MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Feb 05, 10 - 12:40 am Comment from: Connor MacBook

It will also nip counterfeit iPad/iPhone/iPods touch in the bud!

Feb 05, 10 - 12:57 am Comment from: DX

iPhone OS is Apple's chance to start over and slowly displace Macintosh with something more secure, more profitable, and more popular.

Macs will stay Intel-powered, otherwise the PPC->Intel transition would have to happen all over again. And it would eliminate Windows compatibility.

What will happen is Apple will expand and expand iOS products to the point that Macintosh is no longer vital. Jobs said this years ago.

Feb 05, 10 - 12:57 am Comment from: BlackWolf

Hopefully this will inspire Intel to actually dig deep into thier considerablly secret high quality tech files and build those chips that will be used in the Terminators, and the Starship Enterprise.

Cause if they don't, Apple will.

Feb 05, 10 - 01:46 am Comment from: ken1w

Apple differentiated their products using software. The competition could create somewhat comparable hardware, but could not replicate Apple's software (in large part because they became so reliant on Microsoft and then Google). BUT NOW, Apple can differentiated their products with both software and hardware. And it will be much easier for Apple to maintain their lead in mobile devices. Apple's strategic decision-making is simply brilliant.

Intel is just colladeral damage.

This move is about preventing the copycats from following too close, or at least getting an easy time of it.

This goes for Googlesoft, who hid there plans well as they sat as a double agent on the Apple board.

Feb 05, 10 - 02:00 am Comment from: MediaXYZ

@DX

The transition to Intel from PPC chips hasn't been unique in Apple history. In 1995 Apple switched from Motorolla to PPC chips. The use of PPC chips only lasted about 10 years. Apple have now been using Intel processors for about 4 years now.

Feb 05, 10 - 02:10 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

Going back to this iPad-headed-iMac idea... we've been talking about a Mac mini-like-base with possibly a detachable screen, and the possibility that when removed the screen becomes a big iPad with an Apple chip...
But I'm wondering, is there any reason the touchscreen part can't communicate wirelessly and still use that more powerful (and power hunger) desktop chip?
In other words, could you have full computing power anywhere on your LAN? Do you think this is feasible?

Feb 05, 10 - 02:11 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

'power hungry' that is.

Feb 05, 10 - 02:20 am Comment from: Derek Currie

DX sez: "iPhone OS is Apple's chance to start over and slowly displace Macintosh with something more secure, more profitable, and more popular. . . . What will happen is Apple will expand and expand iOS products to the point that Macintosh is no longer vital. Jobs said this years ago."

No no no. You're off in another dimension of space and time.

Computers, as we know them now, will continue to progress onward into the future forever (or until the loonies nuke the planet).

What is happening now, and has been happening for several years, is the emergence of the "Consumer Appliance" in the form of iPods, iPhones and the iPad. The are computer powered, but the computer is deliberately hidden and inaccessible to the user. This sort of computer aided device will be massive and will travel its own course into the future.

To say the Mac will be 'displaced' is ridiculous except in the sense that its market share will undoubtedly decline in favor of the simplistic Consumer Appliance devices that appeal to non-techy-geeky-coding serious computer users.

To say that someday the Mac, which I equate with 'computer', will no longer be vital, is again crazy. You don't comprehend just how SIMPLISTIC the iPad is and the particular market it is aimed for. Power users of ANY kind will NEVER find any Consumer Appliance even remotely adequate for their tasks or interests.

I do hope this noise of confusion regarding the iPad dies down. I am getting extremely tired of having to distinguish the difference between the iPad and a full computer to folks over and over and over and over ad nauseam.
:-Q*********

Feb 05, 10 - 02:24 am Comment from: Killbuck

@ChrissyOne

"But I'm wondering, is there any reason the touchscreen part can't communicate wirelessly and still use that more powerful (and power hunger) desktop chip?"
I've (!) been hoping for this ever since the first hints of the iPad surfaced..
Wireless tablet sucking the juice from the Mac Mini and screen sharing "the Appla way"
just hoping..

Feb 05, 10 - 02:25 am Comment from: Derek Currie

Regarding the A4, it frees Apple from having to use the wimpy Intel Atom chips that are used in wimpy netbooks. It gives Apple some leverage with Intel. It provides competition in the marketplace, which is of course required in order to drive innovation. Apple can also now directly tweak their chips for any hardware based features they want without having to play begging games at Intel's door. Apple's line of Consumer Appliances can be entirely free of any reference to anything PC, anything Intel, anything Microsoft. That's a great future ahead.

