Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Mar 2014 21:35 UTC
Apple

AnandTech on Apple's A7 processor:

I suspect Apple has more tricks up its sleeve than that however. Swift and Cyclone were two tocks in a row by Intel's definition, a third in 3 years would be unusual but not impossible (Intel sort of committed to doing the same with Saltwell/Silvermont/Airmont in 2012 - 2014).

Looking at Cyclone makes one thing very clear: the rest of the players in the ultra mobile CPU space didn't aim high enough. I wonder what happens next round.

This is one area where Apple really took everyone by surprise recently. When people talk about Apple losing its taste for disruption, they usually disregard the things they do not understand - such as hardcore processor design.

Thread beginning with comment 585761
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Sad fact of reality
by tylerdurden on Tue 1st Apr 2014 16:50 UTC in reply to "Sad fact of reality"
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

Alpha is perhaps not a very good example, since it got little traction in the marketplace (overall) and its associated development costs are one of the principal issues eventually leading to DEC's demise.

Luckily for Apple they mainly "innovate" with regards to marketing. Which in the end is the dept responsible for bringing home the bacon...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Sad fact of reality
by pica on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 09:21 in reply to "RE: Sad fact of reality"
pica Member since:
2005-07-10

Luckily for Apple they mainly "innovate" with regards to marketing. Which in the end is the dept responsible for bringing home the bacon...


Yes, it was a marketing desaster.

* the VAX arch was EOL
* the Alpha was not ready
* MIPS R3000 was marketed by Digital as VAX successor

Yes, MIPS R3000 was marketed by Digital as VAX successor and less than a year later Digital presented Alpha based systems. That was to much change for it's customers. All trust credit has been burned.

It was not cost, it was not the switch from the most complex CISC to the most risky RISC, it was simply to much change.

pica

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Sad fact of reality
by tylerdurden on Wed 2nd Apr 2014 16:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Sad fact of reality"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Actually it was costs that sank DEC. Right before their acquisition, for each $ of revenue DEC required over 300% overhead than Compaq.

Even after Compaq took over, each generation of Alpha was getting more and more expensive to design and manufacture. While its marketshare never grew fast enough to keep up with the rising production costs.

I don't think many people are acquainted with the economic realities of semiconductor/processor design. The tech sector is a business at the end of the say.

Reply Parent Score: 3