4 ms·

Just to add color to that - Apple doesn't want external control of their semiconductors. They want to do their own thing starting with the mobile SOCs, then the

Just to add color to that - Apple doesn't want external control of their semiconductors. They want to do their own thing starting with the mobile SOCs, then the secure enclave, then the M2 chip, and the GPU, and now mainstream high power processor. What Intel offers is orthogonal.

Jhsto 6y ago
And don't forget the modem! Apple recently dumped Intel LTE modems as well.
- williadc 6y ago
  ... and then acquired the team that made those modems.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
What Intel offers they still have to compete with. It always seems like a good idea to do your own thing when your supplier is stumbling. The problem then is you're on your own. If they find their footing you're in trouble -- either you've blown a huge pile of money developing something which you then don't use because the competition has something better, or you use it anyway and get to relive the final days of Sun Microsystems. And the same thing happens if anybody can beat you. If Intel can't but AMD does, you lose. If AMD can't but Qualcomm does, you lose. Worse, success precipitates failure. If you make an in-house processor which is only a couple of percent faster, that's boring. You spend a lot for a little. If you make one which is more than a couple of percent faster, that's war. Intel can't have that. Google can't have that. Samsung can't have that. Microsoft can't have that. Even if you're bigger than any of them, you're not bigger than all of them. So they double their R&D, combine their resources, whatever it takes, and soon you're Sun Microsystems again.
- jsnell 6y ago
  When was the last time that a commodity mobile phone soc was even remotely competitive with Apple's latest? 2012? That seems like rather strong evidence against your theory.
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    Agreed- all those competitors have been shown up by Apple for years. They've had to take it because they haven't been able to come up with a technical response- even those using the same foundries...
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    https://benchmarks.ul.com/compare/best-smartphones https://benchmarks.ul.com/compare/best-smartphones https://www.gsmarena.com/benchmark-test.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/benchmark-test.php3 I see a lot of Android devices at the top of those lists. Apple likes to cherry pick. For example, they require everything on iOS to use their browser engine, then they spend a lot of time optimizing their browser engine for their CPUs. But that's not superior hardware performance, it's software optimization, which they could do with whichever commodity CPU they chose as well. Intel does the same thing. They spend resources optimizing popular software for their CPUs. Qualcomm not so much.
clairity 6y ago
no, it's not purely about control. apple wants reliability and (predictable) advancement in it's supply chain. if intel had delivered on that by meeting it's own roadmap, apple probably wouldn't be looking to move away from them. it's not apple simply being control freaks (although they are and can afford to be), it's intel shooting it's own foot.
robbyt 6y ago
Please stop using the phrase "add color to". You're adding details, not color.

Jhsto 6y ago

And don't forget the modem! Apple recently dumped Intel LTE modems as well.

williadc 6y ago
... and then acquired the team that made those modems.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

What Intel offers they still have to compete with. It always seems like a good idea to do your own thing when your supplier is stumbling. The problem then is you're on your own. If they find their footing you're in trouble -- either you've blown a huge pile of money developing something which you then don't use because the competition has something better, or you use it anyway and get to relive the final days of Sun Microsystems. And the same thing happens if anybody can beat you. If Intel can't but AMD does, you lose. If AMD can't but Qualcomm does, you lose. Worse, success precipitates failure. If you make an in-house processor which is only a couple of percent faster, that's boring. You spend a lot for a little. If you make one which is more than a couple of percent faster, that's war. Intel can't have that. Google can't have that. Samsung can't have that. Microsoft can't have that. Even if you're bigger than any of them, you're not bigger than all of them. So they double their R&D, combine their resources, whatever it takes, and soon you're Sun Microsystems again.

jsnell 6y ago
When was the last time that a commodity mobile phone soc was even remotely competitive with Apple's latest? 2012? That seems like rather strong evidence against your theory.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  Agreed- all those competitors have been shown up by Apple for years. They've had to take it because they haven't been able to come up with a technical response- even those using the same foundries...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  https://benchmarks.ul.com/compare/best-smartphones https://benchmarks.ul.com/compare/best-smartphones https://www.gsmarena.com/benchmark-test.php3 https://www.gsmarena.com/benchmark-test.php3 I see a lot of Android devices at the top of those lists. Apple likes to cherry pick. For example, they require everything on iOS to use their browser engine, then they spend a lot of time optimizing their browser engine for their CPUs. But that's not superior hardware performance, it's software optimization, which they could do with whichever commodity CPU they chose as well. Intel does the same thing. They spend resources optimizing popular software for their CPUs. Qualcomm not so much.

clairity 6y ago

no, it's not purely about control. apple wants reliability and (predictable) advancement in it's supply chain. if intel had delivered on that by meeting it's own roadmap, apple probably wouldn't be looking to move away from them. it's not apple simply being control freaks (although they are and can afford to be), it's intel shooting it's own foot.

robbyt 6y ago

Please stop using the phrase "add color to". You're adding details, not color.