Intel's monopoly on CPU technology is what we call a BAD THING. The sooner we have high quality alternatives, (and AMD is NOT much of an alternative as it is still based on Intel PC technology) the sooner we can move on to better-than-Intel CPU chips and better CPU driven devices.

Feb 05, 10 - 02:45 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ Derek Currie

You lack vision. Apple is trying to get the computer out of your way. Any amount of machinery between me and my task is too much machinery.
I don't want to sit next to a big metal box. I want to make photos, websites, and, music and stories.

Computers will progress, alright. They're just going to go in a direction you can't quite fathom yet.

@Derek Curie

Derek is wrong. We've had tons of great CPU alternatives for years.

Also, the "computer" is old hat. We just need to do things. To say we need a "real" computer is like those Linux geeks that say the Mac is too easy to use and that a Linux box is a "real" computer (because if you don't use a command line then you're not really a power user; or if you don't know how to compile your own binaries then you're not really tailoring the computer to the most optimal usage).

Feb 05, 10 - 03:25 am Comment from: Roberto

Remember the Apple "Intel Pentium Snail" commercials

Feb 05, 10 - 03:27 am Comment from: Roberto

..... here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5Xws9TKlQ

Apple will take the chance to develop a whole Cortex A9 chip family specialized for the need of each device. This will give them the hardware advantage they need in the field of strong competition.
For the ipad Apple need as much CPU performance as possible to be competitive with INTEL ATOM devices and 4 times the GPU speed of an iPhone to serve the larger display. 3G is only optional so an integrated basebandchip is not very likely. Power is not such an issue because of the much larger battery.
So for me its very clear, that we never find the A4 in an iphone because Apple has the posibility to do much better.

@ ChrissyOne;

You lack, how's the nice way to put this, any understanding at all of the state of technology.

There is not, nor will there be in the foreseeable future, any way in hell a mobile device is capable of replacing a "big metal box" (8 core + CPU's coupled with dedicated GPU's and a pair of 30" monitors) to perform "real work".

Please don't tell me we'd have 100 mpg gasoline powered family sedans if only for the Big Three's conspiracy, or I'll apply what appeared to be your logic to the state of mechanical engineering!

Feb 05, 10 - 04:23 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ Moo

You must have really boring dreams.

Don't worry. You'll still be able to buy those giant metal boxes for all that Real Work™. The rest of us will be walking around.

@Moo, your comment clearly shows that you miss the point of what ChrissyOne was making. The point is: my 10 year old son, 70 year old grandmother, or computer illiterate best friend could care less about an 8 core, big shiny monster box. The future is about people like THEM, not people like you and me. The world will always have geeks, but the mainstream computing device of tomorrow will not be aimed at them.

Feb 05, 10 - 04:28 am Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ Moo

As you can see, GeeOne has that Vision thing.

Sorry but MDN is very wrong. Intel is a new commer and an underdog in CPU for handhelds. Ipad a4 will make no dent in intel's business.

Comments that a4 is manufactured by intel are ridiculous: intel does not manufacture other's designs.

Likely tsmc or other house is doing it. Which means tha it's at least 2 technology generations behind intel. But again intel is not competing with a4 but rather both a4 and intel are trying to get foot in this field from the big players. 

A4 is nothing special and not danger to anyone ... yet. This is first design and in couple of generations Apple could be a competitor but not now.

A4 is just yet-another-ARM-based-SoC which is most likely single core type (no multi tasking).  It's likely 45nm and done in Asia. 

The significance of a4 is that it's  design is done in- house (tight loop between architecture of SoC and SW). That means that others can't just buy it or copy it soon. This can be huge advantage if ipad sells spiral up.  

If ipad sells, the a4 design team will grow and future chips can be very interesting. ...

What good is this A4 chip if I can't listen to Pandora while surfing the Web at the same time?

Feb 05, 10 - 09:12 am Comment from: rwahrens

@palaver;

The A4 is not meant to be competitive by selling it to all comers. It is meant to be competitive in the sense that Apple will use IT instead of Intel or others' chips. In THAT sense, it IS competitive, since Apple uses huge numbers of these parts, due to consumer demand.

So it does threaten chip makers, by taking Apple out of the chip market and making the chip makers lose Apple as a customer.

It also allows Apple to prevent close competitiveness by rivals by preventing them from being able to use the same chip to duplicate function in rival devices to Apple's product lines.

Kills two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Feb 05, 10 - 09:41 am Comment from: Daner

One thing that excites me about the iPad is that it is a new kind of interface between me and my information and the things that I am trying to accomplish. The built-in capabilities are nice, but it doesn't really matter to me how much computing horsepower it has or whether it can render video edits or host a huge database if it can somehow give me remote access to something that CAN do those things.

