12 ms·

Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? The interesting point here, which is corroborated by differen

• spacephysics 4y ago
  Fully agree, they’re very quickly up to the races of intel and Amd for their laptop M series chips. Typically every two gens we see a larger bump, so the next M series (after the one just released) will probably be even worse for intel especially
• pkulak 4y ago
  Does Apple really have some secret sauce, or are they just consistently first in line for TSMC's latest process? Not saying that's better or worse, but it's a very different problem.
  • Clent 4y ago
    They are able to focus on fewer designs and also are positioned to design the silicon to framework, target common bottlenecks, etc. It's the difference between tuning a game for consoles and tuning it for a PC. Apple's is funding TSMC's latest process by guaranteeing future orders. The other manufactures could do this but there is more profit in using older processes. Only a fraction of Android devices are using a process that isn't 3+ years old. Apple has end dates for their process. They are aim for this and the other companies are not. This isn't Apple Bad(tm) This is Android manufactures have a different focus. Android devices are priced to be disposable.
  • 6nf 4y ago
    Apple Silicon benefits from full vertical integration and not having to worry about third parties and their particular needs for the same silicon.
    • moolcool 4y ago
      What about Samsung Exynos?
      • 6nf 4y ago
        Are they gonna put it in the Galaxy S23?
        • moolcool 4y ago
          I don't know, but I'm just saying that Samsung has an in-house chip which they do vertically integrate into some of their products.
          • 6nf 4y ago
            Spoiler: They are not and they probably won't even put it in the 2024 version either... My point is that Samsung is not there yet.
    • brookst 4y ago
      This, especially with regards to backwards compatibility. Apple doesn't have to worry about some other OS / app vendor updating to support new silicon; they ship new hardware, new operating system, new Xcode, and almost everything just works. Also their silicon itself is just more advanced. I don't think anyone else is doing UMA the way they are, though I'm not 100% sure and would welcome correction.
  • etempleton 4y ago
    A little bit of both. Apple’s chips are highly customized for their use case and that proves out in certain benchmarks where they have a dramatic lead, but even without that customization they still have a small lead by default due to being on the newest process.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • bloodyplonker22 4y ago
    What a gross trivialization of the chip design process. If all a company had to do was get first in line for TSMC's process, Intel would drop all their fabs and just pay that money to TSMC to beat AMD.
    • drexlspivey 4y ago
      > If all a company had to do was get first in line for TSMC's process, Intel would drop all their fabs and just pay that money to TSMC to beat AMD. What money? They already paid them. Building fabs has a massive upfront cost that you depreciate for decades. The economics have to make sense for them to move to TSMC
    • zerd 4y ago
      "Intel is engaged with TSMC on N3 for its next-generation graphic processors (GPUs) in 2023". https://www.eetimes.com/intel-will-rely-on-tsmc-for-its-rebound/ https://www.eetimes.com/intel-will-rely-on-tsmc-for-its-rebo...
      • samus 4y ago
        It's a side business for Intel. Unlike AMD, Intel has never managed to produce GPUs that perform close to the current state of the art. For TSMC, it would be an error to start large-scale production of chips for someone that still has their own manufacturing capability. TSMC would have to allocate less fab capacity to their existing customers, and those won't like that.
    • samus 4y ago
      That would be a very costly mistake for Intel since then they couldn't cater their existing markets anymore. AMD and Nvidia are already struggling since they must share TSMC's capacity with Apple. Also, it remains to be seen whether the x86 architecture can keep ahead of ARM-based designs and maybe also RISC-V in the far future. Apple has good designs, consistent long-term plans, and doesn't have to directly compete with Intel over domination in the x86 market. They offer a complete package outside the x86 market. This fits well with who a market leader like TSMC would want as a partner.
  • sonofhans 4y ago
    Apple’s secret sauce is their long-term focus, colored strongly by their many awful experiences being held hostage by CPU manufacturers. They’ve re-architected their entire software stack on multiple occasions to deal with manufacturing partners who could no longer keep up. For example, it was a big deal when they moved from IBM/Motorola to Intel, and Macs started getting much faster right away. A decade later and Intel is struggling to keep up at the high end, woefully behind in low-power contexts, and Apple is again hamstrung in their plans. So at some point they decided to make their own chips. Well, to design them, and to use their leverage with TMSC to get them made exclusively. It’s true that they have fewer dependencies than a more general-purpose manufacturer like Intel, but don’t discount the many years they’ve spent eating shit while waiting for their “partners” to catch up. In the CPU space, they’ll never do that again.
