4 ms·

Its just as likely that Apple has decided to use Intel's chip line (which no one has any idea what it is) 2 years from now and no longer needs Jim Keller than i

Its just as likely that Apple has decided to use Intel's chip line (which no one has any idea what it is) 2 years from now and no longer needs Jim Keller than it is to assume that Jim Keller was "poached" by AMD. The iPhone 5, might be the last phone with custom Apple chips.

twoodfin 14y ago
That seems extremely unlikely. Even if Intel could produce a performance/power competitive product in that timeframe, they're likely never going to give Apple the influence over its SoC designs that they can currently exert over their ARM partners. It's more likely that Apple has and is satisfied with a 3-4 year roadmap for the A* line that looked pretty boring to Keller, and the AMD job appeared much more interesting (and potentially much more lucrative).
- wtvanhest 14y ago
  I'm curious, why would Intel need to give Apple any influence over their SoC designs? All phones are basically moving toward the exact same shape and size.
  - wmf 14y ago
    Apple's "custom" A4 appears to be a Samsung SoC with features that Apple doesn't need removed to reduce cost. And the A5X has a bigger GPU (MP4) than any other SoC. I would expect A6 to maintain some difference from off-the-shelf SoCs.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      What does that have to do with future designs though? I'm under the assumption that the roadmap is 18 to 24 months out. In that time frame, they could have already selected a future Intel SoC. Why would they need to continue upgrading the hardware at this point? It seems like a useless effort given that they have a software technology advantage and marketing brand advantage.
      - twoodfin 14y ago
        Why would they need to continue upgrading the hardware at this point? I'm not sure what you're asking. Apple has demonstrated time and again that their strategy depends on offering the best possible technology at desirable price points. Consumers don't care about MHz the way they used to, but they know the difference between a fast and slow UI, and they care about the features and battery life that are dependent on an ever more powerful and efficient SoC. Intel, as much as they might want to please Apple and know what a coup it would be to be inside the iPhone and iPad, is only one company, and one with a history of engineering pride, sometimes to their detriment (see Itanium[1]). Apple would have to be sure that Intel would respond to whatever crazy demands their engineers come up with, and right now a bunch of scrappy ARM vendors seem much more likely to do that. If one fails Apple, they can hire another one for the next device. Worst case scenario: they can buy one. If Intel stops playing ball, they'd be stuck with another painful ISA transition. They've gotten better at those but they're not free. Apple's seen what happens when a supplier roadmap (Motorola/IBM's PPC) goes out of alignment with theirs. Even if Intel produced a product at parity with the best ARMs, a competitive ARM market (albeit one currently dominated by Samsung) serves Apple better than a single source. EDIT: [1] I should mention that Itanium was actually fairly effective for Intel at clearing the field of several major "enterprise" architectural competitors, disaster though it was as a real product. But surely they would have been happier if it had actually been a success instead of a multibillion dollar embarrassment.
- pvidler 14y ago
  I think intel would bend over backwards to get their processors in an apple phone; it would completely open the mobile market for them. They already give apple some influence anyway -- there was something back in 2011 about apple 'persuading' intel to work on the ULV version of the sandy bridge CPU for use in the air.
- DeepDuh 14y ago
  That's exactly what I thought: Chip design for Apple based on ARM is probably just not the kind of challenge such a top exec wants to spend too much time on.

twoodfin 14y ago

That seems extremely unlikely. Even if Intel could produce a performance/power competitive product in that timeframe, they're likely never going to give Apple the influence over its SoC designs that they can currently exert over their ARM partners. It's more likely that Apple has and is satisfied with a 3-4 year roadmap for the A* line that looked pretty boring to Keller, and the AMD job appeared much more interesting (and potentially much more lucrative).

wtvanhest 14y ago
I'm curious, why would Intel need to give Apple any influence over their SoC designs? All phones are basically moving toward the exact same shape and size.
- wmf 14y ago
  Apple's "custom" A4 appears to be a Samsung SoC with features that Apple doesn't need removed to reduce cost. And the A5X has a bigger GPU (MP4) than any other SoC. I would expect A6 to maintain some difference from off-the-shelf SoCs.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    What does that have to do with future designs though? I'm under the assumption that the roadmap is 18 to 24 months out. In that time frame, they could have already selected a future Intel SoC. Why would they need to continue upgrading the hardware at this point? It seems like a useless effort given that they have a software technology advantage and marketing brand advantage.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      Why would they need to continue upgrading the hardware at this point? I'm not sure what you're asking. Apple has demonstrated time and again that their strategy depends on offering the best possible technology at desirable price points. Consumers don't care about MHz the way they used to, but they know the difference between a fast and slow UI, and they care about the features and battery life that are dependent on an ever more powerful and efficient SoC. Intel, as much as they might want to please Apple and know what a coup it would be to be inside the iPhone and iPad, is only one company, and one with a history of engineering pride, sometimes to their detriment (see Itanium[1]). Apple would have to be sure that Intel would respond to whatever crazy demands their engineers come up with, and right now a bunch of scrappy ARM vendors seem much more likely to do that. If one fails Apple, they can hire another one for the next device. Worst case scenario: they can buy one. If Intel stops playing ball, they'd be stuck with another painful ISA transition. They've gotten better at those but they're not free. Apple's seen what happens when a supplier roadmap (Motorola/IBM's PPC) goes out of alignment with theirs. Even if Intel produced a product at parity with the best ARMs, a competitive ARM market (albeit one currently dominated by Samsung) serves Apple better than a single source. EDIT: [1] I should mention that Itanium was actually fairly effective for Intel at clearing the field of several major "enterprise" architectural competitors, disaster though it was as a real product. But surely they would have been happier if it had actually been a success instead of a multibillion dollar embarrassment.
pvidler 14y ago
I think intel would bend over backwards to get their processors in an apple phone; it would completely open the mobile market for them. They already give apple some influence anyway -- there was something back in 2011 about apple 'persuading' intel to work on the ULV version of the sandy bridge CPU for use in the air.
DeepDuh 14y ago
That's exactly what I thought: Chip design for Apple based on ARM is probably just not the kind of challenge such a top exec wants to spend too much time on.