12 ms·

Microsoft Designing Its Own Chips for Servers, Surface PCs

133 points by slyall 6y ago

russli1993 6y ago
Is this vertical integration turning into a different kind of monopolizing, centralization of power? Vertical integration at face value is very appealing, it can lead to better products and better prices. On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, are the likes are platform companies. They control the end user's applications, social networking effects, and consumer branding. The OS interfaces, APIs, standards, programming languages that ISVs and a large portions of the software and IT industry rely on. And increasingly leverage over hardware makers, the OEMs, ODMs, silicon designers, chips makers. The first two were getting concentrated first. Think about Microsoft makes Office run only or the best on Windows. Think about Apple is bundling the Apple software ecosystem (Apple Music, iCloud) with the OS and the device. Think about Google bundling its Mapping and office software if you use their search product. But any technology will have a high barrier to entry first and as time passes gets democratized. Chip design and manufacturing is no different. Now it seems like chip design barrier to entry is low enough and platform companies are powerful enough that it makes organic sense for them to dive into the chip design sector. Fast forward 10 years, it could be that a company will be at competitive disadvantage without its own chips just like how now a company is at a competitive disadvantage without its own ecosystem, platform and multiple products each enforcing each other to create moat. Yelp and Spotify are always at disadvantage compared to Google and Apple Music because they don't have Search and IPhone. This world, likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon must have its own chips in order to compete and survive. In that world, what happens to pure play hardware vendors like Intel, AMD, Nvidia? Right now ARM is an instruction set everyone has to agree to because it enables portability, and right now portability is important for survival in the market. But in that world, the market condition will be that portability has disadvantages and "your own thing" has advantages. For example, Apple can add a unique instruction to their CPU that makes a operation 2X faster. Its easily adopted because software developers all use Apple's APIs and compilers so taking advantage of it is automatic. And you want less portability so a ISV can't support your competitor's product as easily. You can imagine this will happen then standards like ARM doesn't matter anymore. Seems like this tendency towards concentration is natural. My question is at what point does the natural course to concentration stops? Should we artificially put up barrier to stop or slow down this natural tendency before it runs it course (IE, create anti-monopoly regulations, limit a player to enter a different market if they dominate in the other market).
- amelius 6y ago
  > Should we artificially put up barrier to stop or slow down this natural tendency before it runs it course We should always ask: would a project like Linux be possible now? Can somebody become the next Linus Torvalds? If not, then these companies have locked down their devices too far.
ksec 6y ago
>With the announcement from Marvell's exit [1] of ARM Server CPU it is now all but confirmed that Microsoft and Google are also working on their own ARM Server CPU. I just wrote about that [2] few hours ago before this news pops up. Even Microsoft is abandoning the WinTel Alliance. I know there are still long way to go before the dismissal of x86 / Intel. On one hand they deserved it, for pathetic management in a hyper competitive market. On the other hand I kind of feel sorry for them. Seeing the Giant falling. [1] https://www.servethehome.com/impact-of-marvell-thunderx3-general-purpose-skus-canceled/ https://www.servethehome.com/impact-of-marvell-thunderx3-gen... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25471116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25471116
- gxqoz 6y ago
  Is there a world where Intel basically admits defeat and tries to become a major ARM player? If not Intel, some other company? It feels a bit weird that many different companies are designing their own bespoke chips. I can see how the biggest companies may have this expertise. But for everyone else, shouldn't there be someone they can purchase these Apple-like chips from? Maybe that company already exists? Or maybe there's something about full integration that makes a custom-designed chip just so much better than a more general purpose chip?
  - wmf 6y ago
    But for everyone else, shouldn't there be someone they can purchase these Apple-like chips from? For servers there's Ampere and Nuvia. For ARM PCs I think Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek/etc. could easily build a pretty good SoC if there's obvious demand.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > For ARM PCs I think Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek/etc. could easily build a pretty good SoC if there's obvious demand. No they couldn't. I mean, not from a technological point of view, there's nothing holding at least Qualcomm and Samsung back. The problem is the software side. Unlike Apple, all three are used to dumping layers of bullshit upon fossilized bullshit and then dropping that off to customers hoping no one notices that the kernel version is years old, the kernel sources and the entire BSP are nowhere even close to upstream Linux quality - ever seen Mediatek leaked Android kernels? Stay far FAR away if you value your sanity, and the others aren't better. Security for all of them is an afterthought. Apple created everything from scratch, with security in mind. I agree that Apple ain't perfect either, but... the iPhone 4S was released 2011, it took eight years until the checkm8 bootrom exploit was found. The Android world doesn't even come close.
flyinglizard 6y ago
