[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple not likely to ditch Intel chips for Macs in near future here

[hayesk]

People need to stop believing rumours at face value. It was obvious to me that Apple is not considering ARM any time soon. It's just not viable, and their customer base is just getting over the Intel switch now. A few still haven't fully switched.

[Touchstone]

Being a CPU architect for many years, Apple deciding to cook up it's own processors for its entire product line would be a large mistake, and virtually ensure that it falls behind its competition in power/performance. I've seen it happen before.

Creating a competitive performing CPU today is no small feat, to put it very mildly - a huge team of people working for 5-8 years and an enormous amount of cash. One company, and I don't care who they are, can't be amazingly good at everything. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that. Trying to come up with CPU's better and faster than Intel's is possible, but the cost of doing so will be enormous. After all, Apple's added value is much more in it's OS (desktop OS and IOS) than it's actual hardware.

Apple needs to let the CPU experts do what they do best - design CPU's. Makes no sense to try and go down that road, in my humble opinion.

[ShameerMulji]

Quote

Being a CPU architect for many years, Apple deciding to cook up it's own processors for its entire product line would be a large mistake, and virtually ensure that it falls behind its competition in power/performance. I've seen it happen before. Creating a competitive performing CPU today is no small feat, to put it very mildly - a huge team of people working for 5-8 years and an enormous amount of cash. One company, and I don't care who they are, can't be amazingly good at everything. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that. Trying to come up with CPU's better and faster than Intel's is possible, but the cost of doing so will be enormous. After all, Apple's added value is much more in it's OS (desktop OS and IOS) than it's actual hardware. Apple needs to let the CPU experts do what they do best - design CPU's. Makes no sense to try and go down that road, in my humble opinion.

"Creating a competitive performing CPU today is no small feat, to put it very mildly - a huge team of people working for 5-8 years and an enormous amount of cash."

With the acquisition of PA Semi & Intrinsity, Apple has a world-class semiconductor team. Nevermind the fact that many on its team came from AMD, and the just recently announced hire from Samsung. As for cash, Apple has $120 billion in cash. If that's not enough for you, I don't know what is.

"One company, and I don't care who they are, can't be amazingly good at everything."

You're right. That's why Apple lags in cloud services compared to its major competitors. Hardware is where Apple shines and it's smart of them to control their destiny in their core competency

"After all, Apple's added value is much more in it's OS (desktop OS and IOS) than it's actual hardware. "

Apple's value-add is in the entire product - the tight integration of hardware, software (iOS & OSX), and now cloud services. That is what the consumer is buying. The value add is in the whole package.

[Netizen_Kane]

Just wait a couple of years and Apple will be able to buy AMD on the cheap. Then it can stay with the x86 instruction set and still be "a company that controls its own destiny" instead of relying on Intel.

[hmurchison]

Apple doesn't have to design from the ground up. They can just modify ARM cores like they do now. Cheaper and more flexible.

I don't think Intel is going to be beat by a company making a derivative product. Intel's fabs are too good. What I see ARM being able to do is overwhelm Intel with a phalanx of smaller 64-bit cores linked with fast interconnect system and very smart logic that allows the cores to turn off for power saving or mobilize for tasks.

If Apple is moving in this direction we'll know by how they change the OS in the future. If they gain focus on multithreading and and move to an OS more nimble in scalable environments then we'll have our answer.

[jbramey]

i think it's very near-sighted to believe (even for a second) that Apple 'can't' move to ARM. Apple has proven time and time again that it does not abide by standard business practices. When 'no one' built their own hardware for their OS, Apple did. When digital music distribution was a farce, Apple constructed iTunes. When the tablet seemed 'impossible', Apple developed the iPad. The company has the ability and the means to do the impossible.

Now as to why AMD, look no further than Microsoft and Google. Both are building compatibility with ARM for future generations of their OS (Windows and Android / Chrome). If the 'game' becomes a cloud strategy with applications and data delivered via the Internet (as opposed to local hard drives), AMD makes perfect sense. Apple is more than half way there now with the iPad. And while no one can predict how consumers would adapt to this strategy, Apple has to have a response if / when Microsoft announces a $300 laptop with 20 hours of battery life and web access to a catalog of applications and centralized data storage. Personally, I think it's going to happen sooner than 2014 as there's just too many players heading in that direction. And when it does, Intel might find itself out in the cold.

[LeTap]

Intel isn't very co-operative. It refused to miniaturise the CPU used in the Macbook Air, but Apple threatened to go elsewhere. Eventually, Intel relented and Apple engineers camped-out at Intel until the CPU was just right.

As we all know, Intel recently defined the specification for Ultrabooks, which use the same or similar chip to the Macbook Air CPU co-designed with Apple.

[NCAMILO]

Or Apple could buy intel.