Feb 05, 10 - 09:44 am Comment from: DLMeyer

I do like the image of semi-computers taking over on the border of "serious" computers and "non-computers". We'd still use a keyboard and mouse because it's easier, but we COULD just swipe the screen-cum-computer if that worked well for us. And what would this 'tween-box do for us? About anything a console computer does today, or an iPhone, or what the iPad will do next quarter. It can also be linked to a "serious" computer ... "elsewhere" ... and act as the "screen".
One question might be, would this create an expansion of "cloud computing", where processing - as well as storage - becomes a commodity? Taking the more complex processing off the local system would greatly ease the hardware requirements there.

Feb 05, 10 - 10:07 am Comment from: Demon

The A4 is even more important then the CPU and that is it's GPU technology. PA Semi is very good at designing high end low lowered Processors CPUs and GPU units. Apple could very well keep an the Intel architecture for the processor and eliminated the Intel and/or Nvidia Chip set architecture all the way through the Graphics subsystem. This could allow Apple to produce faster more efficient computers while maintaining the Intel based CPU's. Nvidia and ATI/AMD are both currently at a standstill in designing high end video cards that do not require more and more power with larger and larger cooling requirements. Apple could rival and even exceed both Nvidia and ATI's GPU performance while lower energy and cooling requirement on the Mac Systems. Currently Nvidia nor ATI care if Apple as 90% of the $1000+ PC Market or if that segment was controlled by HP or Dell because Apple is still using Nvidia and ATI GPUs. If Apple were to develop it's own GPU's for the Mac it would hurt both Nvidia and ATI. It would be far more strategic for Apple in the long run to develop it's own GPU family then it would to replace the Intel processor. After all Intel Processors are just commodity parts Apple buys in bulk from Intel. Apple does not not do the Intel Inside co-branding stickers so, Apple does not collect any Intel Marketing Money. Apple could switch freely between Intel and AMD for CPU processors at this point with little downside.

The other advantages for Apple moving to it's own in house GPU is that by doing so the Graphic's subsystems would be free of support from Microsoft's DirectX which slows down the performance of Open GL and Open CL. Another is the halt to unauthorized Clone Macs. Can't clone a Mac OS X system if you can't buy a video card that the OS will support properly or if all you can sell are Clones with old and getting Older Video Cards. With Boot Camp Apple would have not problem providing Windows Drivers for it's own Video Card and Chipset just as it does now. So an Apple Video Subsystem on all Mac's makes for a more compelling move for Apple then for Apple to take a leap from Intel to an in house CPU architecture.
I do think Apple is wise to keep all it's hand held products using it's own chip designs and to just keep everyone guessing. I'd move iPhone, iPods, Airports and Apple TV lines all into the in-house CPU camp over the next few years.

Feb 05, 10 - 10:31 am Comment from: lurker

@Moo - Google "Loremo" 150 mpg four seat sedan. Coming soon.

Feb 05, 10 - 10:32 am Comment from: sn

@R2:

iPhone 4G.

@sn

The 3G can do what R2 is whining about... Apple just doesn't allow it.
Pandora can always put a Web browser in its app to allow browsing and listening. But it hasn't.

Feb 05, 10 - 11:01 am Comment from: DeRS

**********************************************
THERE WAS NEVER ANY RELATION between Intel's mobile push and whatever Apple was or was not doing.
**********************************************

Intel sold-ff its ARM business (StrongARM CPU designs) years ago, and iPhone/iPod Tough were never meant to run on anything Intel.

And, of course, for iPad Apple never even considered Atom processor because it has incompatible instruction set (IA32 x86).

Why would Apple want iPad to run iPhoneOS applications via emulator?

That is nonsense, and there was never real Intel Atom variant.

Feb 05, 10 - 11:13 am Comment from: cloudwall

@R2

Don't you have anything else to whine about?

Intel is just collateral damage. The reason that Apple HAS to got this route is due to the companies trying to catch up to the iPhone/iPad. Google got a great opportunity having their double agent on the Apple board for many years, so Apple now has to crank it up.

I see this more about the relationship between Apple and Google, than Apple and Intel. Time will tell.

