Posted by
timothy
on from the jalapeno-flavored-are-great dept.
afabbro writes "There are scatteredreportstoday that Apple is building a team to design its own chips, with an eye towards reducing power consumption on iPods and iPhones."
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
Darkness404
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The difference is, MS, by nature does not really innovate, they emulate. Apple, while not 100% innovative, usually ends up taking a cutting-edge idea and comes up with a polished product.
-- Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
rm999
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So the difference is that neither one of them really innovates? I don't see the difference. Sure, Apple is good at repackaging things to be pretty and easy-to-use, but that doesn't matter when it comes to chips. In this case, they will *have* to innovate to turn their investments into something useful.
I think this move has more to do with Apple's obsession with controlling everything - they'd like to be a vertical company. It's a risky move, because hardware is a costly industry to enter. Will their recent purchases be worth it? Very possibly, it's an interesting gamble.
Shouldn't surprise, they own a chipmaker
by
MarkEst1973
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They already own a chip maker. That bit of news was from last year. It shouldn't surprise you today that they plan on actually using the chipmaker they bought.
Re:Shouldn't surprise, they own a chipmaker
by
the_humeister
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They're a chip designer. Chip makers actually have fabrication plants.
Re:Shouldn't surprise, they own a chipmaker
by
gordguide
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Maybe, but it's a line not often drawn by many... ATI never had a fab.
Re:Manufacture or design?
by
QuantumRiff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Course, people were saying the same thing about manufacturing laptop cases, like out of single blocks of aluminum.
Steve jobs seems to get a hard on from fully automated factories. The NEXT factory could produce thousands of computers a week, with a handful of employees.. (they could just never sell that many)
--
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
je+ne+sais+quoi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple is a hardware company that also makes software. Microsoft is a software company that also makes hardware. The MS hardware I can think of is their keyboards and mice, the Zune and Xbox 360. Considering that the entertainment division of microsoft that builds the zune and xbox lost 31 million dollars last quarter, I wouldn't hold Microsoft up as the paragon of what is possible to do in hardware.
-- Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
It's a very entrepreneurial idea -- quit all the talking and hand-waving and actually ship something! There's not much value in developing great ideas that never get out of the lab. As for the claim that neither innovates? Hogwash. Taking an idea and integrating it into a viable product IS innovation by definition -- it is something that has not been done before that point. Both MS and Apple innovate, to different degrees, which we can squabble about, ad infinitum.:) I would say MSFT is far better at marketing their ideas and capturing market share, while Apple is better at inventing. Others will have a different view.
But back to the original subject, I suspect Apple's desire for custom chips comes not from a desire to save power (there are already many viable low-power CPUs and chipsets available) but rather a desire to fight off Hackintosh clones (OSX running on non-apple hardware, such as the Dell mini 9 or generic desktop PCs). Technologically, there's no reason why this can't happen but one must consider that Apple's hardware sales are quite profitable and that share is worth protecting.
I think also for their iPods/iPhones, Apple probably wants more customization than they have right now. They have to accept whatever chip that they are buying balancing processing power/power consumption/functionality. Incidentally this may have been driven by the iPhone. While the iPod is fine with an underpowered chip as its functionality is limited, the iPod touch/iPhone require more computing power. There are rumors that Apple was not happy with the original chip on the iPhone. The problem is the chip was exactly what they specced out. Apple may have lost the chip expertise that they had with the original Macs.
-- Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
binarylarry
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are completely mistaken.
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware.
-- Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
Hes+Nikke
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications.
fixed it for you.
-- Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
binarylarry
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let me fix that for you:
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications, as they do for Dell and just like they used to do for Packard Bell.
-- Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
Cyner
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple knows how they intend to use the chip, but that is not the same as knowing how the chip gets it done. Participating by writing various specifications and testing is a very long way from designing logic circuity.
That's not to say they can't do it, or wont be good at it. But your making a leap.
-- FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
Apple shoulda never left IBM, Cell woulda been it
by
rAiNsT0rm
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Apple made a mistake (*gasp* yes they are capable of it) by ditching IBM when it did. Now that IBM has an amazing chip in the Cell processor, Apple has the same Intels as every other PC. PowerPC was what made Apples so great for a number of applications and uses, they've lost that now.
They bought up PA Semi but I think that was a flailing effort that may or may not pay off... even if it does it would most likely only affect small subsystems and things like the iPod/iPhone.