    • rodgerd 4y ago
      > Apple’s secret sauce is their long-term focus, colored strongly by their many awful experiences being held hostage by CPU manufacturers. This is the key point. There used to be a lot of chip makers and phone vendors in the Android space (hell, even Sony had their own processors for their early phones), both ARM and the odd non-ARM effort. The way that the Android market has collapsed down to essentially "Qualcomm and Samsung" is what's hurting Android, and Qualcomm, in particular, are the reason that things like support lifecycles are such garbage. Google have been completely disinterested in solving this problem in any way, while Apple have.
      • hinkley 4y ago
        Apple tried and failed to make a chipset to replace Qualcomm didn't they? I'd love to see them try again. And I feel like that's an area where their particular culture (of looking at vendors that make them resentful and trying to do something about it) might even put them in a place where they're willing to sell those chips or designs to other carriers because fuck Qualcomm.
        • rodgerd 4y ago
          > Apple tried and failed to make a chipset to replace Qualcomm didn't they? I can't remember whether it was sourcing Intel modems or rolling their own, but yeah, either way they fell foul of Qualcomm's nest of patents: Qualcomm's real competitive edge is that they are experts at lobbying to have their patented tech built into government and NGO standards. You don't need to make decent chips or support them for more than a couple of years if it's illegal not to use them.
  • 0xDEF 4y ago
    Apple (and Nvidia) can afford to pay to be first in line for the latest TSMC process. But that alone doesn't explain why Apple's 2.5 year old mid-range offering is faster than the latest and greatest from Samsung.
    • gambiting 4y ago
      Well, it's latest and greatest from Snapdragon. Samsung's own attempt(Exynos) was so poor it got completely ditched this year.
  • Spooky23 4y ago
    They have unlimited cash and buy capacity in advance. Also, in the old days when they weren’t the juggernaut they are today, they always were good and minimizing SKUs and economy of scale. In 2005, the #1 part on state contracts were iMacs, even though Apple market share was like 3%. That level of control and planning means they know what they need and can adjust. Overages in Apple Watch CPUs are subsidizing the HomePod, etc. In the case of the iPhone, they put an overpowered chip in there because why not.
  • bangonkeyboard 4y ago
    The S23 is on TSMC's 4nm node. The iPhone 12 was TSMC's first-gen 5nm.
    • pkulak 4y ago
      Thank you. No offense to everyone else replying to me, but this one-liner is worth more than all the hot-takes and random conjecture put together.
  • hinkley 4y ago
    Customers with expensive tastes help you roll out new product lines. Cheap customers may end up costing you money, or at the very least represent a negative opportunity cost. You have to work out for yourself whether the gravitas of having a full schedule lets you get more paying customers in the door.
• luxuryballs 4y ago
  I know we are typically against monopolies (pls don’t flame me) but why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important like food/water/medicine? I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads, or likewise worrying about some company dominating augmented reality chips. I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living than about stopping companies from achieving it.
  • wheats 4y ago
    >I’d be more interested in making sure that such technology is never required for basic living Cell phones are a requirement for basic living. That's a large part of why it matters.
  • pyrophane 4y ago
    Personally I care because, as an example, I'm interested in AR, and I wouldn't want that space to be limited to just just the hardware Apple chooses to make, and the use cases and content they deem acceptable.
  • deafpolygon 4y ago
    > why should we care if it’s not something that’s actually important because monopolies can manipulate market and prevent a healthy competition. no competition, means prices will be artificially high.
  • bogwog 4y ago
    > I don’t see the sense when the government tries to break up a monopoly like Google for being too good at selling online ads The problem is that Google isn't "too good" at selling online ads, they're just the most profitable because their monopoly makes it impossible for better competitors to beat them. That means the world is stuck with Google's mediocre/shitty service even though consumers/the market doesn't want it. Innovation stops happening, quality of life drops, the economy suffers, etc. Apple's big lead in chips right now seems like a great thing, but if the government weren't so shit at regulating competition, we could've had breakthroughs like this a decade ago. Instead innovation is (predictably) moving at a glacial pace. The free market only works when there is competition, so since our economy is based on the free market, it makes sense to write laws that protect it. Monopolies directly contradict with the basic operation of the free market, which is why they're bad. It doesn't matter if it's a life or death situation. Things don't have to be dangerous to your health to be illegal.
• mrtksn 4y ago
  > Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? It's like football game for geeks, it's not a big deal. It's fun as long as you don't take it too seriously. On a more serious note, I prefer Apple's style of doing things and pray to the gods Android doesn't obliterate Apple's OS. Just last week I got my hands on a Amazon Fire TV, it was cool until the AirScreen app started not working for some reason and my blood started boiling with disgust towards Android and everything it stands for. I'm a huge "Just Works" enjoyer and Android's market share dominance scares me.