[AaronShep]

"Meanwhile, it could gradually scale up its iPads to be more powerful and more flexible. Once they’re powerful enough for the kind of pro graphics applications that run on desktop Macs, then the writing could be on the wall."

Was that a joke? Or maybe this writer has never used a pro application?

[Touchstone]

With all due respect, the undoubtedly talented semiconductor team at Apple is irrelevant as is the amount of cash Apple has. Just because one is able to do something, that doesn't automatically make it the correct course of action or a wise use of funds. With bad (and very expensive) decisions as this one could easily turn out to be, Apple may not have such a huge cash reserve down the road.

After all, nobody - including me - is going to start buying Apple products *just because* it contains an Apple designed processor. People buy Apple products for all sorts of valid reasons, OSX/iOS, the product quality, design, design aesthetics, software ecosystem, etc. Nobody, except perhaps Apple employees themselves, will care if it contains an "Apple" CPU.

Quote

Being a CPU architect for many years, Apple deciding to cook up it's own processors for its entire product line would be a large mistake, and virtually ensure that it falls behind its competition in power/performance. I've seen it happen before. Creating a competitive performing CPU today is no small feat, to put it very mildly - a huge team of people working for 5-8 years and an enormous amount of cash. One company, and I don't care who they are, can't be amazingly good at everything. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that. Trying to come up with CPU's better and faster than Intel's is possible, but the cost of doing so will be enormous. After all, Apple's added value is much more in it's OS (desktop OS and IOS) than it's actual hardware. Apple needs to let the CPU experts do what they do best - design CPU's. Makes no sense to try and go down that road, in my humble opinion. "Creating a competitive performing CPU today is no small feat, to put it very mildly - a huge team of people working for 5-8 years and an enormous amount of cash." With the acquisition of PA Semi & Intrinsity, Apple has a world-class semiconductor team. Nevermind the fact that many on its team came from AMD, and the just recently announced hire from Samsung. As for cash, Apple has $120 billion in cash. If that's not enough for you, I don't know what is. "One company, and I don't care who they are, can't be amazingly good at everything." You're right. That's why Apple lags in cloud services compared to its major competitors. Hardware is where Apple shines and it's smart of them to control their destiny in their core competency "After all, Apple's added value is much more in it's OS (desktop OS and IOS) than it's actual hardware. " Apple's value-add is in the entire product - the tight integration of hardware, software (iOS & OSX), and now cloud services. That is what the consumer is buying. The value add is in the whole package.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Touchstone, on 07 November 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

With all due respect, the undoubtedly talented semiconductor team at Apple is irrelevant as is the amount of cash Apple has. Just because one is able to do something, that doesn't automatically make it the correct course of action or a wise use of funds. With bad (and very expensive) decisions as this one could easily turn out to be, Apple may not have such a huge cash reserve down the road.

After all, nobody - including me - is going to start buying Apple products *just because* it contains an Apple designed processor. People buy Apple products for all sorts of valid reasons, OSX/iOS, the product quality, design, design aesthetics, software ecosystem, etc. Nobody, except perhaps Apple employees themselves, will care if it contains an "Apple" CPU.

While no one may buy a device simply because of an Apple chip, they certainly may buy the device if that chip provides real benefits (like better performance or better energy efficiency). The problem for Apple is that is largely a prisoner of Intel's release schedule at this point which could be enough of a constraint that it would be beneficial to step out of that ecosystem.

However, I think the real benefit of custom chips is in the mobile and appliance space. CPUs and GPUs in the iOS devices and the AppleTV offer a lot of opportunities for better engineering and there is very little downside to Apple continuing to pursue chip design in that space.

[technologist]

Creating a processor that runs faster that the latest Intel chip is not such a tall order. Motorola did it in the '80s with the 680x0, the AIM alliance did it in the mid '90s with the PowerPC, and AMD did it in the late '90s with the Athlon series.

The problem is keeping the momentum going. Intel has always had a commanding lead in volume the revenue, which meant it could invest heavily in design and process improvements.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

technologist, on 07 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Creating a processor that runs faster that the latest Intel chip is not such a tall order. Motorola did it in the '80s with the 680x0, the AIM alliance did it in the mid '90s with the PowerPC, and AMD did it in the late '90s with the Athlon series.

The problem is keeping the momentum going. Intel has always had a commanding lead in volume the revenue, which meant it could invest heavily in design and process improvements.

I think the big win for Apple in such an endeavor would come from the ability to tightly integrate the OS and programing frameworks with the hardware. They would have far more freedom to have core logic built-in to the hardware. Moving in that direction would make the speed of the general purpose CPU less of an issue and make it much easier to keep up with Intel in that arena. Though clearly there is a lot of intellectual property involved in such an undertaking over which Apple doesn't have a lot of leverage.