The Cell chip coupled with the CUDA tech from NVDA would have catapulted them lightyears ahead of standard PCs. Hey, everyone makes mistakes.
-- http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The difference is thus: If they build everything in house, they don't have to deal with 'leaks' from other companies publishing stuff or giving too much infor before apple believes its time. Apple lives and dies by its appearance and when it brings stuff out and how.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
gabebear
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think the OP's point has been completely lost. Apple, Dell, and HP design/sell "real hardware", and microsoft designs/sells peripherals.
I believe the original point was that microsoft has never attempted any serious hardware development; so comparing microsoft's supposed failure to design "simple hardware" to Apple's attempt to design "real hardware" is stupid.
Generally the hardware is designed well by every company; it's the software where things fall down. I have several Apple and Microsoft Keyboards and Mice.
Of my peripherals that are at least 2yrs old that should still be supported:
1xUSB MS mouse = support officially discontinued(3 out of 5 buttons work with default driver).
1xUSB Apple mouse = supported (but only 1 has button)
2xUSB Apple Keyboards = supported (but new Macs/PCs no longer support the power-button on the keyboard to power on when turned off)
All in all, a pretty pathetic amount of support. Microsoft drops support for their own USB mice(you can still find 3rd party drivers to enable all 5 buttons). Apple didn't officially drop support, but no longer provides the needed circuitry on their motherboards to power-up a computer via a USB keyboard's power button(I'm wondering if this is so they use less power when turned off).
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
jcr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple is not going to waste money developing their own chips just for bragging rights.
That's right, they won't do it just for bragging rights. They'll do it for a compelling performance, power consumption, and/or cost advantage. Right now, they pay Intel, Nvidia, and AMD a hell of a lot of money for CPUs and GPUs, and I'm sure they'll do their homework before making the next build or buy decision.
-jcr
-- The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:it seems that this will be a variant of the ARM
by
jcr
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
SJ stood on a stage a promised a 3GHZ G5 in one year (because IBM had promised it to Apple), and IBM let him down. That, together with IBM's decision not to develop a low-power G5 suitable for laptops is what closed the book on Apple's PPC machines.
They switched to Intel instead of AMD because they had had quite enough of vendor disappointments. AMD was a far riskier prospect.
-jcr
-- The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
toleraen
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
My 8 year old 5 button MS Explorer mouse works perfectly with Win7, dunno what you're talking about...
Also, didn't MS design that one thing, what was it called, the xbox (or something)? I heard it was just a repackaged computer.
Re:Manufacture or design?
by
scatterbrained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd guess there's at least a few billion dollars difference between a reasonably up-to-date fab and the people/infrastructure it requires, and what is required to cast and CNC chunks of metal (unless it's something like sub propellers). If Apple was throwing around that kind of cash it wouldn't be a secret.
-- --
All that's left of me,
is slight insanity,
whats on the right,
I don't know. -- Bob Mould
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
tyrione
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Let me fix that for you:
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications, as they do for Dell and just like they used to do for Packard Bell.
I'll fix it for everyone. Apple builds them, tests them and sends them to be assembled to their specs. Done. Get over it.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
artor3
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Just think how much [Apple] could power reduce and cost reduce if they dictated the chip-specs!
(I am an electronics engineer, and make chips that Apple buys for many of their products)
They already do, to an extent.
Chip design companies are constantly battling it out to get design wins at big companies like Apple. If Apple tells them, "Hey, we want this chip to do X and Y while consuming Z mA," then those companies are going to try their best to meet those requirements so that they can get Apple as a customer.
Your assertion that chips are being overcomplicated for the purpose of driving up cost is incorrect. Semiconductor companies are constantly trying to simplify their chips' designs, in order to improve yield and reduce costs, while charging the same price to their customers. It's much, much easier to improve margin than it is to convince your customers to pay more.
I doubt that Apple will be able to substantially improve cost or power consumption. While they do have some experience in chip design, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to go in and do a better job than all of the companies that do nothing else.
Re:It didn't work for microsoft...
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Nope, not even close. Apple *designs* or works with manufacturers to create custom *designed* boards and hardware but they build nothing. They are the same chips and chipsets as Dell, which actually does the same thing and custom *designs* their gear just like Apple.
So in the same way, all cars and buildings are exactly alike because they all use exactly the same materials, the design is just a bit different. Right?
