I think that Ars is over-thinking it. The simple fact is that Intel's roadmaps lately haven't been all that well aligned to Apple's product lines. Back during the days of the Apple-Intel transition, Intel was all about killer laptop chips, which was the biggest weak point of the PPC chips of the day. Apple and Intel were a good match.
When it came time for Intel to introduce the successor to the Core 2 microarchitecture, they did it with the i7, a high-end desktop chip. Apple doesn't make a high-end desktop. They make small form-factor desktops and they make workstations. It shouldn't surprise anybody that the desktop i7 didn't get picked up by Apple quickly. When the Nehalem-based Xeons were released, Apple was the first to use them, in the Mac Pro. Much later, Apple was able to get the i5 and i7 into only the biggest of the iMacs, which have always (in the Intel era) been MacBook Pros at heart.
Things have been a bit different in the laptop department because of Intel's anti-competitive behavior with respect to graphics chips. First, they refuse to grant NVidia the licenses they need to make chipsets for the mobile Nehalem processors. Then, they refuse to release a mobile i7 that doesn't contain their pathetic integrated graphics that to Apple (who is trying to ensure all their customers can have GPU-accelerated video decoding and OpenCL) is just a big lump of wasted silicon. Thanks to Intel, Apple's laptops need to add an extra graphics chip to their already-crowded motherboards. That's why none of the 13" machines have gotten an i5 yet: they're too small. In order to put an i5 in a MacBook, Apple would have make a major compromise or get really clever during a complete re-design of the internal layout.
Ars tries to partially attribute Apple's continued use of the Core 2 to a lack of engineering resources due to a focus on the iOS devices, but that sounds absurd given Apple's recent financial numbers. I think it can be entirely explained by the differing and conflicting interests of Apple and Intel. They undoubtedly are watching each other's mobile strategies, but that's not necessary to explain what's happening with the desktops.
> Ars tries to partially attribute Apple's continued use of the Core 2 to a lack of engineering resources due to a focus on the iOS devices, but that sounds absurd given Apple's recent financial numbers.
Then you haven't been paying attention to how Apple got those recent financial numbers. Apple has held operating expenses extremely low, and hasn't grown its engineering ranks significantly in almost a decade. It's not at all unreasonable to expect that engineering resources are constrained. That's how Apple likes to work.
> Thanks to Intel, Apple's laptops need to add an extra graphics chip to their already-crowded motherboards.
Not precisely. In the latest generation of chips this is in on-die. Apple doesn't have to add Intel's integrated graphics to their motherboard, Intel ships all their chips with their integrated graphics cores inside them, sort of (but technically slightly different than) how they ship their chips with L2 caches inside them already.
Intel may well be being dicks about licensing, but to ask for a westmere i7 without Intel's integrated graphics is asking for them to spin a different die process. (Though they did do that for Apple once IIRC.)
Overall, the fact that it's there isn't a huge issue, people who don't like it just turn it off and use an off-package graphics card. I think this is more about the licensing issues than Intel needing to offer another die.
No, the point is that Apple has to add an extra non-Intel GPU because the integrated Intel GPU sucks. What was a two-chip system (Core 2 Duo + NVidia 9400) is now a three-chip system (i5 + PM55 + NVidia GPU).
Right, but that isn't because Intel won't release a different mobile i7 die. It's because they're not letting nvidia legally ship a chip that interfaces with the new Intel chips.
It's a licensing issue, not a die construction issue. The fact that all the mobile i7 dies happen to contain Intel's integrated graphics is irrelevant.
The memory controller and graphics core in Arrandale aren't on-die, but they're in the same package. This, and the fact that the GPU/memory controller is still built on a 45nm process, makes for a much bigger package - according to an earlier Ars article, the new package is twice the size of what's in the MacBook Air. It would be relatively easy (and not entirely unprecedented) for Intel to build a CPU-only Arrandale in a smaller package for Apple if they would let NVidia supply the memory controller as part of their chipset.
Yes, apologies, I play fast and loose with die/package terminology and I should be careful to be more accurate.
Anyways, your points are all quite right and Apple has asked for and gotten smaller packages before.
I still think the licensing issues trump the package issues and that more relates to Intel absorbing the northbridge onto the die. (That one actually did go on-die not just on-package I think?) It just seems silly to blame an unrelated change that added an on-package IGP for these issues.
I mean I know people have an irrational hatred for Intel's IGPs for some reason, but blaming them for the nvidia license dispute issues that are about the northbridge going on-die? I just don't get it.
I can't make much sense of this article. Based on his assumptions you would think Apple is completely intolerant of doing business with any company that might compete with them even on a theoretical basis. What about Samsung? They have their own SmartPhone platform (Bada) and also produce Android SmartPhones. No way Apple would do business with them right? Of course they do though. Samsung provides LCD panels for the iPad and fabricates the A4 processor. Software differentiates platforms these days. It doesn't really matter if the new 8" Motorola Droid 3 that comes out in the future uses an x86 chip or not. Apple is still competing directly against Google in that context. Even if MeeGo was very popular in the future I don't see any strong connection between mobile and PCs.