Feb 05, 10 - 12:15 pm Comment from: maccam

The iPhone taught us that we don't need to have a laptop with us all the time. Some email, some web access, some social network plus a host of new uses from iPhone apps gave internet addicts their fix while the laptop could stay home sometimes. I know I have been weened somewhat from MBP. I think the iPad is the next step in the process. It has a great form factor and weight. With a webcam (please make this a surprise in March) for video Skyping, iWork for some writing in a more comfortable environment and enough memory for work, photos and entertainment, I can really envision travelling with an iPad rather than the laptop under many circumstances. As well as being computers for everyone, the iPad could also mark the beginning of a paradigm shift in the work habits of the profession geek.

Future hardware from Apple inc. might well include A4 or variant chips as a means to nip cloning in the bud. No original chip in the hardware, no capability to install and run any OSX or software from Apple's stable.

Hi! Chrissyone! longtime!! oH and goodbye for now.

Feb 05, 10 - 01:26 pm Comment from: mackle

i believe most people still have not seen the transformation. computers are swiss army knives. laptops are small computers. netbooks are laptops with one testicle removed.

smartphones are swiss army knives as well.

transformations take time, but they have a definitive departure point. the ipad is just a device. it is not a computer. it has a computer in it, but that is very carefully isolated from those who want to use it like the computer they dearly know and love. this is much like your car containing multiple embedded systems. you don't hear many people call their car a computer or embedded system. why does everyone want to call the ipad a computer and compare its functionality to existing computers?

what differentiates the ipad from your tv's remote is this "device" can be user configured. it can be best in class for the things the user wants. that's why the pundiots cannot figure out its functions and call for "killer apps" this is so 1990. its success will be based on how many people can find a positive value proposition to use this device and its software based reconfigurations and fit it in the lifestyle they want.

what is so ironic about mac's and apple is it is a closed architecture so the user has real choice. think about that for a while.

ipad will transform lifestyles as the ipod and iphone have done. it takes a little more intellect to figure out exactly how, because there may not be a pre-existing model to google. most pundiots lack the imagination to do this.

@Derek Currie

You're spot on...

There will always be those who hope/wish/dream that a computing device will do what they wish, without them having to dirty their hands by actually ever touching a keyboard, a mouse, or even a touchscreen etc. They think they can just sit back, muse for a bit, and then their computing device of the future will have the finished product all done up with a nice little bow on top.

It'll never happen of course, but it is a nice little dream....

Feb 05, 10 - 02:45 pm Comment from: KingMel

IMO, Apple has not been satisfied with their mobile CPU options since the G3. In circa-1997 the G3 CPU provided good performance and leading power efficiency. By the time the G5 rolled around, however, the best mobile CPU available to Apple was the previous generation G4, and it no longer offered leading performance relative to mobile versions of Intel CPUs.

At that time Apple made the astute judgment that the Intel development roadmap was far more appealing than the dismal future of PPC, and warranted the costs and risks of the transition. If Apple had not gone with Intel four years ago, I suspect that sales of Macs would have declined substantially by now. Apple did not offer the CPU volume to make continued development of the desktop PPC financially viable. Ironically, however, the G3/PPC750 lives on as a very capable embedded, low-power processor.

Even after the successful transition to Intel, I believe that Apple felt that more was needed in the mobile CPU space in order to achieve desired performance and functionality along with reasonable battery life. As a result, the iPod and iPhone use ARM CPUs and Apple developed the A4 for the iPad to further bridge that gap.

My judgment is that you will not see Apple-designed (or non-Intel sourced) CPUs in Apple Macs and Macbooks until:

(1) Apple no longer needs the Intel trump card to grow Mac sales by providing Windows-compatibility

and/or

(2) Apple develops or sources a CPU that is so much better than existing or near-term Intel alternatives from the standpoint of power/performance that it represents the obvious path forward.

Apple is not afraid to take leaps forward has more flexibility to make major changes than its competitors because it controls both the hardware and software sides of the equation.

@Moo
I think you just dropped a couple.
Has your voice risen a few octaves, squeaky boy?
Instead of worrying about a big bod six-pack 8 core dinosaur, you'd be better off growing a pair yourself.
My Steroid Neoteric fits in my shirt pocket and projects a 5120 x 3200 Quad HD image 2 feet in front of me. All this while I was sitting in the park, listening to iTunes flying a turbo kite and just glancing at the HUD every so often while Avatar was finishing a 2-pass rendering in just half an hour. It cost $599 after trading in my 8 core DoodleFlip Rooftop Mark 2 with triple 30" ACDs. It would have cost less but I had to pay the guy to do a helicopter lift on the 8 core.
btw my SN runs real good on on Olive Oil.
Extra virgin of course.
If you get my meaning.......

Feb 05, 10 - 04:31 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ Rob

You're too in love with your shiny hammers.