Yeah, the CPU and chipset are the same. They even use copper and solder to make their boards, oh my! But there's are millions of ways to lay out the same components, and they do yield different results. Take cities: they all have similar needs (hospitals, police stations.. just play Sim City), but how you lay them out can be the entire difference between a traffic-congested, slow ass stinky, cheap and broken down city, and a beautiful, traffic-free, low crime city.
Of course, we're geeks here. We don't care, as long as it's got the bigger numbers next to its MHz and GBs, we're happy. Meanwhile, there are people who like having computers that last more than 6 months to a year, computers that don't crash whenever someone turns on the microwave down the hall or accidentally turns off the air conditioner, or who's components are literally melting off of the machine (as is the acse with my 2 year old Toshitba laptop).
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is, MS, by nature does not really innovate, they emulate. Apple, while not 100% innovative, usually ends up taking a cutting-edge idea and comes up with a polished product.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So the difference is that neither one of them really innovates? I don't see the difference. Sure, Apple is good at repackaging things to be pretty and easy-to-use, but that doesn't matter when it comes to chips. In this case, they will *have* to innovate to turn their investments into something useful.
I think this move has more to do with Apple's obsession with controlling everything - they'd like to be a vertical company. It's a risky move, because hardware is a costly industry to enter. Will their recent purchases be worth it? Very possibly, it's an interesting gamble.
They already own a chip maker. That bit of news was from last year. It shouldn't surprise you today that they plan on actually using the chipmaker they bought.
Course, people were saying the same thing about manufacturing laptop cases, like out of single blocks of aluminum.
Steve jobs seems to get a hard on from fully automated factories. The NEXT factory could produce thousands of computers a week, with a handful of employees.. (they could just never sell that many)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Apple is a hardware company that also makes software. Microsoft is a software company that also makes hardware. The MS hardware I can think of is their keyboards and mice, the Zune and Xbox 360. Considering that the entertainment division of microsoft that builds the zune and xbox lost 31 million dollars last quarter, I wouldn't hold Microsoft up as the paragon of what is possible to do in hardware.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Steve Jobs said it well: "Real artists ship."
It's a very entrepreneurial idea -- quit all the talking and hand-waving and actually ship something! There's not much value in developing great ideas that never get out of the lab. :) I would say MSFT is far better at marketing their ideas and capturing market share, while Apple is better at inventing. Others will have a different view.
As for the claim that neither innovates? Hogwash. Taking an idea and integrating it into a viable product IS innovation by definition -- it is something that has not been done before that point. Both MS and Apple innovate, to different degrees, which we can squabble about, ad infinitum.
But back to the original subject, I suspect Apple's desire for custom chips comes not from a desire to save power (there are already many viable low-power CPUs and chipsets available) but rather a desire to fight off Hackintosh clones (OSX running on non-apple hardware, such as the Dell mini 9 or generic desktop PCs). Technologically, there's no reason why this can't happen but one must consider that Apple's hardware sales are quite profitable and that share is worth protecting.
You are completely mistaken.
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications.
fixed it for you.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Let me fix that for you:
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications, as they do for Dell and just like they used to do for Packard Bell.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Apple knows how they intend to use the chip, but that is not the same as knowing how the chip gets it done. Participating by writing various specifications and testing is a very long way from designing logic circuity.
That's not to say they can't do it, or wont be good at it. But your making a leap.
FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
Apple made a mistake (*gasp* yes they are capable of it) by ditching IBM when it did. Now that IBM has an amazing chip in the Cell processor, Apple has the same Intels as every other PC. PowerPC was what made Apples so great for a number of applications and uses, they've lost that now.
They bought up PA Semi but I think that was a flailing effort that may or may not pay off... even if it does it would most likely only affect small subsystems and things like the iPod/iPhone.
The Cell chip coupled with the CUDA tech from NVDA would have catapulted them lightyears ahead of standard PCs. Hey, everyone makes mistakes.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
The difference is thus: If they build everything in house, they don't have to deal with 'leaks' from other companies publishing stuff or giving too much infor before apple believes its time. Apple lives and dies by its appearance and when it brings stuff out and how.
I think the OP's point has been completely lost. Apple, Dell, and HP design/sell "real hardware", and microsoft designs/sells peripherals.
