interesting indeed.... -- Homer: I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman. ---
Apple is looking around for a new company to manufacture its smartphone processors.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET)RBC Capital Markets has a new twist to the frequent Apple-Intel relationship rumors, and this time, it could actually be good news for Intel.
According to RBC analyst Doug Freedman, Apple may be contemplating a new relationship where Intel would build Apple's self-designed ARM-based smartphone chips in exchange for Apple using Intel's X86 processors in certain new devices, like the next-generation iPad.
While it may seem illogical for Apple to use different processors in its mobile devices, that could be one way for it to secure enough capacity and use chips on the leading edge of technology. After all, it already uses Intel processors in its Macs. It also would help the electronics giant reduce reliance on its previously close partner -- Samsung.
"We believe Intel has the upper-hand due to the limitations of capacity at alternative sources ... as the demand is outstripping Apple's ability to add supply," Freedman said.
An industry source told CNET that Apple and Intel have been in talks on and off for the past two years about a foundry relationship. But for Intel to manufacture ARM-based chips, it would need a pretty big incentive, the person said. Having its processors used in the iPad could be just enough to make a foundry deal happen.
Spokesmen from Apple and Intel declined to comment.
Demand for Apple's smartphones and tablets has been rising so fast that it has been hard for production to keep up. Intel, meanwhile, ships most of its chips for use in PCs, a market that's expected to flounder. That means it could have enough space in its factories to make some of Apple's chips.
In addition, it's no secret that Apple has been trying to find a new partner to build its processors. Samsung has long been the company tasked with manufacturing Apple's smartphone and iPad chips, but the relationship between the two companies has frayed significantly in recent months. They've been suing each other like crazy. At issue is control of the booming smartphone and tablet markets, areas that are vital for continued growth at electronics makers.
Apple, which also previously relied on Samsung to supply many other components for its products, has been reducing its reliance on the company in other areas, as well. The Cupertino, Calif., company has been sourcing displays from companies like Sharp and LG, as one example.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., a contract chip manufacturer (all it does is manufacture chips for other companies), has been viewed as the leading contender for Apple's chip business. However, it has other clients with pretty big demands of their own, and some of those companies, like Nvidia, complained earlier this year about not receiving enough supply from TSMC.
Intel, meanwhile, has dipped it toes into the foundry business, building chips for a few small semiconductor makers. While it has said it has no plans to become a full-blown foundry, it would consider bigger, strategic relationships. Such a deal with Apple could be one of those.
Intel has long boasted that its manufacturing capability, a couple of generations ahead of the foundries, is one of its biggest advantages.
Apple, meanwhile, has invested heavily in developing its own chip designs based on the non-Intel, ARM architecture to power its mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad. There was speculation earlier this month that Apple was considering using its own chips in its computers, rather than using processors from Intel in devices like the MacBook Air.
Updated at 2:25 p.m. PT with Intel declining to comment.
Don't Miss
-
-
The crazy truth: Google+ can thrive alongside FacebookInternet & Media
-
-
36 comments
Join the conversation! Add your commentJoin the conversation
Log in or create an account to post a comment, or quickly sign in with:
Featured Posts
-
-
The crazy truth: Google+ can thrive alongside FacebookInternet & Media
-
-
Microsoft to IE haters: You're sadTechnically Incorrect
-
Most Popular
- Xbox 720 to debut by 2013 holiday season, report says
1kFacebook Likes
- 7 features Apple killed off in iTunes 11
692Tweets
- The crazy truth: Google+ can thrive alongside Facebook
251Google Plus Shares
- 223 commentsSurface Pro price tag: $899
223Comments
Connect With CNET
CNET 100
Guess CNET's top picks in tech for your chance at winning* $5,000.
*No purchase necessary. See rules for details.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
A previous rumor - that Apple might move its laptops to its own ARM chip are more likely. At this point, there are far fewer apps (or developers) for Mac OS X than there are for iOS. The task of converting those Mac apps to ARM is, therefore, a smaller one.
So I think Intel will either do the manufacturing for Apple in exchange for a healthy profit or Apple will go with one of the other foundries - perhaps even buying one of them.
I would put money on it, I think it's a safe bet that Apple has iOS functioning on something other than ARM.
