OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19672/Apple_Buys_Chip_Designer Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:23:27 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com no hardware lock-in http://osnews.com/thread?310983 http://osnews.com/thread?310983 Sounds good. Apple does not want a hardware lock-in for it's software. And being CPU agnostic means that the software must be flexible, modular and maintainable, which are signs of good software quality. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evert) Comments Places the chips will be used http://osnews.com/thread?310984 http://osnews.com/thread?310984 1 - iPod touch
2 - iPhone
3 - tablet/PDA (i.e. future handhelds)
4 - AppleTV
5 - AppleTV serverEdited 2008-04-23 12:26 UTC Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thomas2005) Comments Interesting... http://osnews.com/thread?310985 http://osnews.com/thread?310985 So...if I can hypothesise for a moment:

Apple continue to develop the PPC version of OSX alongside the x86 version.

They then buy a low-power and very efficient PPC chip for use in mobile devices which can run a 'real' version of OSX (as opposed to whatever it is that's really running in the current iPhone).

OSX based tablets, iTV, iPhones and iPods...all relying on an in-house chip that no-one else has access to...hmm. 'Unsigned' third-party apps might have a tougher opponent in the future. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (wakeupneo) Comments RE: Interesting... http://osnews.com/thread?310987 http://osnews.com/thread?310987 all hardware made by apple, all software via itms, it would not surprise me at all. "the whole widget" indeed. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hobgoblin) Comments what for? http://osnews.com/thread?310988 http://osnews.com/thread?310988 the only processor the company if offering right now falls somewhere between the intel atom and intel core 2. it might be an alternative to x86-processors for laptops, settop-boxes, tablets etc. - but it can't compete with the arm-processors in iphone & ipod on the low end or the intels core 2 processors on the high end.

maybe it's just for patents, man-power, some undisclosed project which where started after the negotation for an successor for ibm's g5 failed. at least i don't see what they can offer apple right now. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments RE: Interesting... http://osnews.com/thread?310990 http://osnews.com/thread?310990 the osx running on iphone & ipod touch is the real osx. and as i just wrote, p.a. semi doesn't offer anything comparable to arm-processors.

but their processor might be a nice choice for blades. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments April Fools. http://osnews.com/thread?310991 http://osnews.com/thread?310991 Shit I am late!


:) Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (John Blink) Comments ...? http://osnews.com/thread?310992 http://osnews.com/thread?310992 this doesnt make any sense, i am waiting for more conformation as to the validity of this. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack) Comments ACK Controls http://osnews.com/thread?310993 http://osnews.com/thread?310993 You know what would be funny (although not really funny ha-ha)? If the only reason the ACK controls thing is vapourware is if P.A. Semi strated blowing them off halfway through the deal stages because they knew that they were going to be bought. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (monocasa) Comments RE: Places the chips will be used http://osnews.com/thread?310994 http://osnews.com/thread?310994 My guess is that the iPhone and iPod lines will stay ARM for the forseable future, and this chip will instead be heading to territories that Intel's (lower end mostly)Atom and VIA's proccessors are starting to target, the mini tablet/MID/overgrown PDA/what ever you want to call it market, that Apple will probably be entering soon. I could also see it in the Apple TV where Intel doesn't really hurt or help.

Right now PA Semi's stuff doesn't look phone level yet, and I don't see any reason for Apple to ditch Intel in the higher segments. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bsharitt) Comments RE: no hardware lock-in http://osnews.com/thread?310996 http://osnews.com/thread?310996 Yeah. I could see why a company that makes a living off of locking users wouldn't want to lock themselves in. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments PPC to x86 to PPC http://osnews.com/thread?311000 http://osnews.com/thread?311000 Isn't the PPC version of Leopard crippled? I remember reading that somewhere and a bunch of PPC users being pissed.
Now they buy this company? Does that mean Apple is gonna play catchup? Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments my guess http://osnews.com/thread?311001 http://osnews.com/thread?311001 just a guess, but I would say apples after there technology. and as apple works with intel for custimized chips, they will use more and more of there tech. and will most likey use they on there intel custom chips. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nex6) Comments RE: no hardware lock-in http://osnews.com/thread?311002 http://osnews.com/thread?311002
Sounds good. Apple does not want a hardware lock-in for it's software. And being CPU agnostic means that the software must be flexible, modular and maintainable, which are signs of good software quality.