  • yamtaddle 4y ago
    I got a Shield to try to save some cash, getting hardware with a good TV interface that could do h.265 decoding. Bugfest and terrible (and goddamn laggy) UI. Ended up on an AppleTV, which is what I should have gotten in the first place I guess. Every time I try to save money by avoiding Apple I end up paying far more for it in jank, lost time, and frustration. I hate how shit my other options are in nearly all of Apple's product categories, because it's not like Apple doesn't screw up constantly, just not enough that I wouldn't be cutting of my nose to spite my face by switching. If others would close the gap I'd feel a lot less uncomfortable with how much power they have.
    • mrtksn 4y ago
      I tried a few times over the years saving money by not buying Apple, all ended up in frustration. I hope the competition catches up with Apple because I would love having options even if I stick with Apple.
    • acdha 4y ago
      > Every time I try to save money by avoiding Apple I end up paying far more for it in jank, lost time, and frustration. I hate how shit my other options are in nearly all of Apple's product categories This was me recently. Our old TV broke so I bought a new Samsung at Costco. The setup process was ominous: they want you to sign away all of your data to whoever they choose to sell it to, and the only way to get it on the Wi-Fi was to use their setup app which refuses to let you configure the TV unless you give it background high-precision location tracking permission. They lie about that being needed to configure Wi-Fi in response to negative reviews. I set it up before uninstalling the phone app, and fired up Disney+ for my son. Mission accomplished! He makes it like 5 minutes in to Finding Nemo and complains because it’s doing jerky 1-2 fps slideshow mode any time the scene has much motion at all. We switch to Netflix. Same problem. Maybe it’s our normally very reliable Wi-Fi? Nope, everything works great on his iPad and that can even AirPlay to the TV flawlessly. Also it downloaded its software updates at like 500Mbps according to the Eero app so it seems like it would have to be a very selective network problem. The most likely explanation is that Samsung sells 4K TVs with processors which can’t reliably keep up with a complex 4K stream. I see where this is going, and factory reset the TV before blocking it on the Wi-Fi. It’s a beautiful display and I don’t want it turning into e-waste so time to solve problems the American way by shopping. Amazon delivered an Apple TV early the next morning and it’s everything Samsung wants to be when they grow up: the UI is designed by professionals and noticeably more responsive, the setup process is painless, and it can play 4K in any app flawlessly. Now, I know that this is because Samsung put the equivalent of something like a decade-old phone SoC in there while Apple is using an A14 which is basically laptop-class and costs considerably more, but if they want to save money on their BOM they shouldn’t advertise things on the side of the box when their hardware doesn’t support it.
• CharlesW 4y ago
  > Whether you like iPhone or Android, I think we should all agree that's a bad situation for the world to be in. Is it? Qualcomm is currently focused on performance in a way that they wouldn't be if Apple hadn't lit a fire under their ass. https://hothardware.com/news/snapdragon-8-gen-3-decimates-apples-a16-bionic-in-benchmark-leak https://hothardware.com/news/snapdragon-8-gen-3-decimates-ap...
  • qball 4y ago
    >Qualcomm is currently focused on performance in a way that they wouldn't be if Apple hadn't lit a fire under their ass. No, Qualcomm has been consistently behind for years. The reason their chips are doing significantly better now is because it takes a little while for the talent they bought- the people responsible for Apple's current massive lead in the first place- to bear fruit (longer than usual since they were brought on in 2019). As such, I have reason to suspect they'll have more success going forward until Qualcomm stops paying enough and they go back to Apple; the circle of life. AMD's no stranger to this way of operation; they just re-hire Jim Keller when they get tired of losing to Intel.
    • CharlesW 4y ago
      Your response with "no", but I'm not seeing a persuasive argument against "competition is good and benefits Android users, too". I also think it'll be good for everyone when Apple starts competing with Qualcomm on 5G modems.
• gary_0 4y ago
  Once upon a time, there were around a dozen fabs competing to make high-end semiconductors. Now it's just TSMC (who sell cutting-edge capacity exclusively to Apple) with Samsung's fabs playing catch-up. And Intel... are you okay back there, Intel? There's isn't much hope on the horizon for more competition when it costs hundreds of billions to build a new next-gen fab, there's a significant chance of process shrinks failing economically, and the institutional knowledge required is concentrated in a few isolated groups, with most STEM students in most countries not finding the semiconductor industry attractive. There's a crunch on pretty much every axis.
