5 ms·
I think it's important to draw a distinction between 'can' and 'will' here. With the the A7 SoC and the A64 ISA it became clear that the ISA and Apple's Silico
by klelatti 4y ago
I think it's important to draw a distinction between 'can' and 'will' here.
With the the A7 SoC and the A64 ISA it became clear that the ISA and Apple's Silicon design capabilities were sufficient to build SoC's that would compete with the best that Intel could offer.
However, the costs of making a transition would still be significant, maybe not in cash terms for Apple, but certainly in manpower and focus.
I suspect that it was Intel's process stumbles that led to the decision being made in the end. How many times, I wonder, did Intel promise something to Apple behind the scenes, only to fail to deliver? With the success of TSMC the opportunity for Apple's management to take more control of their own destiny would have been too compelling.
- philistine 4y agoWhen you look at the laser focus and clear talking points of Johny Srouji, compared to the way Intel leadership talk about themselves, it’s no wonder why Apple chose to deal with him and his team instead of Intel.
- klelatti 4y agoIIRC the whole relationship got off to a bad start when Intel failed to deliver 64 bit (x86-64) in time for the first MacBook Pros. Apple had to ship OSX on 32 bit only to replace it a year later when Core 2 Duo came out. Given Tim Cook's known zeal for delivery I hesitate to think how bad things must have become later on.
- MaxikCZ 4y agoGot any examples of comparison?