I guess we'll find out how serious they are about leveraging LLVM to do their porting work for them. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SamuraiCrow) Comments Comment by biffuz http://osnews.com/thread?311003 http://osnews.com/thread?311003 This is interesting. Apple is not going back from Intel to PPC for the Macs - too many people buy them because they can run Windows when needed - but they can use them for iPhones and iPods: ARM processor aren't quite good compared to the PPC, they are used for their little power requirements. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (biffuz) Comments raycer http://osnews.com/thread?311008 http://osnews.com/thread?311008 apple bought the graphics chip startup raycer back in 1999 and never used any of their original products but used the people to work on other stuff. a patent usefull for open gl was the main reason. might be similiar this time. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments Perhaps they snapped up a bargain http://osnews.com/thread?311011 http://osnews.com/thread?311011 This is the company that came up with the chip that Apple allegedly wanted all along for their laptops. They might have been worth a fortune if Apple had not switched completely to Intel.
So now Apple buy them.
Perhaps they are just bargain hunting. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (alban) Comments RE: PPC to x86 to PPC http://osnews.com/thread?311052 http://osnews.com/thread?311052
Isn't the PPC version of Leopard crippled? I remember reading that somewhere and a bunch of PPC users being pissed.
Now they buy this company? Does that mean Apple is gonna play catchup?


It doesn't work well on my PowerPC-based machine but it's hardly crippled. Apple have already made their application software incompatible with PowerPC-based machines, so they're not thinking of computers, per se.

They point is that the company is designing processors. They've got some good ideas and certainly made some progress in efficiency in what was already an efficient design.

If Apple can use them to design their own portable device processors, they won't be stuck with Intel, Broadcom, or Samsung or any other company supplying the general market. That said, they shouldn't be stupid enough to make things proprietary and work themselves out of flexibility. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bousozoku) Comments RE: PPC to x86 to PPC http://osnews.com/thread?311059 http://osnews.com/thread?311059 *sigh*

the whole "i heard somewhere" meme is just an excuse to say the darnest things it seems.

LOL Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (javiercero1) Comments RE: what for? http://osnews.com/thread?311069 http://osnews.com/thread?311069 "it might be an alternative to x86-processors for laptops, settop-boxes, tablets etc."

And in my opinion... BINGO!
What with the recent landrush to Eeepc type mini-laptops, I can see the apple version being released soon. This sounds like just the processor to run them. Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Captain_DaFt) Comments I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311075 http://osnews.com/thread?311075 Apple will use ARM/MacOS X (ARM version) in all theirs iPhone/iPod lineup. The two main reasons here are:
1. ARM chips are less power hungry than PowerPC based chips.
2. Apple used a lot of resources to create ARM version of MacOS. I doubt that they will simply leave it. It hasn't been made JUST FOR FUN (Jobs aren't Linus hehe).
Desktop and high-end solutions will be using Intel. IMO It's the best way to go for Apple right now. Adobe/Microsoft thinking about x86 as the future of MacOS X (pure speculation), and Apple cant neglect theirs 3rd party developers.
The only field for PowerPC is Time Capsule like devices, Apple TV and some mix of eeePC and Macbook Air with highly customized version of MacOS X (like multitouch-based or something like this).
Apple will reach the limit with iPods market and acquiring P.A. Semi is a way to secure the future. Think different (sorry, couldn't hold it).Edited 2008-04-23 21:39 UTC Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (major86) Comments RE: my guess http://osnews.com/thread?311104 http://osnews.com/thread?311104 I run leopard on G4, G5, and Intel Xeon. All work the same. With an obvious speed boost on the newer architecture.

Installation on some of the old machines had to be done via another computer though (probably due to old CD-Rom drives) Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (siraf72) Comments RE[2]: what for? http://osnews.com/thread?311112 http://osnews.com/thread?311112 IMO there's not enough profit margin for Apple to enter the low budget laptop arena. They've built their current dynasty on forcing the consumer to believe that because Apples wares are overpriced, it's of the highest quality. Mod it down if you like, but that fact will still remain.

An eeepc-ish Macbook Lite would be dirtying the knees of the company's financial goals, and would provide nothing beneficial in return. There's nothing "commodity" in Apple's entire product line, except all the parts inside their pretty little packaging. Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments RE: I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311113 http://osnews.com/thread?311113
Apple will use ARM/MacOS X (ARM version) in all theirs iPhone/iPod lineup. The two main reasons here are:
1. ARM chips are less power hungry than PowerPC based chips.
2. Apple used a lot of resources to create ARM version of MacOS. I doubt that they will simply leave it. It hasn't been made JUST FOR FUN (Jobs aren't Linus hehe).
Desktop and high-end solutions will be using Intel. IMO It's the best way to go for Apple right now. Adobe/Microsoft thinking about x86 as the future of MacOS X (pure speculation), and Apple cant neglect theirs 3rd party developers.
The only field for PowerPC is Time Capsule like devices, Apple TV and some mix of eeePC and Macbook Air with highly customized version of MacOS X (like multitouch-based or something like this).
Apple will reach the limit with iPods market and acquiring P.A. Semi is a way to secure the future. Think different (sorry, couldn't hold it).