  • axlee 4y ago
    That's when governments should step in and invest in alternatives. The TSMC quasi-monopoly is any country national security risk, and that it is irresponsible for most western nations to let the industry be run by a single foreign player. If I'm not wrong, TSMC captures by itself 60% of the world's semiconductor market?
    • adventured 4y ago
      Depends on your context. The US is more or less forcing (via political & economic pressure) TSMC to build inside the US. If anything were to happen in terms of national security (with regard primarily to China invading Taiwan), the US can stand up a US-TSMC entity in collaboration with TSMC Taiwan (or without them entirely), declare the Taiwan entity void as far as the US is concerned, claim all the assets globally as being owned by the US entity and go right on about its business. And it doesn't matter whether anyone else likes it or not, given the context that will be unfolding at that time. Ideally also shift all critical IP and talent out of Taiwan and into the US, to the extent possible, while the chaos is unfolding. It'd just be a new Operation Paperclip. If TSMC actually goes forward with its plans to build inside the US to the extent it's supposed to, it's no longer fully a foreigner player. Realistically it's a hybridization of TSMC for what-if scenarios. Once they do it, the US will not let them return to the way things were before.
  • hinkley 4y ago
    "Is selling cutting edge capacity exclusively to Apple" I think undersells the situation, perhaps a little disingenuously. Apple has a track record of bankrolling build-out of cutting edge manufacturing facilities in a weird business loan/prepurchase arrangement where essentially they get stuff 18 months before anyone else would have been able to get it without doing the same thing. Waiting around for businesses to see a market and then a long line of processes necessary to make that a reality slows things down. When Apple made their first Intel laptop, they got a CPU bin that didn't actually exist for something like another 9 months. If Lenovo had shown up asking for it, they would have been told no, in no small part because Lenovo would have wanted 10x the capacity that Apple needed for those first macbooks. But Apple could handle waiting for what were essentially perfect chips to trickle out of a fab still working on yield. As Apple has gotten bigger they've had to make their own weather more and more. I have no doubt that if Apple hadn't shown up to TSM with a bag of money that Intel would only be a year or so behind TSM instead of whatever they are right now (which is Really Really Bad)
• jansan 4y ago
  > Everyone in this thread is arguing about operating systems and their mobile OS preference... why? Simply because performance of mobile phones is not an issue anymore. Nobody cares if one phone is 5% or 5 times faster than the other. I have a 2,5 year old 200€ Chinaphone and performance is not an issue at all. Unlike a few years ago I never even once thought that a slightly faster phone would be any better. That's why.
• seydor 4y ago
  You 're talking about the american market. Most of the world uses android phones I think samsung and qualcomm are more important companies, because they compete in components, making incremental changes in the electronics industry . Apple is a vertically integrated, closed monolith and the rest of the ecosystem will not / cannot benefit from their innovations. Samsung should focus on differntiating itself from apple rather than trying to look more like it. Good, functional phones with lots of customizability and ports are a strength. Speed of apps is immaterial to me , and i m using an old Samsung. Most people use messengers and browsers, which run just fine in older phones. 3D avatars and fancy animations are not crucial to anyone
  • rblatz 4y ago
    What would you possibly want a bunch of ports on your phone for?
    • seydor 4y ago
      - i use my audio jack instead of charging earphones - audio cable also acts as an FM radio antenna, which i have used when signal is bad - wouldn't mind a desktop docking port
    • hpen 4y ago
      Second this: not sure what good an hdmi, audio Jack or else would be for me or the average consumer at this point. Usb-c would be cool but it’s not as water proof as lightning
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• whydoineedthis 4y ago
  Aside from the caveat that Samsung's device kicked the hell out of iPhone on MULTI core benchmarks - you know, the ones that matter if your doing anything modern with your phone, like playing 3d games and video editing for the 'tok. But sure, it is leaps and bounds ahead of that task no one really cares about.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• borissk 4y ago
  There is no danger of Apple becoming a monopoly in the future AR industry. Their products will be very expensive and out of reach for the majority of worlds population. Most of those who can afford them will still prefer a more open ecosystem from the likes of Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Huawei, etc. even if their offerings are slightly less advanced. With their A and M series SOCs Apple had an advantage in mobile, tablet, laptop, even desktop PC markets. That advantage didn't result in a monopoly. If you live in US it may look like iPhones have a monopoly in the smartphone market, but they are a lot less popular in the rest of the world.
  • hpen 4y ago
    But those who like apple actually like the cohesive ecosystem which I would argue is fundamentally on the other side of the fence from an open ecosystem.