Reviews, News, and How To!
Should Apple begin making its own processors for its computers?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anthony Ramos on -
Unless Apple makes x86-compatible processors I would expect comparisons along the line of the old PPC/x86 comparisons start up again. Other than making processors for iPad, and possibly future iPhone and iPod touch generations, I don't think it would be wise to make processors for Macs. Of course, this is all just my own two cents.
There are, however, benefits to them making their own processors for Macs.
One: In the case of hardware support, more responsibility would be placed on Apple since it would be their product. I'm actually in favor of this since I like having things come from one company so I know it all works.
Two: Apple can release products on its own time schedule, as opposed to Intel's as was the delayed case of the recently announced i5 and i7 MacBook Pro systems.
I'm sure there are more benefits, but again this is all just my two cents. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Joel on
-
I think they should stick with Intel so Hackintoshes will still be possible to make.
-
Permalink Reply by jamesjimmy23 on -
This is probably why they would want to move away from Intel so they can completely close their system and make it impossible for anyone to make a Hackintosh.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddie Ringle on -
It would not be cost-effective for Apple to manufacture chips for all their products. Besides, they do not even manufacture the A4, Samsung does. Apple just designed the chip. Odds are they bought Intrinsity in order to design better chips for their embedded products.
-
Permalink Reply by Strega222 on -
Actually I like that idea even more. The chip will not be manufactured by Apple, but will be designed by Apple specifically for the product it is to be used in. I also like Anthony Ramos's thought that Apple would be on its own Time table, not Intel's. Also think, Apple designing its own in-house processor, would make the Mac even more unique then it already is, similar to the way in which Apple makes its own operating system for its own hardware. What other OEM does that? I think it would also be very effective for quality control.
-
Permalink Reply by Wandering I on -
Well see thats where your kind iffy, apple doesn't write software for their hardware (exception being the ipad/iphone/itouch), apple writes software for standard PC hardware. There really isn't a whole lot different in the standard everyday pc that what there is in your standard power mac aside from the power supply, and video card in some cases. And if i'm wrong, then how the hell is a hackintosh so easy to accomplish?...lol
-
Permalink Reply by Harrison Seo on -
Apple doesn't manufacture or research silicon/processors.
They get other people to do it for them. Their A4 "in-house" processor BS is nothing more than a ARM9 Processor SOC with PowerVR GFX...
I HIGHLY doubt they can even compare to Intel or even AMD lol if they ever make their "own" processor.
BTW Apple doesn't make or manufacture hardware. They design and choose which parts to put in, and then they give it to Foxconn.
-
Permalink Reply by Eddie Ringle on
-
Yeah, I agree with you, the A4 is just a re-branded chip manufactured by Samsung.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Chiasson on -
Apple has already tried and failed at this. Historically Apple joined heavyweights IBM and Motorola to come out with the PowerPC Architecture and Processor. Since @ 2006 (I believe) it has become ancient processor history. AMD, at the time of the PowerPC wasn't even in the game, and the game has changed dramatically since then.
I believe the Apple portables (iPODS, iPhones, iPads, etc) are using some form of the ARM arcitecture... ARM11 on the iPad I think.
Given the "closed" mentality of anthing Apple, I seriously doubt they can compete in a more open processor market (e.g. PowerPC) Without Jobs shortly, I doubt it will gain market share against PCs, Notebooks, Netbooks, and even the rash of Slate-like PCs coming down the pike. Yes they will make news because they have good technology first. Gates made sure they would survive several years back with a multimillion$$ investment when they were going to go under the last time.
Lesson learned should be that if its cheap, works, and I can mod it, it will succeed. On the other hand I can limit the product, corral the users/victims and expect unflagging loyalty until they wake up and smell the coffee (can get the same inexpensively and wherever they wish).
I am no fanatic of Windows, OS-X, LINUX, UNIX, Etc. Each has its place. None of them are ubiquitous enough to say "this is the best architecture/answer!"