I think your supposition of using ARM for the IPod and IPhone line is off. Apple has already pulled Objective C support from GCC in favor of LLVM. The ARM backend of LLVM is notably lacking compared to its PowerPC and Intel counterparts and, in particular, lacks JIT support needed for shader emulation and optimization on systems with underpowered graphics chips.

It's possible they might just spawn a new instruction set architecture based on LLVM's intermediate code but... Why bother when you have optimizing compiler software for the two biggest instruction sets already? Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SamuraiCrow) Comments ..another idea http://osnews.com/thread?311136 http://osnews.com/thread?311136 I don't know that there's much (any?) demand for it, but a PPC add-in card to get non-emulated performance in ppc compiled apps could also be a (remote) possibility.
Are there many (any?) major third party apps that are yet to become universal? or maybe even migrate from classic? Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lion) Comments RE[2]: I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311144 http://osnews.com/thread?311144
Apple has already pulled Objective C support from GCC in favor of LLVM.


Uh... what? Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments is for iPhone/iPod http://osnews.com/thread?311149 http://osnews.com/thread?311149 I think that apple want convert ( Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (gelosilente) Comments RE[2]: I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311164 http://osnews.com/thread?311164
I think your supposition of using ARM for the IPod and IPhone line is off. Apple has already pulled Objective C support from GCC in favor of LLVM.


no, they haven't. llvm is using gcc as frontend and apples alternative frontend clang is still in early development.

The ARM backend of LLVM is notably lacking compared to its PowerPC and Intel counterparts and, in particular, lacks JIT support needed for shader emulation and optimization on systems with underpowered graphics chips.


i don't think most arm-chips would be of much use as shaders anyway.

It's possible they might just spawn a new instruction set architecture based on LLVM's intermediate code but... Why bother when you have optimizing compiler software for the two biggest instruction sets already?


maybe because arm is by far the best plattform for ipod & iphone? can you name even one cell phone using ppc or even x86 processors?

apple did contribute half of the arm-backend for llvm: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-January/007813.html Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments Disaster http://osnews.com/thread?311202 http://osnews.com/thread?311202 Quote : "Although Apple plans to continue supporting P.A. Semi's current customers, insiders suggest that Jobs plans to use future P.A. Semi chips exclusively within Apple products."

Disaster.

a new PPC manufacturer was welcome, in addition to Freescale + IBM + AMCC.

I hope they won't keep PA Semi designs for themselves. Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Treza) Comments RE[3]: I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311239 http://osnews.com/thread?311239 The point I was trying to make about LLVM being favored over GCC is that GCC 4.3 didn't include Objective C in its distribution. Sure they use GCC as a frontend for some languages since Clang only supports the C-Like ones.

As far as the ARM backend being halfway supplied by Apple, LLVM itself is run primarily by Apple employees at this point. Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SamuraiCrow) Comments RE[4]: I see it like this: http://osnews.com/thread?311285 http://osnews.com/thread?311285
The point I was trying to make about LLVM being favored over GCC is that GCC 4.3 didn't include Objective C in its distribution.


and what is this?
sid (unstable) (devel): The GNU Objective-C compiler
4:4.3.0-5: arm hppa ia64 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 m68k mips mipsel powerpc sparc

http://packages.debian.org/gobjc


Sure they use GCC as a frontend for some languages since Clang only supports the C-Like ones.


apple still uses gcc for all languages. clang simply isn't ready for production use:

.. there is no real C++ support yet (this is obviously a big project), and C/ObjC support is still missing some features. .. We expect C to be in good shape by mid to late 2008.

http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html


btw - jobs commented on the purchase: http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/04/24/jobs-still-hearts-intel/ Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (puenktchen) Comments Apple is a hardware company http://osnews.com/thread?311301 http://osnews.com/thread?311301 The thing to remember is that Apple thinks it's a hardware company. Software only exists to make the hardware more beautiful, to them. Paying other hardware companies to manufacture components not only cuts Apple out of part of the revenue stream, but also puts them at the mercy of other peoples' production schedules. As a hardware company it makes perfect sense to internalize more of the production process.

I definitely see Apple using this chip in all of their mobile products, perhaps including some (or all) laptops.

The interesting thing to me is that Apple has not switched to x86, in their own minds. Instead what they've done is made the architecture irrelevant. With fat binaries once again becoming standard Apple is trying to abstract away the underlying hardware. You're a user. Do you know what arch your system is? To you it's Mac OS, whether it's Intel or PPC. By forcing developers to account for both Apple gains flexibility. I can only approve. Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sorpigal) Comments