[AppleInsider] Apple may abandon Intel for its Macs starting with post-Broadwell

[III-V]

The website quotes well-regarded Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo who has a very good track record.

The logic of the article is straight-forward. Apple's A-series of SoCs are nearing a stage where they are indeed reaching desktop-class.

They're not, though, so the entire premise of the article is flawed. At best, they're ULV-notebook-class...

Anyway, what do you think of it? I think it sounds very plausible to me. Apple isn't tied into Intel's mess-ups, it can specifically optimise hardware and software like it does on its phones & tablets. It could push battery life even further and so on.

So trading Intel's mess ups for TSMC's or Samsung's is somehow desirable? They're not going to avoid the problem entirely... they're still going to be at the mercy of whatever yield issues come up on a new process. That, or they sit on an old process and watch as PCs using Intel's newest process run circles around them.

Sounds like a terrible idea.

Apple's share of the notebook market is growing fast. This is sure to hurt Intel, even if it's just "choose to buy A-series processor" in the beginning, it could well lead to an all-out abandonment, and why wouldn't it? Apple have proven they are really good at chip design.

They certainly are good, but they have a very long way to go before they'll be able to replace Intel's CPUs with their own.

At most, they could put an ARM SoC in their MacBook Airs... and that's really pushing it, unless they want to regress in performance and redefine that product.

 

[ninaholic37]

Comparing processors misses the point.

Mac is a legacy product. Apple is not going to switch the OS to ARM, even if their processors were way superior to intel's.

of course, Apple could replace MacOS with a future version of iOS that would support mobile and desktop( a la windows 8). In that case, it would use ARM even if Intel was faster. But Apple has made no indication they want to do that.

I thought people bought Macs for the name-brand or because they were considered a premium product. I can't see someone saying: "I'm buying a new Mac because it's a legacy product". Are there really people who think like this?

 

[monstercameron]

I thought people bought Macs for the name-brand or because they were considered a premium product. I can't see someone saying: "I'm buying a new Mac because it's a legacy product". Are there really people who think like this?

maybe for the pro line.

 

[greatnoob]

So basically, Apple is willing to:

1) drop x86 support
2) jeopardise x86 support for hundreds of thousands of apps on Mac OS X, save their own suite of apps (iWork, iLife, Safari etc.)
3) sacrifice iGPU and pure compute power of Intel ULV chips that are now reaching desktop class

all because they:

1) want to save negligible $ p. product sold
2) reduce lead times that aren't even a problem (?????)

I really hope you guys aren't taking this seriously.

 

[imported_ats]

I doubt apple is paying full price for intel's chips. They probably are paying 60% of the list price. But still, jsut by having their own cpu with an integrated NAND controller would net them an easy $4billion a year in profits.

And now add in the cost of a completely new CPU line...

Add in the cost of them having to do their own chipset...

And if you think integrating a NAND controller is going to be a win... The NAND controllers in phone and tablet SOCs are pretty bad all around. Compared to the discrete NAND controllers out there, they are horrible. And they don't support most of the features of the discrete NAND controllers. Nor anywhere near the reliability.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I doubt apple is paying full price for intel's chips. They probably are paying 60% of the list price. But still, jsut by having their own cpu with an integrated NAND controller would net them an easy $4billion a year in profits.

Please justify the $4 billion a year in profit calculation. The calculation in your OP doesn't make sense because you forgot to figure out how much it would cost Apple to design the new Ax chip for the Mac, and then how much it would cost Apple to get those chips packaged and tested. The reason semiconductor companies tend to have high gross profit margins is that R&D costs are very high and need to be paid for.

Also, I seriously doubt Apple is paying more than $150 for any MacBook chip.

 

[imported_ats]

Any pros? What about convergence of ios and osx? Seems like it could be convenient to keep such a love child on a single platform.

Zero benefit unless you think Windows 8 is the be all and end all of OSes. Both iOS and OSX share large portions of the same code base. The primary differences are the UIs and upper level APIs, both of which are optimized for their target markets.

 

[erunion]

I thought people bought Macs for the name-brand or because they were considered a premium product. I can't see someone saying: "I'm buying a new Mac because it's a legacy product". Are there really people who think like this?

