. If Apple brings something radical to market which they've been able to keep under wraps because of secret in-house design, they would have an enormous competitive advantage over everyone else who might take years to catch up - which spells big bucks for Apple in the meantime.

Good point. Apple makes a lot of bold predictions like "we're 5 years ahead of the competition" so they obviously do value secrecy to a point. But bringing chip design in house just to make things more secretive would be pretty extreme. They could have leaks from an in house design as well, albeit perhaps fewer. And once the designs hit fab, there is still a significant chance for leaks.

No, Apple did this for competitive advantage, one they think they can maintain. If they happen to hold onto their secrets a little longer, then great, but that isn't the driving reason.

 

[jholzner]

It's like Ren and Skimpy. A plot to take over the world.

I need a job. Good vibe, thoughts and prayers please. First year anniversary in a few days, vacation cancelled as I was let go. Hugely depressed and bummed.

It's Ren and Stimpy...but I think you are thinking of Pinky and the Brain anyway

Edit: Oopss...someone beat me to it.

 

[Bubba Satori]

not when that part goes in to every product bar the mac pro

Even if it is in every part except the Mac Pro, Apple still can't match Intel's manufacturing scale. I don't see it as a problem, though. Apple has never worried about charging more for products than others. They'll just raise the prices to keep their margins the same and their apologists will mob message boards defending Apples higher prices and the fact that zombies are gladly willing to pay more for the same stuff.

I understand how this works. I sell it all day long. Apple customers take a peverse pride in the fact that they pay a lot more for their fruity gadgets. It makes them feel better about themselves and superior to those who don't have their good taste.

 

[dicklacara]

maybe apple just wants to have a special chip that only lets the Mac OS X boot if the chip is available, and therefor making it harder for hackintoshs to get built.

now that they do have an own chip designer, why not use them to make the system further propriotary

edit:
to make myself clearer, i'm not talking about a custom CPU, just a custom chip that only let the system boot when present. a chip that only apple has on their logicboards.

Yes, I believe this is a major reason.

Apple could have, say, a GPU on a proprietary chip. One or more major building blocks of OS X, something like CoreGraphics, would only function if this GPU were present.

Then, people could hack and reverse engineer to their heart's content, but they wouldn't be able to make the OS run on a non-Apple device-- they couldn't get the required chip.

HTH

Dick

 

[buckyballs]

edit:
to make myself clearer, i'm not talking about a custom CPU, just a custom chip that only let the system boot when present. a chip that only apple has on their logicboards.

Apple won't make a custom CPU. They would need a HUGE number of people, HUGE amounts of resources, and HUGE amounts of experience, that they just don't have, in order to compete with Intel. Second, that would kill Boot Camp, which is what caused a lot of people to switch to the Mac within the last 2-3 years.

Making a custom Desktop CPU would be shooting themselves in the foot

 

[Bubba Satori]

Making a custom Desktop CPU would be shooting themselves in the foot

It's really that simple.

 

[dicklacara]

Can someone actually tell me why Apple make everything so secret? What is the point of doing this?

Actually, this is not new...

I don't remember when they appeared, or on which Apple computers: Apple ][, Apple ///, or early Macs. But, Apple hardware has had proprietary ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuts) for years.

The early Apple ][, of the late 1970's, even had several chips that had an Apple part numbers stamped on them even though they were standard off-the-shelf components.

It's all a cat and mouse game to keep hackers and competitors off their game.

 

[Eric S.]

Chip design is a bag of hurt.

 

[Cleve]

Apple isn't just taking Chip designers

Also they are taking Microsoft Gaming guys!
Microsoft’s Xbox strategy boss Richard Teversham has joined Apple

 

[dicklacara]

A long time ago I thought to myself that this outlook was flawed. We are programmed to want more - and this runs contrary to the idea that you should try and reduce your spending. My conclusion was that instead of spending my time trying to cut costs I would instead spend time on making more money.

Well said!

The late filmmaker Mike Todd, was once asked about his extravagance as regards his financial position.

He said, paraphrased: If you owe a million dollars, you aren't going to get out of debt by cutting back on $10 cigars!

 

[kingtj]

Well, obviously ....

Secrecy is simply a side-benefit Apple likes.

The reason this is good news is because Apple is in a relatively unique position in the computer and device market where they can make this work well for them.

Most companies are working on thin margins, and their profits rely mostly on beating their competitors on price, thereby moving larger quantities of whatever they're selling.

Apple has much more "brand credibility" than most companies, but truthfully, some of it is starting to slip away from them as they use all "off the shelf" components. (People are starting to argue, as you've surely noticed, that "There's nothing in a Mac that's anything special! It's the SAME hardware as any PC clone!")

For Apple not to fall into the same "trap" as all the other PC (and phone) makers, competing with each other mostly on price, as they all offer similar products - they've got to keep innovating. They need solid reasons why a Mac or an iPhone is worth paying more for, beyond just "Our support is better." and "It comes in a more stylish case." Making superior components that nobody else has in their product is the best way I know to accomplish this, really.