Put a 12-core ARM chip in a MBP and you may not notice the difference. I started out programming on the Acorn Archimedes (ARM4 - 8Mhz), and it wiped the floor with the PC-class 12MHz 80286 hardware available at the time ('89 ish). Maybe we'll come full circle and multi-core ARM chips will once again outperform the Intel competition.
With NEON, floating point performance is coming along, and Apple have invested heavily in getting Grand Central (multi-threading) accepted by app(lication) developers.
Cocoa apis are moving heavily towards blocks, and towards being architected with efficient exploitation of multiple cores. There are likely further changes, such as tagging enumerations with 'can-parallelize', that will further increase app performance.
I believe there is a WWDC 2010 session on how to make your code run into the future. I will watch that with interest to see if there are any more clues, but in truth, we probably already have them.
Unless they do something really funky, that 32-bit address space / 4Gig limit would be a real pain now that the MBP can have 8 gigabytes and 64-bit software is making an appearance.
Intel doesn't have a good track record in non-hardware (or non-cpu) endeavors. The way they can win in the phone arena is to provide the whole hardware aspect of the phone and leave the software parts to its partners, including Apple.
"Apple will be happy to take PC reference designs from Intel (or AMD?) and repackage them in nice mobile and desktop enclosures—effectively outsourcing PC R&D to the chipmaker—while focusing its own engineering efforts on differentiating its post-PC products from the rest of the market... a market that will soon include Intel-made smartphone reference designs."
Since when has Apple outsourced R&D of anything recently? Pretty sure the iPad A4 chip is not a repackaged Intel chip. The research and design that went into the unibody macbook pros doesn't seem like they are raising the white flag just yet either.
Isn't the A4 just the Intrinsity/Samusung Hummingbird SoC as used in the new Samsung phones, except the Galaxy S et al have a better GPU than the Apple stuff. (Apple did buy Intrinsity but what impact that will have is for the future).
"There's no way that Apple is going to sit idly by while Intel builds a hardware/software platform to compete with iOS, and then gives that platform away to Apple's competitors."
Yep. Apple won't sit idly by. No matter what Intel does.
Is Apple concerned if somebody makes a cheap, one-size-fits-all platform to compete with the iPhone. I highly doubt it.
Isn't Apple designing its own microprocessor for iPhone now so they optimize exactly what they want optimized? Why would they care if people believe the opposite strategy is better?
I don't get why Intel is pushing x86 so hard in the mobile market. I understand them wanting to keep x86 for desktops, as desktop apps need to be compatible. But mobile apps still need to be customized. Nobody will want to install Excel (for PC) on their mobile, even if their mobile has the horsepower to run it.
x86 architecture is their core product (or rather the foundation for their core products), so they problably try to push it forward whenever they can, like Windows for MS (Windows Phone on a device without any actual windows...).
It's what they do for thirty years, so I suppose they think it's part of their DNA and will fail if they try anything else.
It is particularly odd behavior given that in 2006, Intel sold off the mobile portion of the XScale line of ARM chips, but not the rest of the XScale line. Either they've since had a complete change of heart about the wisdom of going after the handheld market, or the 2006 deal was the result of a really huge outbreak of Not Invented Here syndrome.
I think Intel, like Microsoft missed the big move to mobile.
Intel want x86 on the phones, since there are so many developers out there used to it, so many tools, so much software that would only need a small tweek.
> so many tools, so much software that would only need a small tweek.
I'm not sure about that. ISA is an implementation detail, a popup in your IDE.
Any existing Windows or Mac app that needs to go mobile will in the least need an interface overhaul (true for iOS and WP7) and at most need to adopt completely new mobile APIs.
I always wondered about that, but I think that part of the problem with XScale is that it ended up being so far behind. When Intel acquired XScale from DEC, they really only got the IP, not the people... so they had to waste a lot of time assembling teams and re-building expertise, by which time the rest of the industry had left them in the dust.
Atom is a decent first step toward that niche, but I'm still not convinced about the value of x86 in mobile computing either.
If they launch a non-x86 product and it becomes popular, lots of people use it and lots of apps are ported to it.
People might begin to wonder why they need an x86 in their netbook or tablet
Intel wants the money from putting out a chip that is used by a volume of devices that dwarfs the PC world. The biggest problem is that customization is king in the mobile arena and that is not Intel's sweet spot. They are making moves into that area with the Atom (although IMHO they mucked it up http://bit.ly/d9GJIM ), but really hope the customization trend dies and they can sell bulk of a certain design.
Never underestimate Intel when it has decided to focus on a market.
Intel has money, and its strength in semiconductor architecture engineering and process technology. Eventually, x86 will be ARM competitive. The real question is, will it be in time to catch Apple?