Silicon is going to be the most significant moat there is. You'll either have companies which master it and can adapt it to their stacks (mobile, laptops, servers) - or companies lagging behind feeding on the leftovers and racing to the bottom. This is the final frontier, in a way.
- juancampa 6y ago
  Wasn't this the case for IBM and then clones came out? What's different this time around?
  - Someone 6y ago
    IBM didn’t have its own silicon in the PC; it picked bog-standard parts to get to market fast. Having commodity hardware meant anybody could buy a motherboard and parts to build a competitive computer. What is different now is that the big players try to de-commoditize the hardware. Result is that you can’t build a competitive hackintosh anymore, as you cannot buy the M1 chip (you can still build a x64 hackintosh, but even that is getting harder, with Macs having various custom chips) If enough other large companies go the same way, there might eventually not be enough market left to warrant development of competitive commodity parts.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Actually it was Compaq that did the trick, had their reverse engineering been considered illegal and there wouldn't be any clones to start with, regardless of being commodity hardware.
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      They de-commodotize because that’s the only way to remain competitive. Power efficient SoCs are the way forward as Apple shown with the M1. Likewise a Graviton with hardware acceleration specifically addressing AWS tasks can break through existing performance barriers.
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
antisthenes 6y ago
My biggest concern is what this means for legacy PC games. Is there an emulation layer for ARM CPU that would allow for near seamless operation of all the golden age games from, say...1995 to 2008?
- lights0123 6y ago
  If they do as good a job as Apple, I'm pretty sure they can emulate a 12 year old CPU pretty well.
indymike 6y ago
So, we're going back to the days of manufacturers having a completely custom software/hardware systems, one step at a time? Yes, ARM seems to be the standard, but once you start customizing, how long until Apple or Microsoft start making portability very difficult?
- tiernano 6y ago
  Apple making portability difficult, yes... Microsoft? I cant see it... Windows has been able to run on x86/x64, ARM, MIPS, Alpha, PPC and more since the beginning of time (well, NT4) and granted, they haven't released a lot of that code in a while, but i would guess its still there... remember, xbox360 was based on PPC... Also, given they sell an OS to other manufactures to install on their own machines, they are going to keep that running for a while. Same with servers... Even in the Azure side, they are allowing enterprise and OEMs build Azure Stack. I cant see them locking it down... But Apple? yes... its already locked down...
  - discodave 6y ago
    Apple (M1) and Amazon (Graviton) are already out there marketing how great their chips are for various applications. They're not saying "ARM chips are great" they're saying "Apple silicon" or in the case of Amazon, "AWS Graviton processors are custom built by Amazon Web Services using 64-bit Arm Neoverse cores to deliver the best price performance for your cloud workloads running in Amazon EC2". The thing to worry about is not them "locking it down" it's that they're building custom hardware that you can only access by renting cloud computing (EC2) or buying a complete machine (Apple).
    - worker767424 6y ago
      With Graviton, it's really just try it for your use case, see if it's cheaper.
      - shmoogy 6y ago
        All their managed services will be running off them in time
ausjke 6y ago
I got it, it's everyone-design-all-you-need days. Apple designs all its shit. So does google/facebook/microsoft/amazon Huawei designs its own OS China designs/manufactures its own chips too. It's rumored more companies are designing their own OS
- amelius 6y ago
  Yes, you are not a serious software developer unless you also build your own CPU. In fact, if you want to prevent anyone else from taking control over your market, you will have to design your own CPU/ecosystem.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Regarding all that China stuff: that is the result of the world finally beginning to grow some spine against the CCCP tactics.
- 1-6 6y ago
  The Raspberry Pi Foundation is the only company I can rely on to bring me into the future.
ehejsbbejsk 6y ago
I know the direct impact is to Intel but think AMD just can’t catch a break. They finally have something going against Intel and now Apple and Microsoft will eat its lunch.
- neogodless 6y ago
  > Microsoft’s efforts are more likely to result in a server chip than one for its Surface devices In my opinion, the majority of people have too much faith in their ability to predict the future. I was terrible at predicting the real world performance of the Apple Silicon M1. It is, in fact, much better than I expected. On the other hand, Microsoft has thus far only had slightly modified AMD chips in their Surface Laptop, and poor performing ARM-designed Qualcomm chips in their Surface Pro X. Maybe I'll be bad at predicting the future, but I do not expect excellent performance out of Microsoft's Surface chips in the next 365 days. Probably longer. In the meantime, more Windows computers will be sold than MacOS, and they will have mostly Intel chips, but an increasingly large number of AMD chips. AMD has survived with less diverse revenue streams and much worse product portfolios. I'm optimistic for how they'll do over the next several years.
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    Anybody remember the Zune? How different is Microsoft nowadays to make this actually work? Most of their hardware products (not all... but most) end up being good, but not earth-shatteringly so, and either keep kind of moving on without taking any crowns (like Xbox), or slowly wither and die (Zune, Windows Phone). Surface seems to be a good Halo product (not the game, ha!) so far, but I see very few Surfaces in the wild compared to any other laptop/tablet/desktops (mostly HP, some Dell, etc.).
