MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Same speculation. Different speculator. Move along, nothing to see hear.

Apr 23, 08 - 03:13 pm Comment from: Ampar

I had read somewhere that a UK semiconductor factory was working on a radical new design for an integrated circuit that is powered by the energy from breaking down acetic acid on an atomic level.

They're called fission chips.

OS X is "UNIVERSAL" just like all new apps written for Mac, So it won't be a problem for apple to sell products bases on Intel or PowerPC processors. You can chose to have the latest Mac with Intel Processor or the Latest Mac with PowerPC processor, that is the power of choice.

@ Ampar,

I heard that the integrated circuit powered by the acetic acid is made from sodium chloride (NaCl).

Fission chips!

No doubt they'll 'batter' the opposition.

"Tony Fadell, head of Apple’s iPod division spearheaded the acquisition, which is a pretty strong indicator of where the chip is likely to be used: In future iPods and iPhones, and future products in that family."


Is it me, or is the barrier to entry in the analyst game pretty low?

"You can chose to have the latest Mac with Intel Processor or the Latest Mac with PowerPC processor, that is the power of choice."

I don't think you'll see these in Macs. Maybe--BIG maybe--you'd see them in a Eee PC-like MacBook, but that's about it.

Why? Speed.

Look, I have no doubts that the PA Semi stuff is fast and energy-miserly. But I really doubt it's as fast as, say, a 2.1GHz Dual-Core MacBook. But MacBooks have bigger batteries and don't have to be as energy-miserly as, say, an iPhone.

For example, suppose the PA Semi chip might be as fast as, say, a 1GHz G4 but use 1/10th of the energy. That would be pretty cool in a cellphone. But I don't think I want to go back to using a 1GHz G4 in laptop, even if I end up with 12 hours of battery life.

Say it with me: Universal Binary

The switch to Intel was obviously the right thing to do at the time, but maintaining the possibility of utilizing Power or Intel CPU architectures with a very short notice is too much of a competitive advantage to let disappear.

For a company with 20 billion in the bank this is a small price to pay to be able to nurture and control that particular segment of the Power architecture family.

Apr 23, 08 - 04:57 pm Comment from: Ampar

"No doubt they'll 'batter' the opposition."

As a matter of scale, that's probably the net result.

@Ampar...

The smile on my face grew slowly as I got the fission chips joke.

Thanks!

I have a more cynical explanation:

Intel wanted to kill off PA Semi because it was a threat to its microprocessor monopoly (or near monopoly. whatever). Due to antitrust concerns, it couldn't do that directly, so it gave Apple a cut in its Flash prices and/or x86 prices for the next year, in exchange for buying and killing this company.

Put some of these in the mac mini and give it a power boost, god knows it needs one

Apr 23, 08 - 06:33 pm Comment from: Olmecmystic

"What will Apple do with its own in-house embedded processors?"

Answer: "Surprise us." It must have been rankling Steve Jobs ever since the Intel deal that rumor sites like MDN, etc., can much more easily suss out what's coming out and when than they could previously. All they have to do is look at Intel's roadmap and start conjecturing from there.

By doing this, Apple is taking back some of the surprise element that they've lost the last couple of years, which tells me (hint: some conjecture follows) that they've got some products of the hand-held variety that they absolutely don't want anybody to know about prior to announcement.

Could be good!

Peace.
Olmecmystic

Apr 23, 08 - 06:42 pm Comment from: Ampar

theloniousMac:

Apr 23, 08 - 08:12 pm Comment from: neomonkey

But I don't think I want to go back to using a 1GHz G4 in laptop, even if I end up with 12 hours of battery life.

Hey, watch it there Peter, you're talking about my Powerbook, except for the 12 hours thing. Happily running Tiger and Leopard...

As usual, Steve's way ahead of us. The Intel switch was to entice switchers (Macs run Windows too!) and have faster laptops, but since all the software's Universal now, why not have PPC devices and even computers, if PA Semi's chip designs are better targeted and more efficient than Intel's. Who will make them, though, if PA Semi is just a designer?

Apr 23, 08 - 08:19 pm Comment from: Ampar

Dammit, neomonkey. Why did you have to start people thinking? BTW, you are WAY off. Namaste,

</i>But I don't think I want to go back to using a 1GHz G4 in laptop, even if I end up with 12 hours of battery life.

Weren't the early G4 processors as powerful as a P4 1Ghz? They were released back in '99 & 2000. PowerPC has always been more powerful than x86 counterparts. My guess would be a reintroduction of the PowerMac line. This could also be a nice solution to the recent threats of clones (that sounds so 21st century!) from the likes of Psystar.

This is the very reason I always thought Adobe shot itself in the foot by not going universal. There's nothing that prevents Apple from going to the Power architecture if it's better than Intel.

Probably won't though because of the switcher effect Intel has helped.

Apr 23, 08 - 09:07 pm Comment from: ken1w

> Probably won't though because of the switcher effect Intel has helped.

That's totally irrelevant for iPhones and iPods. No one cares what chips power the current models, so no one will care what goes in future versions. They just have to be amazing and push the performance vs power consumption envelope. If PA Semi really has better chips, Apple having exclusive access will certainly be an advantage. More likely, this is just a ploy to "motivate" Intel to produce the chips that Apple desires, and give Apple an "exclusive" during the initial run.

"PowerPC has always been more powerful than x86 counterparts"

I think that changed when Apple went over to Intel. Wasn't there all those stories about Intel Macs being x4 faster than PowerPC Macs?

For competitive reasons they want to control the whole widget, particularly the small ones still in the design stage. That's confidence for ya!

Steve Jobs spoke about the PA acquisition in the WSJ:

"Mr. Jobs said the acquisition of P.A. had "everything to do with their talent and, in some cases, their technology" and that Apple intends to use the company's expertise in its portable electronics products. "To get the silicon we need to be able to run the sophisticated software we want to run on iPhones and iPods, you can't just go out and buy the chips off the shelf to do that," he said."

Hmmm....so those people who said the PA Semi chips are too powerhungry for iPhones and iPods, Steve just contradicted you. Apparently, they've been working on stuff that hasn't been written about publicly. Also, I imagine that we'll see iPhone tablets that are larger and have more power and a larger battery, making the PA Semis more viable.

Question. No matter how good PA semi's chips are they are not x86. Surely in order to put them in ipods and iphones Apple will have keep the universal binary around for many years longer than projected. I thought UB was a temporary solution until PowerPC chips could be gracefully retired and the whole product line could go x86? What on earth is Apple up to? It seems an expensive solution to keep intel honest doesn''t it?

Apr 24, 08 - 05:00 am Comment from: Airwave

I'm sure Apple is satisfied with making computers with Intel processors. Why throw that edge away again, and sink back into to 90s PowerPC era ?
Consider what else is PowerPC based today ! Ooh, just of the top of my head, Xbox360, PlayStation3, Nintendo Wee.

I think Roughly Drafted has an interesting take on this:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/24/why-did-apple-buy-pa-semi/

Mostly about having a *team* of super talented engineers to produce custom silicon for product differentiation. Hardware acceleration and such on the Mac, and custom silicon where needed in iPods/iPhones. Also to keep the cloners at bay, since they won't be able to get the chips off the shelf.

No way in hell are Macs going back to PPC.