Sure, iOS can be ported easy enough. But what about the apps? Games, especially, are difficult to port or emulate across different architectures. I would expect there to be significant compatibility issues and fragmentation.
Hooked on phonics worked for me!
"...Apple may be contemplating a new relationship where Intel would build Apple's self-designed ARM-based smartphone chips in exchange for Apple using Intel's X86 processors in certain new devices, like the next-generation iPad."
The reason I say this is that I don't see Apple trying to rewrite iOS for a new architecture. The potential crossover pains would be tremendous. If you think Apple's switch to Intel was bad originally, imagine how bad it would be with the user base that Apple has now! It's the same reason I don't see them switching to their own chips. You've got to take the chip's interaction with software into account. Changing processor hardware isn't as easy as swapping them out on the board.
Intel will just dragged Apple chips around and will design other faster x86 chips and will have Apple at their mercy. Apple is just a big "Apple" for Intel, once it finishes chewing it, there will not be much left. Intel did a lot of damage to NVIDIA, AMD, etc. It paid billions of dollars in restitution to those companies, but it left them weak from all the unethical practices that Intel uses to kill it's competition.
I don't want Apple to go the HP, SGI, Oracle, or AMD ways. One of Apple's worst success enemies is Intel, which is creating chips to beat and compete with all of Apple current products. Why does Apple do business with Intel? I guess only Tim Cook knows because few people will pay to a company for their own demise.
After the problems it had with the PowerPC chip line towards the end (Motorola dropped out, and IBM couldn't make the chip more energy efficient and keep up with production demands) I doubt Apple would let anyone, even Intel take on the design of the chips.
Another notion might be Apple letting Intel crib from its ARM designs, since Intel is trying to get more into mobile, and failing.
"...Intel is trying to get more into mobile, and failing."
I'll re-post my comment from above since you skimmed right over it and then posted your "information". I even included a link for the doubting Thomas side of you.
Being an Intel employee I know why Apple is getting more and more interested in Intel for their mobile products. Intel's new mobile chips are advancing faster than expected. They will be under 3 watts next year, and tests are showing better battery life and comparable processing power (especially in web browsing and video playback) to most ARM chips, and that's with Intel's single core chips against dual core ARM chips (http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/04/motorola-razr-i-review/).
The reason we don't hear much about Intel mobile chips is because Intel has been using the Indian, European, Chinese, and South American markets to essentially get all the wrinkles out with their single core mobile chips. In 2013 we will see the first American "Intel Inside" phone sporting the new dual core LTE version chip.
I don't see how people can think that Apple would move any of its iOS to Intel. They just spent over a billion dollars acquiring the talent/IP to design/produce their own custom CPU! Presumably, their customizations make an overall device - e.g. iPhone or iPad have better performance/efficiency characteristics than its competitors. You guys seriously expect them to throw away that work and go back to a "generic" solution by hopping on the Intel chip wagon? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. You'd first have to show me some very compelling evidence - like a performance comparison chart between A6 and whatever Intel is doing - before I believe your assertions.
Oops...I meant my post below. My mistake. Anyway, I cannot provide you a link or any specific information on Intel's new mobile chip designs because that is very IP information and I would be immediately fired. The link I did provide at least shows that Intel is more than making headway with it's mobile chips designs. When a first attempt single-core design can match witts with a dual-core ARM chip, things are looking good. Also, consider Intel's chip and technology development speed. ARM may have a head start, but Intel climbs the chip technology ladder much faster than any else, by a long shot. Just ask AMD. Not only that, but the number one phone manufacturer on board the "Intel Inside" mobile train is Motorola, who is owned by the creator of Android, Google.
As far as Apple's plans are concerned, I'm not high enough up the chain to be able to give any reliable information. However, I do know that they like what they are seeing, and with the recent slow merging of iOS and OSX features it would not be far fetched to see Apple wanting more compatibility between iPads and Macs.
Intel inside the Surface Pro?
It's happening:
* Cooling fan (Some things never change)
* 2-plus pounds (Welcome to the world of Wintel)
* Costs as much as a Macbook Air (With half the functionality and a quarter of the storage)
* The Most Expensive Keyboard Cover on Earth is Extra (Really?)