With that in mind, I believe Apple will fail AGAIN if they try to take on the billions of processors already out there. Their song is the same as in 1984. They get great press, have a religious following, but does that translate into profits when re-entering an arena they failed at before? I think not. A processor of their own is a mistake.... again
-
Permalink Reply by Victor Martinez on -
Apple will not make any mac or Imac processor, But they will build low power consumption processors for Ipad Ipod and Iphone and any other device they will come up in the future. and I think they will...
-
Permalink Reply by Ashram on -
"Should Apple make their own processors?"
Why?
For one thing, would Apple be creating their own processor architecture or sticking with an existing standard in their design, such as designing around x86 and x86-64? If Apple makes a different processor architecture, this means a major reworking of their current OS is in order. In addition, OS X could lose its Single Unix Specification certification with this route. And then there's all the software that already exists which won't run unless you perform emulation like Rosetta. If Apple were to design their own processors according to the x86 standards, why bother for the costs involved? This is especially true if Apple's intentions with making CPUs is to compete against Dell and Lenovo rather than compete against Intel and AMD.
Second, would Apple be making processors for other companies or merely making processors for itself? Obviously, I don't believe Apple would make processors to sell to their competitors so it's more likely that Apple would try to attempt vertical integration in the production of Macs. Vertical integration can help Apple to control its costs and supply, but investment in the production of microprocessors isn't going to be some drop in the bucket financially speaking. It will require substantial capital to invest in planning, R&D, manufacturing, marketing and product support. Plus, things may not go according to plans, which means changes to adapt to unexpected challenges; more money to be spent. The cost can easily be in the hundreds of millions or even BILLIONS of dollars. And, if Apple only plans on making processors for itself, then it may take many YEARS before the costs to create the foundations for the product can be recovered, assuming that Apple's processor line can even be made successful (and there's a good chance that it may NOT be; not everything Apple makes can be successful and their current success streak can't go on forever; all it takes is just ONE boneheaded decision to derail the trend).
Now, people may say that Apple doesn't have to manufacture the processors; they can outsource to companies that have the manufacturing resources to make processors according to Apple design and specifications. Fair enough, but Apple still would have to shoulder the cost of R&D to give an OEM a design they can manufacture in the first place. It's still going to be expensive, especially if it's supposed to be an original Apple design.
Third, does Apple have any experience designing processors? It's not really a matter of putting things together but also making sure all the elements in the IC work together reliably. Remember when Microsoft tried to design its own GPU ASIC for the Xbox360 to save a few bucks? The same could easily happen to Apple if they don't have a team that knows what it's doing; resources that Intel and AMD already have from their personnel and years of experience in the IC business.
Now, people may point out Commodore as an example of a computer company that made its own processors ... except Commodore managed this by buying out an existing processor company, MOS Technologies, and using their existing product and existing experience and R&D resources to sustain the business and make Commodore's vertical integration of their personal computer manufacturing possible. And, the success of their vertical integration was only successful for a brief period; after the Commodore 128, they tried to concentrate on Amiga which basically left Commodore MOS to languish as the Amiga used Motorola processors. Commodore was unwilling to invest to create a new MOS processor for the Amiga, so they used technology from the outside instead.
There's being bold, then there's being too ambitious. Apple obviously isn't going to make their own CPUs for the Mac because Apple would have to shoulder more costs for little benefit. It's also a move that will scare their shareholders into SELLING Apple stock, especially considering the hard realities, including potential unintended consequences.
People may point out the Apple A4 CPU in the iPad, but it must be reiterated that the A4 was the result of taking EXISTING processor cores and creating an LSI out of it. There is nothing new here; Sony did this when they made the 32-bit PlayStation console. Apple merely took existing ARM and PowerVR product and combined it into one custom chip. The benefit of this move is that you reduce the size and complexity of the logic board since you have less component parts to put into place.
And, people may also point out that, with what the A4 is, that Apple should try to combine an Intel CPU core and an nVidia GPU core into one custom chip for Macs. Possible, but not feasible. First, would Intel and nVidia actually allow it? Second, you'll be combining two MAJOR heat sources into one die so if you don't design the LSI correctly, the chip can easily damage itself and the board its mounted on in normal use because of the heat. It's a challenge enough to design one multicore processor but to add a GPU core from an outside company into the die creates a new host of complications that you must straighten out first.
© 2012 Created by Chris Pirillo.