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I said nothing about why people buy Macs, I was talking about why Apple still makes Macs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system

The Mac line is still profitable for Apple, and they will continue updating it for a long time(likely). But compared to iOS its a small contributor to revenue, only 16% of revenue!

Mac is not Apples growth driver, so it will not receive radical change. It will continue using x86.
If Apple does want to bring ARM to the desktop they will due it by scaling up iOS, not by making a clean slate Mac OS. iOS is the future for Apple.

Apple moved to x86 only when it was clear that IBMs roadmap had stalled. There was no performance increase coming on the top end, and no chance of ever making an ultra thin laptop. Apple had to either move on or stagnant, the situation now is not similar.

 

[soccerballtux]

Intel's messups? What messups?

They'll come crawling back when TSMC can't provide 16nm.

I just don't buy it.

 

[Nothingness]

The annual revival of this rumor

Yes, it has become so boring. Like the rumor that Apple will very soon switch to Intel for their iPhone/iPad line.

 

[Mondozei]

Just like there was zero reason for them to develop their own mobile chip? I can see it happening. The A8X is extremely powerful on the CPU side given it's power envelope. I'm not sure how hard their chips can be pushed, but given the better cooling capabilities of a laptop vs. tablet, the TDP (and thus performance) can be further increased from where it is now. The biggest hurdle would be the software migration, but if Apple were to go all in on ARM across their entire product stack, then I think developers would quickly adapt.

Best comment here so far. Yes, basically the major problem is ARM.

On the other hand, there's a LOT more apps in the ARM ecosystem, folks seem to forget such a thing called Android - which is the real benchmark to use rather than Windows RT which some misguided folks here have tried to push out as a counter.

And the reality is that MS Office already works on Android. How difficult would it be for them to port it to ARM with a keyboard? Probably not that difficult. But the key difference is this: it really doesn't matter if MS does that or not, because there are already a lot of people providing similar programs in the ARM ecosystem.

With the rise of the 2-in-1 notebooks, it's not even that new to get a program to work both in tablet and in notebook mode.

The stars are lining up for this. The exception would be high-performance tasks, but as you mentioned, the current A8X is highly TDP-constrained and given the extra space in laptops for TDP, the performance can be increased even more, much more.

For most users, an A8X with the TDP of a laptop would be more than sufficient, and that's not even speaking of A9X. Apple could probably increase their margins on their Macbooks by a significant extent.

A cost for a high-end S800 series chip is around $40, but that's with economy of scale. On the other hand, Apple sells so many of their own chips so that they cannot be counted as a niche player in the ARM space by pure volume alone(even if they still are by market share).

Intel's stuff is far more expensive. The financial and technological sense for doing this is overwhelming. As you point out, the major piece of the puzzle will be the software side, but the ARM ecosystem is far more mature and developed in 2015 than it was in 2012, say. And it will be even more so going forward in 2016/2017.

 

[USER8000]

People do realise it could be more that Apple is going to expand the iPad line, with a higher end hybrid model which replaces the MacBook Air laptops??

The MacBook Air line has not seen massive updates over the last few years either(more CPU refreshes) - its almost like Apple are in a holding pattern with it.

Also,people using MacBook Air laptops are probably only doing office work,light image editing and internet browsing on them - a scaled up A series SOC would probably have enough power to do such things IMHO,especially in the 2016 to 2017 timeframe when there would have at least been another revision of the SOC(or maybe two) by then.

They will probably keep their desktops and high end laptops for compatability and performance reasons on X86 for a while IMHO.

 

[witeken]

Yes, it has become so boring. Like the rumor that Apple will very soon switch to Intel for their iPhone/iPad line.

I've never seen such a rumor.

 

[R0H1T]

Ok, I think the important thing is knowing what the two companies think?

It's a noticeable loss to Intel if they lose being a CPU supplier to Apple. But if they don't have the technical competence to do it, and Apple decides to do it, how big of a loss for Apple is it?

The question for Apple is how possibility of practically abandoning "high-end" and Windows-installing Mac base is relevant to them. Do they have alternative apps coming? Maybe they figured out that the base needing that kind of performance is a small portion of their already small(relative to the company) PC group?

If they literally want "ARM Mac OS PCs" and start developing ARM compatible Mac OS high performance suites from there, then absolute performance, especially "x86-emulation" performance isn't important.