Not even Apple is paranoid enough to take on chip design for the sole purpose of bettering their secrecy.

That's a huge amount of overhead, especially in this economy. It may be a side-benefit, but it in no way drove the decision.

Apple is far too interested in making money than to take on something like chip design just to increase secrecy.

 

[Everlast]

Apple won't make a custom CPU. They would need a HUGE number of people, HUGE amounts of resources, and HUGE amounts of experience, that they just don't have, in order to compete with Intel. Second, that would kill Boot Camp, which is what caused a lot of people to switch to the Mac within the last 2-3 years.

Making a custom Desktop CPU would be shooting themselves in the foot

+1

I agreed that Apple may not make a custom CPU again in the near future, but they might after built up the chips department in a certain of time.

I understand most people switch to Mac these days is partly because of bootcamp, so they could play windows game and some softwares. But, what happen if few more years later that, got more major developers release their mac version? Provide a much better platform than windows7/8/9 ?

 

[michaelvoigt]

We all remember the embarrassing time period when IBM couldn't produce a mobile G5 that didn't melt a PowerBook, and so we were stuck with PowerBook G4 for an eternity while Intel's Pentium M/Centrino was running circles around Macs.

I remember those days. That beautiful juicy L1 cache on that G5 might have been the issue. I still believe that the G5/G4 architecture was superior to even Intel's current chips... there is too much legacy laying around on Intel chips circa 1978. The G4/G5 were RISC and built from the ground up. I'm not even sure if Intel current even offers a chip with a 64KB L1 cache? They pioneered the L2 and L3 cache to keep costs down.

This multiple chips on a single chip idea is super, it is very similar to what Steve did with the Apple IIGS, he put an entire Apple ][ on one chip.

Plus, this might pull some nice chip engineering jobs back to the Cupertino area!

 

[nuckinfutz]

Where the hell do people find these bandwagons to jump on?

Secrecy? Oh please. You don't buy a PA Semi because you want to be secret. Apple is buying PA Semi and designing their own chips because it makes sense. They get to take what presumably will be an ARM core and Imagination GPU that everyone else uses and then build around these and more to create custom solutions that deliver the functionality they need to.

They're not going to design a CPU or GPU folks they're designing a SoC which will likely contain the aforementioned processing units along with all othe other glue stuff.

It makes sense and it is more expensive but custom "anything" is generally more expensive than off the shelf.

 

[kingtj]

No, you don't understand it at all, BTW ....

What you have is a false sense of superiority over people who choose Mac, because of a lack of understanding about what really makes the Apple products popular.

Apple customers DO have pride in their purchases. That's because unlike the boring, cookie-cutter Dell, HP and other such Windows PCs, they know they're not just buying another "appliance". Are there SOME people who simply enjoy knowing they paid more than others can afford? I'm sure... but that's a minority, and they're out there doing that with any product on the market, not just computers.

I've been in I.T. for close to 2 decades now, and I spent a LOT of it building, repairing and selling generic PC clones. To this day, I'm the network manager of a company that's using all Windows PCs. I know what's out there for the money, and what a PC "is" and "isn't" compared to a Mac.

Guess what? I have mostly Macs at home, and one lone HP TouchSmart PC running Windows Vista. Which one gives me 90% of my software and peripheral incompatibility issues? The HP.

I started buying Macs back around 1999-2000 when I first saw OS X and realized I liked working with it FAR better than working with Windows. At that time, Apple's hardware was more unique than it is today (no Intel processors yet, etc.). So then, it was abundantly clear you had to buy the Mac to get OS X -- and I was fine with that. Nowdays, granted, you can just build a "Hackintosh" if you want and have OS X without buying Apple's hardware at all. But for starters, that's not LEGAL. Even if you don't care though - I've seen time and time again where Apple adds value to the purchase, justifying the higher price. They pay attention to the details that others don't. My Macbook Pro was constructed FAR better than the cheaper alternatives, for example. The mag-safe adapter alone has probably saved it at least one fall to the floor that would have trashed a competing product.

Even if it is in every part except the Mac Pro, Apple still can't match Intel's manufacturing scale. I don't see it as a problem, though. Apple has never worried about charging more for products than others. They'll just raise the prices to keep their margins the same and their apologists will mob message boards defending Apples higher prices and the fact that zombies are gladly willing to pay more for the same stuff.

I understand how this works. I sell it all day long. Apple customers take a peverse pride in the fact that they pay a lot more for their fruity gadgets. It makes them feel better about themselves and superior to those who don't have their good taste.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... Ultra low power, specialised processors I can see happening. Desktop/laptop/workstation processors, no way, and rightly so. Leave those to the pro's.

Not sure I disagree with your conclusion so much, but it has to be pointed out that "the Pros" actually work at Apple now.

The people they have hired recently represent some of the biggest best names in the field. The lead designer of PA Semi is the guy that almost single-handedly created the two best chips ever made. There's no one more "pro" than these guys, there are no "better" chip designers they should defer to, only equal (or mostly), lesser designers.