    - neogodless 6y ago
      Be careful with anecdotes! Even your own experiences! The world is a very big place. The few different jobs I've worked over the past, say... 5 years... I've seen lots of places that were Dell from door to door, a mix of Macbooks and Surface, all Macbooks but a few had Surface as personal/toys, etc. At some places, they are popular and I think when you see them all the time you're more likely to buy one yourself. When no one you know has one you're less likely to get one. So it's helpful to dig up sales statistics if you can find them... Perhaps the closest thing to a Zune that Microsoft makes today is the Surface Duo. It's very expensive with nice hardware, but the initial launch got some bad press from mediocre software. The software has likely gotten a lot better over time, so it will be interesting to see a version 2 here. But no one will be buying a $1400 Zune :)
partiallypro 6y ago
I would honestly rather Microsoft work directly with Intel/AMD/Nvidia to make a chip. I don't generally like Apple's direction to make the chips in house, and not sure I want Microsoft going the same path.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Assuming Microsoft has the talent to pull it off, Microsoft designing their own chips to run Windows is the best case scenario for performance. Apple has been a case study in how vertical integration, and how designing software and hardware together, can yield immense performance benefits. However, it would be a terrible move for interoperability. OEMs would be inclined to purchase Microsoft's chips (MS's vertical integration would mean that their chips would outperform the competition when running Windows), and Microsoft could in turn restrict their chips to the Windows operating system.
  - hakfoo 6y ago
    I suspect one side aspect of the "integration" angle for Apple was that they were able to force the "recompile the world" moment on demand. How much performance do you get by taking, say, code originally written for a 10-year-old compiler whose default target was vanilla i486, and build wuuth a recently built compiler? I'd expect wins from targeting a more modern instruction set, plus 10 years of general "we've learned more about optimization". Microsoft can't do that without an architecture change, and if they do that, they're basically abandoning their primary push to consumers: your established software and workflow investments are no longer safe on Windows.
- sally1620 6y ago
  They already did that with SQ1 and SQ2. They collaborated with Qualcomm on this. Also, the main motivation is the cost. Any other vendor would want the highest profit out of their design.
  - partiallypro 6y ago
    I understand the reasons, but I believe it is likely bad for the industry overall. Soon we'll have Apple, Microsoft and Google chips instead of AMD, Intel and Qualcomm chips; and they can leverage them to lock people even more into their walled garden ecosystems. That is a big worry to me, that feels like going backwards.
frongpik 6y ago
A wild guess: the big chip makers have been compromised (e.g. adversaries have figured how to use the Intel's ME module to exfiltrate data or even send commands), and the software corps have no choice but to manufacture their own.
- cogman10 6y ago
  Alternative theory, demand is high and supply low which pushes back channel prices higher. This is a bid by MS and Apple to cut prices.
  - the-pigeon 6y ago
    Alternative alternative theory, the chipmakers are stuck. Chipmakers have been crawling forward with progress for years. Meanwhile in house chips like Amazon's and Apple's have been coming out that seem to be miles ahead. The general theory for this seems to be the chipmakers just don't get how to design their chips to work well with the real software being ran on them. So the mega-corps are just taking matters in to their own hands.
- paxys 6y ago
  Considering none of them are actually manufacturing their own chips, I can't see how that would help?
kliments 6y ago
Exciting news for users of Microsoft services. This could mean great improvements in the SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS offerings of Microsoft Azure. These service offerings are the hottest trend currently.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  We’ll probably get a Microsoft SoC (subscription on chip). Lol.
thrower123 6y ago
I guess we're back to vertical integration. Amazon has already been building their own custom chips for AWS for a couple years.
gjsman-1000 6y ago
If they are truly designing chips for Surface PCs... I have hopes, but Apple has a, what, 10-year head start? Plus, it's very likely that unlike Apple, Microsoft will not be able to find a way to economically design their own CPU cores. They'll just be premade Cortex X1 or whatever licensed ARM core, but Apple will remain ahead with Firestorm/Icestorm and whatever comes after. Kind of like Qualcomm right now.
- hu3 6y ago
  So many assumptions. Microsoft is just as rich as Apple. They can do whatever they want. I highly doubt they would get into the trouble of designing their own chips only to settle for something mediocre.
  - tracker1 6y ago
    If the price, scale and power envelope is right, they can absolutely be mediocre. Server CPUs are core for core clocked much lower than consumer chips, cooling and power are huge issues. If you can fit 500-1000 mediocre arm cores in the same space as 128 x86 cores at half the power/heat, it absolutely makes sense for something like Azure. They don't have to beat Intel/AMD on a core for core basis as long as they can compete on compute/space/power requirements horizontally. It's not the best option for some loads, but is a good enough option for enough loads that the diversification can really work out. There's plenty of software/systems/services that don't need x86 per core performance and a single ARM core is enough per node.