I believe the original point was that microsoft has never attempted any serious hardware development; so comparing microsoft's supposed failure to design "simple hardware" to Apple's attempt to design "real hardware" is stupid.
Generally the hardware is designed well by every company; it's the software where things fall down. I have several Apple and Microsoft Keyboards and Mice.
Of my peripherals that are at least 2yrs old that should still be supported:
1xUSB MS mouse = support officially discontinued(3 out of 5 buttons work with default driver).
1xUSB Apple mouse = supported (but only 1 has button)
2xUSB Apple Keyboards = supported (but new Macs/PCs no longer support the power-button on the keyboard to power on when turned off)
All in all, a pretty pathetic amount of support. Microsoft drops support for their own USB mice(you can still find 3rd party drivers to enable all 5 buttons). Apple didn't officially drop support, but no longer provides the needed circuitry on their motherboards to power-up a computer via a USB keyboard's power button(I'm wondering if this is so they use less power when turned off).
Apple is not going to waste money developing their own chips just for bragging rights.
That's right, they won't do it just for bragging rights. They'll do it for a compelling performance, power consumption, and/or cost advantage. Right now, they pay Intel, Nvidia, and AMD a hell of a lot of money for CPUs and GPUs, and I'm sure they'll do their homework before making the next build or buy decision.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
SJ stood on a stage a promised a 3GHZ G5 in one year (because IBM had promised it to Apple), and IBM let him down. That, together with IBM's decision not to develop a low-power G5 suitable for laptops is what closed the book on Apple's PPC machines.
They switched to Intel instead of AMD because they had had quite enough of vendor disappointments. AMD was a far riskier prospect.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
My 8 year old 5 button MS Explorer mouse works perfectly with Win7, dunno what you're talking about...
Also, didn't MS design that one thing, what was it called, the xbox (or something)? I heard it was just a repackaged computer.
I'd guess there's at least a few billion dollars difference between a reasonably up-to-date fab and the people/infrastructure it requires, and what is required to cast and CNC chunks of metal (unless it's something like sub propellers). If Apple was throwing around that kind of cash it wouldn't be a secret.
-- All that's left of me, is slight insanity, whats on the right, I don't know. -- Bob Mould
Let me fix that for you:
Companies like Foxconn and ASUS build Apple's hardware to Apple's specifications, as they do for Dell and just like they used to do for Packard Bell.
I'll fix it for everyone. Apple builds them, tests them and sends them to be assembled to their specs. Done. Get over it.
Just think how much [Apple] could power reduce and cost reduce if they dictated the chip-specs!
(I am an electronics engineer, and make chips that Apple buys for many of their products)
They already do, to an extent.
Chip design companies are constantly battling it out to get design wins at big companies like Apple. If Apple tells them, "Hey, we want this chip to do X and Y while consuming Z mA," then those companies are going to try their best to meet those requirements so that they can get Apple as a customer.
Your assertion that chips are being overcomplicated for the purpose of driving up cost is incorrect. Semiconductor companies are constantly trying to simplify their chips' designs, in order to improve yield and reduce costs, while charging the same price to their customers. It's much, much easier to improve margin than it is to convince your customers to pay more.
I doubt that Apple will be able to substantially improve cost or power consumption. While they do have some experience in chip design, it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to go in and do a better job than all of the companies that do nothing else.
Nope, not even close. Apple *designs* or works with manufacturers to create custom *designed* boards and hardware but they build nothing. They are the same chips and chipsets as Dell, which actually does the same thing and custom *designs* their gear just like Apple.
So in the same way, all cars and buildings are exactly alike because they all use exactly the same materials, the design is just a bit different. Right?
Yeah, the CPU and chipset are the same. They even use copper and solder to make their boards, oh my! But there's are millions of ways to lay out the same components, and they do yield different results. Take cities: they all have similar needs (hospitals, police stations.. just play Sim City), but how you lay them out can be the entire difference between a traffic-congested, slow ass stinky, cheap and broken down city, and a beautiful, traffic-free, low crime city.
Of course, we're geeks here. We don't care, as long as it's got the bigger numbers next to its MHz and GBs, we're happy. Meanwhile, there are people who like having computers that last more than 6 months to a year, computers that don't crash whenever someone turns on the microwave down the hall or accidentally turns off the air conditioner, or who's components are literally melting off of the machine (as is the acse with my 2 year old Toshitba laptop).
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush