Why doesn't Apple use Intel cpu's for mobile?

[billstesting]

Ok I have to much time on my hands this week and this question has been with me for
years but I have never seen it explained and I am not a tech head. Hopefully someone
can give a answer.

When Apple began using Intel cpu's and Bootcamp was available to run both Mac and Windows
systems their sales base exploded. With todays SSD's and memory becoming cheaper by the
second why doesn't Apple offer the option with the iPad? Yes I know that Intel chips use more
power but it it really that much different? From my viewpoint having the option to run bootcamp
would increase their sales base again. What am I missing?

Thank you,
Bill

 

[Eug]

1) Apple has its own chips which are at the top of the performance charts for its class.
2) Apple builds the chip (through TSMC) so Apple doesn't have to pay Intel's profit margin.
3) Apple builds the chip to its own specifications, so it can incorporate features it wants, and not waste chip real estate on features it doesn't want.
4) Apple builds the chip when it wants to, so it's not dependent upon Intel's roadmap.
5) Apple gets to differentiate itself from the competition.
6) Who wants to run Windows on an iPad? My guess is the number is a heluvalot smaller than you might think. In fact, just about nobody I know has said they'd buy an iPad if only it could run Windows. Hell, not that many people buy even Macs to run Windows. It wasn't Windows compatibility that made Intel Macs popular. It was the fact that Intel Macs were just so much faster than the Power PC Macs. Plus at the time, OS X was shiny and new, and competed against first Windows XP which was getting old, and then against Windows Vista, which was a major abomination. Windows Vista sucked donkeys' balls.
7) Yes, Intel chips often do use more power. That is actually quite a big disadvantage for such small mobile devices.

IOW, I see exactly ZERO benefit to using Intel CPUs in iPads and iPhones. In fact, Intel already dropped its smartphone and tablet SoC business. Completely. They just could not compete against ARM, of which Apple is a manufacturer. So they're not even competing in the market anymore. Broadly Atom still exists, but not for phones and tablets. Intel is banking on Core M to win people over, but these are not a good fit for iPads and definitely not a good fit for iPhones.

 

[stayawayfromthey]

1) Apple has its own chips which are at the top of the performance charts for its class.
2) Apple builds the chip (through TSMC) so Apple doesn't have to pay Intel's profit margin.
3) Apple builds the chip to its own specifications, so it can incorporate features it wants, and not waste chip real estate on features it doesn't want.
4) Apple builds the chip when it wants to, so it's not dependent upon Intel's roadmap.
5) Apple gets to differentiate itself from the competition.
6) Who wants to run Windows on an iPad? My guess is the number is a heluvalot smaller than you might think. In fact, just about nobody I know has said they'd buy an iPad if only it could run Windows. Hell, not that many people buy even Macs to run Windows. It wasn't Windows compatibility that made Intel Macs popular. It was the fact that Intel Macs were just so much faster than the Power PC Macs. Plus at the time, OS X was shiny and new, and competed against first Windows XP which was getting old, and then against Windows Vista, which was a major abomination. Windows Vista sucked donkeys' balls.
7) Yes, Intel chips often do use more power. That is actually quite a big disadvantage for such small mobile devices.

IOW, I see exactly ZERO benefit to using Intel CPUs in iPads and iPhones. In fact, Intel already dropped its smartphone and tablet SoC business. Completely. They just could not compete against ARM, of which Apple is a manufacturer. So they're not even competing in the market anymore. Broadly Atom still exists, but not for phones and tablets. Intel is banking on Core M to win people over, but these are not a good fit for iPads and definitely not a good fit for iPhones.

Yep, pretty much everything here. Not to mention iOS isn't built to run on x86, and forcing iOS app developers to start compiling apps and testing them for x86 is another big hassle that Apple wouldn't want to do unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Eug]

Yep, pretty much everything here. Not to mention iOS isn't built to run on x86, and forcing iOS app developers to start compiling apps and testing them for x86 is another big hassle that Apple wouldn't want to do unless absolutely necessary.

I would be surprised if Apple does not already have a build internally of iOS that runs on x86.

Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but when Steve Jobs developed OS X, he actually made it mandatory for the OS kernel and native Cocoa apps to be able to be compiled and run on Intel hardware, even though all the Macs were PowerPC. In retrospect this makes sense, since after NeXT's hardware division died, the OS was actually running on Intel hardware. Steve Jobs himself actually used an IBM ThinkPad. NeXT is what eventually became OS X.

I would hope and expect that Apple has maintained the same approach with iOS, and furthermore iOS doesn't have to deal with all the legacy stuff that OS X had to deal with.