- username90 6y ago
  Microsoft has done chips since they started making them for xbox since 2003, so they have been in this space longer than Apple. Can read about another chip they are making here: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/microsoft-pluton-new-chip-design-draws-lessons-xbox-make-windows-pcs-secure/ https://www.geekwire.com/2020/microsoft-pluton-new-chip-desi...
  - vel0city 6y ago
    The CPU on the Xbox was a slightly customized Pentium III. Microsoft didn't necessarily design it, they worked with Intel to ensure it met the requirements they had in mind for the Xbox. The CPU on the Xbox 360 was co-designed with IBM, working to integrate their PowerPC-based PPE cores with an AMD GPU. As an outsider looking in, Microsoft definitely dabbles its toes into designing chips but they've always done it with a partner already big in the space of chip design. Even with that Pluton "chip", its more about creating a standard secure enclave system between existing CPU manufacturers based on some Microsoft specifications rather than an entire chip design ready to get sent to a fab.
spideymans 6y ago
Google, Amazon and Microsoft are all confirmed or rumoured to be working on their own ARM-based server CPUs. Apple is almost certainly mulling the option too. This has huge implications for x86. If all the big internet players start developing their own chips, we could very quickly see ARM powering a huge portion of the worlds servers. This is all happening because ARM licenses it’s core design and ISA to anyone. It’s becoming relatively easy for major internet companies to design and implement their own bespoke CPU designs, optimized for their unique workloads. This means better performance, and lower energy costs, which is critical for these massive datacentres. The optimization benefits offered by that degree of vertical integration is something Intel may not be able to compete with. For Intel this is obviously terrible news. Severs are their second biggest cash cow, and MS might end up being merely among the first of many internet companies to pursue their own CPU designs. This could foretell a rapid shift away from Intel and x86 in the server space. This has implications for their PC chip business too. More money invested into ARM processors, means more R&D for ARM-based designs, which means better ARM chips in PC and mobile. This makes Intel less competitive in the PC space.
spideymans 6y ago
Here is an utterly terrifying thought for Intel: These Microsoft processors are clearly destined for their own servers. That’s bad for Intel, but not existential. But what if Microsoft takes the lessons learned from making their server chips, and uses that to develop their own chips for the Surface. Again, bad for Intel, but hardly a huge deal. But what if Microsoft then takes these Surface chips, and licenses them to Windows manufacturers to create the next generation of PCs... PCs that can compete with the M1 in terms of performance and efficiency. For Microsoft, the benefits would be immense. Microsoft obviously knows Windows better than anyone, and would be able to tailor both the operating system and their CPUs to work far more efficiently than Wintel. This also increases Microsoft’s vertical integration and control over the Windows operating system, which they’d no doubt view as positive. Microsoft becomes vendor of the Windows operating system and the CPUs it runs on. Intel systems would be at a permanent competitive disadvantage, as they don’t have the tight level of integration of Windows and MS-designed chips. The off the shelf ARM core designs are likely good enough for Microsoft to create an offering that’s competitive with Intel, if they implement some tweaks to make it integrate and perform better with Windows (as Apple has done with M1 and macOS) This might sound bonkers right now, but there’s definitely a version of the future where we’re buying a Dell XPS powered by Windows 10 and “Microsoft Silicon”
- boznz 6y ago
  Will have to be (or abstract) x86 to support the millions of legacy programs out there
  - T-A 6y ago
    https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
- 238475235243 6y ago
  Already done with the SQ1 and SQ2 in the surface pro X. Only reason it was done with Qualcomm was the radio I believe.
TedShiller 6y ago
copycat
severino 6y ago
Oh, Microsoft innovating again. So Apple has iPhone? Now we will have Lumia! So Apple has iPad? Now we will have Surface! So Apple has M1? Now we will have something! Too bad OSX came too late and Microsoft couldn't just copy it by then.
- adolfojp 6y ago
  This is nonsense and a bit childish but if you want to compare, here are some things that Microsoft had before Apple: 1. A journaling filesystem 2. Protected memory 3. Preemptive multitasking 4. Access control 5. Intel chips 6. Tablet computers
  - severino 6y ago
    Well, I never pretended to say that Microsoft has just one source of inspiration. But even admitting* that Microsoft got those before, they were not the pioneers either. * I say that because Mac OS classic was not the only operating system Apple developed. They had their A/UX operating system from 1988 to 1995 where things like protected memory, preemptive multitasking and the usual stuff from a Unix system of the time were present.
    - tmotwu 6y ago
      Then what was exactly the point of your post? People pointed out Microsoft did everything you listed in your OP before Apple, including a SoC - Apple and Microsoft both aren't pioneers in your definition.
      - severino 6y ago
        Yes, we know Microsoft "invented" the iPhone 15 years before Apple did... but here we're talking about real things. No vaporware. It's a joke to say Microsoft invented the smartphone as we know it today. Otherwise, we may as well say that Microsoft invented the most advanced file system in the world before nobody else (and for many years to come), WinFs... despite it does exist only in some engineers' minds.