Considering the next iteration of Windows is gonna run on x86/ARM with the same kernel in place it's highly plausible, in fact recommended, that Apple is going to move in the same direction & the only real downside I see is legacy application support on OS X. But we all know Apple has the money & time to port most of these critical apps to a new OS, running on ARM, like they've done in the past with their move to Intel.

At this point in time however it just seems to be an unsubstantiated rumor OR Apple's simply trying to get a better deal with Intel.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Considering the next iteration of Windows is gonna run on x86/ARM with the same kernel in place

What Windows would that be, because it isnt Windows 10.

 

[R0H1T]

What Windows would that be, because it isnt Windows 10.

Really, unless I'm missing something it most certainly will ~

Windows 10 will also mark the culmination of a plan by Microsoft to unify the Windows, Windows Phone, and Windows Embedded product families around a common internal core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10

I've got a desktop, and a tablet. How will that work?
Windows 10 isn't just about PCs. The operating system will run on everything from desktops all the way down to smartphones, and the user interface will adjust accordingly.

www.cnet.com/how-to/windows-10-what-you-need-to-know/

What devices will it run on?
All of them. Microsoft demonstrated only the desktop version Tuesday, but Windows 10 will be for tablets, smartphones and embedded products, too.

www.pcworld.com/article/2690092/12-things-to-know-about-windows-10.html

OR did you mean something else :hmm:

 

[ShintaiDK]

I think you confuse what Windows 10 will cover with the kernel. Its just less segmentation with less names. But ARM will still only run ARM and x86 will still only run x86. ARM and x86 doesnt even use the same memory addressing. Windows RT and Windows already share the common core goals that they want to include phone and embedded on.

 

[Nothingness]

I've never seen such a rumor.

Intel inside the iPad? Maybe, if it builds iPhone chips, RBC says
Apple reportedly switching to Intel chips for iPhone/iPad
6 Reasons Why The iPhone Will Soon Have Processors Built By Intel
Intel Can Give Apple The Edge In Mobile

 

[ShintaiDK]

When you want ads revenue to increase, just make yet another unfounded rumour

 

[R0H1T]

I think you confuse what Windows 10 will cover with the kernel. Its just less segmentation with less names. But ARM will still only run ARM and x86 will still only run x86. ARM and x86 doesnt even use the same memory addressing. Windows RT and Windows already share the common core goals.

As things stand today you can run a vast majority of Metro apps on your desktop, though traditional desktop (x86) apps will not run on an ARM based device. You're probably right so far as the kernel goes but metro apps will still run fine on the desktop, just like the case with win8.

Of course there was this speculation that win10 will have a common core (I'm assuming kernel) & while it may have more to do with the UI a common kernel is also within the realms of possibility.

 

[Nothingness]

When you want ads revenue to increase, just make yet another unfounded rumour

Indeed, and also make sure Apple is mentioned :biggrin:

 

[redzo]

I've got a desktop, and a tablet. How will that work?
Windows 10 isn't just about PCs. The operating system will run on everything from desktops all the way down to smartphones, and the user interface will adjust accordingly.

This is so funny. I guess that they are admitting that their attempt in turning the PC into a Smartphone failed big time.

 

[III-V]

This is so funny. I guess that they are admitting that their attempt in turning the PC into a Smartphone failed big time.

Because that was totally what they were trying to do.

 

[Roland00Address]

People saying Apple may abandon Intel in their ipads, or macs has been going on for years.

It is always in the near future this will happen. Always the near future just like people calling for an economic depression always 5 years in the future. A stopped watch does have the right time twice a day so if it does happen they are not some oracle, and if it does not happen they they are plain old fashioned wrong.

 

[Dribble]

They have 2 systems right now, mobile with apple ARM cpu's and iOS, and traditional desktop/laptops with Intel cpu's and OS X. The mobile market is the growing one - it's iOS that has all the attention, and apps developed for it, and it's mobile that makes the big sales. Equally the future of the computing world, particularly for an apple style customer is mobile only - no PC in the house.

Hence they will focus on that and move it upward replacing the macbook air with an iOS/ARM package. I suspect the macbook and workstations will still use OS X but be a very niche market. Hence I think article is partly right in that the vast majority of Apples sales won't require an intel cpu, but wrong in that there still we be at least for the next few years some heavyweight machines powered by intel.