Will Qualcomm, NVidia, Samsung, and Apple have the same relationship with Intel that they have with ARM? The indications are no and that means Intel is not just competing with one company.
Sigh... if their analysis is correct, and it seems to me Arstechnica is almost always correct, it really, really saddens me if Apple is sort of abandoning the Mac lineup for the iOS line up. Even though I no longer have an OSX machine, I still feel very fondly for that OS. :-(
I only got my first Mac about 12 months ago and I am really liking it. I too would be really sad if they leave OS X and it's traditionally associated hardware to languish.
Oh well, I guess I could always go back to Linux or BSD for my primary workstation.
And why would they do that? So everyone who develops for their one (iOS) platform must do so on someone else' OS? That would be a brilliant strategy.
Right now when you develop for iOS you're going to have the best experience on Mac with XCode. But as part of that, porting your app to e.g. Android probably means a total rewrite. If you had to use e.g. Linux for developing iOS applications then it would be easy to write in some language and have the IDE have different phone backend targets. Do you think Apple would like that?
1) I don't think anyone ever claimed Apples was discontinuing OSX, just that it seems clear that it's taking a back seat, both marketing and engineering wise, to the iPhone/iOS line of products.
2) If Xcode did run on Linux or Windows, that wouldn't reduce the lockin between Xcode and iOS. The inability to write iOS applications in a higher level language and target different phone backends has absolutely nothing to do with XCode running on OSX, and everything to do with the iPhone developer agreement specifically preventing you from doing so.
He talks about this in the last paragraph of the article. If Apple believe that desktops are going nowhere, and they aren't going to start building cloud stuff, there is no reason they would want AMD.
Interesting that today's Mac (iMac and Mac pro) switch back to ATI graphic chips (no, I don't believe they will buy AMD, just interesting). I think Apple believes in the cloud, but hasn't got it down. The new Macs would seem to indicate that there is real engineering money being spent in the Mac line.
Most that engineering money is someone else's. Apple hasn't been designing its own machines since the x86 switch, really; they contracted their laptop manufacturing to the Big 3 (4?) laptop makes like everyone else. I remember the announcement when Asustek won the contract for one of the laptop lines (I think it was the MacBook) back when Apple launched its first generation x86 laptops.
Odds are, they're headed in either the same direction with their PC line, or they're finally going to give it up altogether and start finding partners to OEM the OS. They'd have a HUGE leg up at getting into datacenters that way -- contracting companies like RackSaver, Boxx, and other similar vendors (which does, in spite of recent news, still include Dell) would help enormously with that. It's already at a point where other than the pretty case and the OS, the mac is just another PC, and I would argue that the part that matters for the non-mobile PC's isn't the hardware or the pretty case.
Are you confusing construction contracts with the actual design? Because they seem to take real pride in the design of their machines. For reference, check all the videos they made of their aluminum manufacturing process for the MacBook Pro. Like almost every PC maker they contract out the manufacture, but the design is still theirs.
Nope, I'm not confusing them at all. I should have been clearer though, I was referring to the hardware inside.
Apple does the industrial design, and then solicits RFP's to get the system board. The laptop OEM builds the motherboards and all that, and I'm guessing that they deliver the internals to Apple, rather than fully-assembled machines, so that they do the final integration and burn-in testing and that sort of thing.
When it came time for Intel to introduce the successor to the Core 2 microarchitecture, they did it with the i7, a high-end desktop chip. Apple doesn't make a high-end desktop. They make small form-factor desktops and they make workstations. It shouldn't surprise anybody that the desktop i7 didn't get picked up by Apple quickly. When the Nehalem-based Xeons were released, Apple was the first to use them, in the Mac Pro. Much later, Apple was able to get the i5 and i7 into only the biggest of the iMacs, which have always (in the Intel era) been MacBook Pros at heart.
Things have been a bit different in the laptop department because of Intel's anti-competitive behavior with respect to graphics chips. First, they refuse to grant NVidia the licenses they need to make chipsets for the mobile Nehalem processors. Then, they refuse to release a mobile i7 that doesn't contain their pathetic integrated graphics that to Apple (who is trying to ensure all their customers can have GPU-accelerated video decoding and OpenCL) is just a big lump of wasted silicon. Thanks to Intel, Apple's laptops need to add an extra graphics chip to their already-crowded motherboards. That's why none of the 13" machines have gotten an i5 yet: they're too small. In order to put an i5 in a MacBook, Apple would have make a major compromise or get really clever during a complete re-design of the internal layout.
Ars tries to partially attribute Apple's continued use of the Core 2 to a lack of engineering resources due to a focus on the iOS devices, but that sounds absurd given Apple's recent financial numbers. I think it can be entirely explained by the differing and conflicting interests of Apple and Intel. They undoubtedly are watching each other's mobile strategies, but that's not necessary to explain what's happening with the desktops.