133 points by slyall 6y ago

russli1993 6y ago

Is this vertical integration turning into a different kind of monopolizing, centralization of power? Vertical integration at face value is very appealing, it can lead to better products and better prices. On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, are the likes are platform companies. They control the end user's applications, social networking effects, and consumer branding. The OS interfaces, APIs, standards, programming languages that ISVs and a large portions of the software and IT industry rely on. And increasingly leverage over hardware makers, the OEMs, ODMs, silicon designers, chips makers. The first two were getting concentrated first. Think about Microsoft makes Office run only or the best on Windows. Think about Apple is bundling the Apple software ecosystem (Apple Music, iCloud) with the OS and the device. Think about Google bundling its Mapping and office software if you use their search product. But any technology will have a high barrier to entry first and as time passes gets democratized. Chip design and manufacturing is no different. Now it seems like chip design barrier to entry is low enough and platform companies are powerful enough that it makes organic sense for them to dive into the chip design sector. Fast forward 10 years, it could be that a company will be at competitive disadvantage without its own chips just like how now a company is at a competitive disadvantage without its own ecosystem, platform and multiple products each enforcing each other to create moat. Yelp and Spotify are always at disadvantage compared to Google and Apple Music because they don't have Search and IPhone. This world, likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon must have its own chips in order to compete and survive. In that world, what happens to pure play hardware vendors like Intel, AMD, Nvidia? Right now ARM is an instruction set everyone has to agree to because it enables portability, and right now portability is important for survival in the market. But in that world, the market condition will be that portability has disadvantages and "your own thing" has advantages. For example, Apple can add a unique instruction to their CPU that makes a operation 2X faster. Its easily adopted because software developers all use Apple's APIs and compilers so taking advantage of it is automatic. And you want less portability so a ISV can't support your competitor's product as easily. You can imagine this will happen then standards like ARM doesn't matter anymore. Seems like this tendency towards concentration is natural. My question is at what point does the natural course to concentration stops? Should we artificially put up barrier to stop or slow down this natural tendency before it runs it course (IE, create anti-monopoly regulations, limit a player to enter a different market if they dominate in the other market).

amelius 6y ago
> Should we artificially put up barrier to stop or slow down this natural tendency before it runs it course We should always ask: would a project like Linux be possible now? Can somebody become the next Linus Torvalds? If not, then these companies have locked down their devices too far.

ksec 6y ago

>With the announcement from Marvell's exit [1] of ARM Server CPU it is now all but confirmed that Microsoft and Google are also working on their own ARM Server CPU. I just wrote about that [2] few hours ago before this news pops up. Even Microsoft is abandoning the WinTel Alliance. I know there are still long way to go before the dismissal of x86 / Intel. On one hand they deserved it, for pathetic management in a hyper competitive market. On the other hand I kind of feel sorry for them. Seeing the Giant falling. [1] https://www.servethehome.com/impact-of-marvell-thunderx3-general-purpose-skus-canceled/ https://www.servethehome.com/impact-of-marvell-thunderx3-gen... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25471116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25471116

gxqoz 6y ago
Is there a world where Intel basically admits defeat and tries to become a major ARM player? If not Intel, some other company? It feels a bit weird that many different companies are designing their own bespoke chips. I can see how the biggest companies may have this expertise. But for everyone else, shouldn't there be someone they can purchase these Apple-like chips from? Maybe that company already exists? Or maybe there's something about full integration that makes a custom-designed chip just so much better than a more general purpose chip?
- wmf 6y ago
  But for everyone else, shouldn't there be someone they can purchase these Apple-like chips from? For servers there's Ampere and Nuvia. For ARM PCs I think Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek/etc. could easily build a pretty good SoC if there's obvious demand.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > For ARM PCs I think Qualcomm/Samsung/MediaTek/etc. could easily build a pretty good SoC if there's obvious demand. No they couldn't. I mean, not from a technological point of view, there's nothing holding at least Qualcomm and Samsung back. The problem is the software side. Unlike Apple, all three are used to dumping layers of bullshit upon fossilized bullshit and then dropping that off to customers hoping no one notices that the kernel version is years old, the kernel sources and the entire BSP are nowhere even close to upstream Linux quality - ever seen Mediatek leaked Android kernels? Stay far FAR away if you value your sanity, and the others aren't better. Security for all of them is an afterthought. Apple created everything from scratch, with security in mind. I agree that Apple ain't perfect either, but... the iPhone 4S was released 2011, it took eight years until the checkm8 bootrom exploit was found. The Android world doesn't even come close.

flyinglizard 6y ago

Silicon is going to be the most significant moat there is. You'll either have companies which master it and can adapt it to their stacks (mobile, laptops, servers) - or companies lagging behind feeding on the leftovers and racing to the bottom. This is the final frontier, in a way.

