3 ms·
The difference between PowerPC and Apple's A series is compatibility. If somebody comes out with ARM-based SOC that is leaps and bounds better than what Apple's
by cwp 8y ago
The difference between PowerPC and Apple's A series is compatibility. If somebody comes out with ARM-based SOC that is leaps and bounds better than what Apple's got, they can easily become a customer and build an iPhone around that rather than their own work. There would be no need for a long and difficult transition like the one from PowerPC to Intel. Another option would be to buy or license specific components and incorporate them in to the next A-series SOC. The haven't boxed themselves in at all.
- _ph_ 8y agoWhile the compatibility certainly eased the transition path for Apple, I think the main differentiator between PowerPC Macs and the Apple-ARM iPhones is the number of units. The PowerPC machines never reached the unit count allowing for a sustainable development budget to keep up with Intels x86 investments. With the iPhone, Apple has the production numbers (and especially the revenue) to match or exceed the development budget of any competitor in the mobile phone space. It also helps a lot, that currently the best processes are available from independant fabs, which was not the case in the past.
- rbanffy 8y agoAs for compatibility, Apple managed exceedingly well the moves from 68K to PPC and then to Intel, even keeping some binary compatibility. Few companies ever did that - DEC comes to mind, making VMS and Ultrix move from VAX to Alpha, and IBM moving the iSeries from AS/400 to POWER. iOS software will continue to be written for ARM for as long as we can see. macOS can, eventually, move to ARM too - if Microsoft can do it (emulate x86 at Celeron speeds on Snapdragon), Apple certainly can.