* Half the Battery Life of the Surface RT (Translation...the usual Wintel 2-hours)
Microsoft and Intel together are like Lindsay Lohan and Whiskey...the end result is nothing short of criminal but it's sure to make headlines.
:0 ]
1. The MBA has a cooling fan. Obviously, the MBA is better than the Surface for having the same thing because fruit logos are magical like that.
2. It's about as heavy as the original iPad, and it's STILL lighter than the MBA.
3. Half the functionality? A quarter the storage? IT HAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF STORAGE AND MORE FUNCTIONALITY BECAUSE IT WINDOWS.
4. You've already got a touch-screen and a digitizer. If you really don't like the keyboard, use a 3rd-party one. For god's sake, there's a USB port, try looking at it.
5. The Surface RT has 10 hours of battery life. The Surface Pro will have 5 hours. The MBA has around 4~ hours running Windows.
And what the hell is :0 ]?
Is that supposed to be a smiley? It's looks like a fat man with his chin flopping outwards and his mouth wide open. Is it supposed to be a clown?
Give it up, Randy.
Joke is on the Intel-haters...I told you Clover Trail Surface gets SAME battery life as ARM RT and performs BETTER.
Apple agrees.
Clover Trail should have been in the Surface RT.
The reason we don't hear much about Intel mobile chips is because Intel has been using the Indian, European, Chinese, and South American markets to essentially get all the wrinkles out with their single core mobile chips. In 2013 we will see the first American "Intel Inside" phone sporting the new dual core LTE version chip.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/30/intel-apple-samsung-chips/
Too many haters for me to handle. I can't wait for the first Intel Inside US LTE phone.
x86 core is practically dead already. It uses too much electricity and generate too much heat. It's data centers and cloud solutions everywhere and x86 is in the worst position to pitch to sell to data center when ARM processor can save enormous amount of eletricity and cooling cost.
Here's some facts for you: Medfield is both faster, and uses LESS energy. Heat is a non-issue for Medfield. Clover Trail will be even more superior. Not sure what you're talking about with data centers, but most are x86 or POWER based. And there's a reason for that: in terms of speed per watt, ARM doesn't stand a chance. Sorry, but it's true.
Just to put it in perspective: Atom is competitive with ARM right now. Atom is usually considered about as powerful as the old Pentium 4s. So that's not even getting into Intel's more potent stuff.
If there was no deal Apple could standardize on 64 bit ARM that would power right from iPhone to Macs but with this deal there would be heterogeneous chips with ARM in iPhone and Intel in iPad and Macs. There may be one caveat though, Apple may decide go all Intel right from iPhone through Macs. But then what would happen to all that research put into producing processors?
intel hasnt done a thing since pentium mobile (2003).
What a fool !
Whatever tech advantage Intel may have is negated by the Arm business model advantage.
Second and the more important point is the more likely possibility that intel wants entrench itself to the mobile market what better way to do it by selling it to apple. Apple get away from Samsung due to conflict of interests and Intel will continue its foothold in x86 chips.
The issue of ipads using x86 chips is really a moot point because apple is more software than hardware.
Apple has two viable choices: TSMC and Globalfoundries. They could also use a smaller player like STMicro or IBM which respectively use obsolete manufacturing processes or cost an arm and a leg to manufacture anything. The Chinese players are even more obsolete because of the lithography tool export limitations. You would be limited to using something your competitor have like 6 years ago.
Even after the selection Apple will need 2 years to design a new architecture. The fact that there are still rumors about them picking a manufacturing site only tells me that they still haven't treated the subject seriously.
If this was Apple's way of waging an indirect war on android, then I must say they failed spectacularly. Now, there seems to be no easy way out of what appears to be a protracted and costly legal battle with a company who has ample financial resources to drag it out as long as they want.
In the end, nobody wins, and Apple appears to be having problems sourcing for alternative suppliers, much less those capable of matching Samsung's manufacturing skill and prowess. This is definitely one of those scenarios where it would have been better to just 'live and let live'.
Samsung heads would simply explode. And you know, those heads are stuck up Google's lower orifice... Now, that's a chain reaction you could call thermonuclear.
Big bonus : Ballmer would be throwing chairs around for the rest of his life.