juancampa 6y ago
Wasn't this the case for IBM and then clones came out? What's different this time around?
- Someone 6y ago
  IBM didn’t have its own silicon in the PC; it picked bog-standard parts to get to market fast. Having commodity hardware meant anybody could buy a motherboard and parts to build a competitive computer. What is different now is that the big players try to de-commoditize the hardware. Result is that you can’t build a competitive hackintosh anymore, as you cannot buy the M1 chip (you can still build a x64 hackintosh, but even that is getting harder, with Macs having various custom chips) If enough other large companies go the same way, there might eventually not be enough market left to warrant development of competitive commodity parts.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Actually it was Compaq that did the trick, had their reverse engineering been considered illegal and there wouldn't be any clones to start with, regardless of being commodity hardware.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    They de-commodotize because that’s the only way to remain competitive. Power efficient SoCs are the way forward as Apple shown with the M1. Likewise a Graviton with hardware acceleration specifically addressing AWS tasks can break through existing performance barriers.
- Baeocystin 6y ago

antisthenes 6y ago

My biggest concern is what this means for legacy PC games. Is there an emulation layer for ARM CPU that would allow for near seamless operation of all the golden age games from, say...1995 to 2008?

lights0123 6y ago
If they do as good a job as Apple, I'm pretty sure they can emulate a 12 year old CPU pretty well.

indymike 6y ago

So, we're going back to the days of manufacturers having a completely custom software/hardware systems, one step at a time? Yes, ARM seems to be the standard, but once you start customizing, how long until Apple or Microsoft start making portability very difficult?

tiernano 6y ago
Apple making portability difficult, yes... Microsoft? I cant see it... Windows has been able to run on x86/x64, ARM, MIPS, Alpha, PPC and more since the beginning of time (well, NT4) and granted, they haven't released a lot of that code in a while, but i would guess its still there... remember, xbox360 was based on PPC... Also, given they sell an OS to other manufactures to install on their own machines, they are going to keep that running for a while. Same with servers... Even in the Azure side, they are allowing enterprise and OEMs build Azure Stack. I cant see them locking it down... But Apple? yes... its already locked down...
- discodave 6y ago
  Apple (M1) and Amazon (Graviton) are already out there marketing how great their chips are for various applications. They're not saying "ARM chips are great" they're saying "Apple silicon" or in the case of Amazon, "AWS Graviton processors are custom built by Amazon Web Services using 64-bit Arm Neoverse cores to deliver the best price performance for your cloud workloads running in Amazon EC2". The thing to worry about is not them "locking it down" it's that they're building custom hardware that you can only access by renting cloud computing (EC2) or buying a complete machine (Apple).
  - worker767424 6y ago
    With Graviton, it's really just try it for your use case, see if it's cheaper.
    - shmoogy 6y ago
      All their managed services will be running off them in time

ausjke 6y ago

I got it, it's everyone-design-all-you-need days. Apple designs all its shit. So does google/facebook/microsoft/amazon Huawei designs its own OS China designs/manufactures its own chips too. It's rumored more companies are designing their own OS

amelius 6y ago
Yes, you are not a serious software developer unless you also build your own CPU. In fact, if you want to prevent anyone else from taking control over your market, you will have to design your own CPU/ecosystem.
mschuster91 6y ago
Regarding all that China stuff: that is the result of the world finally beginning to grow some spine against the CCCP tactics.
1-6 6y ago
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is the only company I can rely on to bring me into the future.

ehejsbbejsk 6y ago

I know the direct impact is to Intel but think AMD just can’t catch a break. They finally have something going against Intel and now Apple and Microsoft will eat its lunch.

neogodless 6y ago
> Microsoft’s efforts are more likely to result in a server chip than one for its Surface devices In my opinion, the majority of people have too much faith in their ability to predict the future. I was terrible at predicting the real world performance of the Apple Silicon M1. It is, in fact, much better than I expected. On the other hand, Microsoft has thus far only had slightly modified AMD chips in their Surface Laptop, and poor performing ARM-designed Qualcomm chips in their Surface Pro X. Maybe I'll be bad at predicting the future, but I do not expect excellent performance out of Microsoft's Surface chips in the next 365 days. Probably longer. In the meantime, more Windows computers will be sold than MacOS, and they will have mostly Intel chips, but an increasingly large number of AMD chips. AMD has survived with less diverse revenue streams and much worse product portfolios. I'm optimistic for how they'll do over the next several years.
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  Anybody remember the Zune? How different is Microsoft nowadays to make this actually work? Most of their hardware products (not all... but most) end up being good, but not earth-shatteringly so, and either keep kind of moving on without taking any crowns (like Xbox), or slowly wither and die (Zune, Windows Phone). Surface seems to be a good Halo product (not the game, ha!) so far, but I see very few Surfaces in the wild compared to any other laptop/tablet/desktops (mostly HP, some Dell, etc.).
  - neogodless 6y ago
    Be careful with anecdotes! Even your own experiences! The world is a very big place. The few different jobs I've worked over the past, say... 5 years... I've seen lots of places that were Dell from door to door, a mix of Macbooks and Surface, all Macbooks but a few had Surface as personal/toys, etc. At some places, they are popular and I think when you see them all the time you're more likely to buy one yourself. When no one you know has one you're less likely to get one. So it's helpful to dig up sales statistics if you can find them... Perhaps the closest thing to a Zune that Microsoft makes today is the Surface Duo. It's very expensive with nice hardware, but the initial launch got some bad press from mediocre software. The software has likely gotten a lot better over time, so it will be interesting to see a version 2 here. But no one will be buying a $1400 Zune :)

partiallypro 6y ago

I would honestly rather Microsoft work directly with Intel/AMD/Nvidia to make a chip. I don't generally like Apple's direction to make the chips in house, and not sure I want Microsoft going the same path.

spideymans 6y ago
Assuming Microsoft has the talent to pull it off, Microsoft designing their own chips to run Windows is the best case scenario for performance. Apple has been a case study in how vertical integration, and how designing software and hardware together, can yield immense performance benefits. However, it would be a terrible move for interoperability. OEMs would be inclined to purchase Microsoft's chips (MS's vertical integration would mean that their chips would outperform the competition when running Windows), and Microsoft could in turn restrict their chips to the Windows operating system.
- hakfoo 6y ago
  I suspect one side aspect of the "integration" angle for Apple was that they were able to force the "recompile the world" moment on demand. How much performance do you get by taking, say, code originally written for a 10-year-old compiler whose default target was vanilla i486, and build wuuth a recently built compiler? I'd expect wins from targeting a more modern instruction set, plus 10 years of general "we've learned more about optimization". Microsoft can't do that without an architecture change, and if they do that, they're basically abandoning their primary push to consumers: your established software and workflow investments are no longer safe on Windows.
sally1620 6y ago
They already did that with SQ1 and SQ2. They collaborated with Qualcomm on this. Also, the main motivation is the cost. Any other vendor would want the highest profit out of their design.
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I understand the reasons, but I believe it is likely bad for the industry overall. Soon we'll have Apple, Microsoft and Google chips instead of AMD, Intel and Qualcomm chips; and they can leverage them to lock people even more into their walled garden ecosystems. That is a big worry to me, that feels like going backwards.

frongpik 6y ago

A wild guess: the big chip makers have been compromised (e.g. adversaries have figured how to use the Intel's ME module to exfiltrate data or even send commands), and the software corps have no choice but to manufacture their own.

cogman10 6y ago
Alternative theory, demand is high and supply low which pushes back channel prices higher. This is a bid by MS and Apple to cut prices.
- the-pigeon 6y ago
  Alternative alternative theory, the chipmakers are stuck. Chipmakers have been crawling forward with progress for years. Meanwhile in house chips like Amazon's and Apple's have been coming out that seem to be miles ahead. The general theory for this seems to be the chipmakers just don't get how to design their chips to work well with the real software being ran on them. So the mega-corps are just taking matters in to their own hands.
paxys 6y ago
Considering none of them are actually manufacturing their own chips, I can't see how that would help?

kliments 6y ago

Exciting news for users of Microsoft services. This could mean great improvements in the SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS offerings of Microsoft Azure. These service offerings are the hottest trend currently.

donmcronald 6y ago
We’ll probably get a Microsoft SoC (subscription on chip). Lol.

thrower123 6y ago

I guess we're back to vertical integration. Amazon has already been building their own custom chips for AWS for a couple years.

gjsman-1000 6y ago

If they are truly designing chips for Surface PCs... I have hopes, but Apple has a, what, 10-year head start? Plus, it's very likely that unlike Apple, Microsoft will not be able to find a way to economically design their own CPU cores. They'll just be premade Cortex X1 or whatever licensed ARM core, but Apple will remain ahead with Firestorm/Icestorm and whatever comes after. Kind of like Qualcomm right now.

hu3 6y ago
So many assumptions. Microsoft is just as rich as Apple. They can do whatever they want. I highly doubt they would get into the trouble of designing their own chips only to settle for something mediocre.
- tracker1 6y ago
  If the price, scale and power envelope is right, they can absolutely be mediocre. Server CPUs are core for core clocked much lower than consumer chips, cooling and power are huge issues. If you can fit 500-1000 mediocre arm cores in the same space as 128 x86 cores at half the power/heat, it absolutely makes sense for something like Azure. They don't have to beat Intel/AMD on a core for core basis as long as they can compete on compute/space/power requirements horizontally. It's not the best option for some loads, but is a good enough option for enough loads that the diversification can really work out. There's plenty of software/systems/services that don't need x86 per core performance and a single ARM core is enough per node.
username90 6y ago
Microsoft has done chips since they started making them for xbox since 2003, so they have been in this space longer than Apple. Can read about another chip they are making here: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/microsoft-pluton-new-chip-design-draws-lessons-xbox-make-windows-pcs-secure/ https://www.geekwire.com/2020/microsoft-pluton-new-chip-desi...
- vel0city 6y ago
  The CPU on the Xbox was a slightly customized Pentium III. Microsoft didn't necessarily design it, they worked with Intel to ensure it met the requirements they had in mind for the Xbox. The CPU on the Xbox 360 was co-designed with IBM, working to integrate their PowerPC-based PPE cores with an AMD GPU. As an outsider looking in, Microsoft definitely dabbles its toes into designing chips but they've always done it with a partner already big in the space of chip design. Even with that Pluton "chip", its more about creating a standard secure enclave system between existing CPU manufacturers based on some Microsoft specifications rather than an entire chip design ready to get sent to a fab.

spideymans 6y ago

Google, Amazon and Microsoft are all confirmed or rumoured to be working on their own ARM-based server CPUs. Apple is almost certainly mulling the option too. This has huge implications for x86. If all the big internet players start developing their own chips, we could very quickly see ARM powering a huge portion of the worlds servers. This is all happening because ARM licenses it’s core design and ISA to anyone. It’s becoming relatively easy for major internet companies to design and implement their own bespoke CPU designs, optimized for their unique workloads. This means better performance, and lower energy costs, which is critical for these massive datacentres. The optimization benefits offered by that degree of vertical integration is something Intel may not be able to compete with. For Intel this is obviously terrible news. Severs are their second biggest cash cow, and MS might end up being merely among the first of many internet companies to pursue their own CPU designs. This could foretell a rapid shift away from Intel and x86 in the server space. This has implications for their PC chip business too. More money invested into ARM processors, means more R&D for ARM-based designs, which means better ARM chips in PC and mobile. This makes Intel less competitive in the PC space.

spideymans 6y ago

Here is an utterly terrifying thought for Intel: These Microsoft processors are clearly destined for their own servers. That’s bad for Intel, but not existential. But what if Microsoft takes the lessons learned from making their server chips, and uses that to develop their own chips for the Surface. Again, bad for Intel, but hardly a huge deal. But what if Microsoft then takes these Surface chips, and licenses them to Windows manufacturers to create the next generation of PCs... PCs that can compete with the M1 in terms of performance and efficiency. For Microsoft, the benefits would be immense. Microsoft obviously knows Windows better than anyone, and would be able to tailor both the operating system and their CPUs to work far more efficiently than Wintel. This also increases Microsoft’s vertical integration and control over the Windows operating system, which they’d no doubt view as positive. Microsoft becomes vendor of the Windows operating system and the CPUs it runs on. Intel systems would be at a permanent competitive disadvantage, as they don’t have the tight level of integration of Windows and MS-designed chips. The off the shelf ARM core designs are likely good enough for Microsoft to create an offering that’s competitive with Intel, if they implement some tweaks to make it integrate and perform better with Windows (as Apple has done with M1 and macOS) This might sound bonkers right now, but there’s definitely a version of the future where we’re buying a Dell XPS powered by Windows 10 and “Microsoft Silicon”

boznz 6y ago
Will have to be (or abstract) x86 to support the millions of legacy programs out there
- T-A 6y ago
  https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introducing-x64-emulation-in-preview-for-windows-10-on-arm-pcs-to-the-windows-insider-program/ https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
238475235243 6y ago
Already done with the SQ1 and SQ2 in the surface pro X. Only reason it was done with Qualcomm was the radio I believe.

TedShiller 6y ago

copycat

severino 6y ago

Oh, Microsoft innovating again. So Apple has iPhone? Now we will have Lumia! So Apple has iPad? Now we will have Surface! So Apple has M1? Now we will have something! Too bad OSX came too late and Microsoft couldn't just copy it by then.

adolfojp 6y ago
This is nonsense and a bit childish but if you want to compare, here are some things that Microsoft had before Apple: 1. A journaling filesystem 2. Protected memory 3. Preemptive multitasking 4. Access control 5. Intel chips 6. Tablet computers
- severino 6y ago
  Well, I never pretended to say that Microsoft has just one source of inspiration. But even admitting* that Microsoft got those before, they were not the pioneers either. * I say that because Mac OS classic was not the only operating system Apple developed. They had their A/UX operating system from 1988 to 1995 where things like protected memory, preemptive multitasking and the usual stuff from a Unix system of the time were present.
  - tmotwu 6y ago
    Then what was exactly the point of your post? People pointed out Microsoft did everything you listed in your OP before Apple, including a SoC - Apple and Microsoft both aren't pioneers in your definition.
    - severino 6y ago
      Yes, we know Microsoft "invented" the iPhone 15 years before Apple did... but here we're talking about real things. No vaporware. It's a joke to say Microsoft invented the smartphone as we know it today. Otherwise, we may as well say that Microsoft invented the most advanced file system in the world before nobody else (and for many years to come), WinFs... despite it does exist only in some engineers' minds.