6 ms·

No vertical integration is what did intel in because they both do fab and design. TSMC won because they aren't vertically integrated into anything. Apple is be

No vertical integration is what did intel in because they both do fab and design. TSMC won because they aren't vertically integrated into anything. Apple is better because of actual superior technology. The chips are custom made and no one can match the technology yet.

homefree 2y ago
They have superior technology because they control the full stack and have taken more and more ownership of it over the years (most recently building their own modem in the iPhone 16e). They could design chips for an exact set of constraints (originally iPhones) and then expand that to the mac. Intel with x86 had to support legacy and tons of different devices (and bad leadership caused them to ignore efficiency and later ignore gpus). Other laptop manufacturers have to run other people's software and few really make their own underlying hardware to the extent apple does.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  No they don't all their technology is equivalent to what's in the industry save their chips. Which btw is manufactured by TSMC so the chip itself is not vertically integrated.
  - homefree 2y ago
    My argument is they were able to develop the chip because of their control. The constraints allowed them that freedom and the constraints come from the top down integration and control. I'll bow out here because I can just tell this won't be a worthwhile thread.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      But what other advantage did this give them? Like name specific examples. Feel free to leave, but I honestly don't see where you're coming from.
      - alwillis 2y ago
        > But what other advantage did this give them? Like name specific examples. Feel free to leave, but I honestly don't see where you're coming from. Back when Apple used Intel processors, they were at the mercy of Intel's roadmap; if Intel missed a deadline for a new chip, Apple had to change plans. Obviously, that's no longer the case. Back in the Motorola/IBM days, their G5 processor ran so hot that Apple had to create a special case with 7 fans to cool it. It was an amazing engineering feat, but something Apple would never do unless they had no choice. I've used a Power Mac G5—it sounded like a jet taking off, and the fans stayed on. [2] They get to integrate new technologies quicker than being constrained by the industry. Apple launched the first 64-bit smartphone, the iPhone 5s, in 2013—at least a year before any Android manufacturer could. And when Qualcomm finally shipped a 64-bit processor, no version of Android supported it. [1] There are dozens of examples where Apple's vertical integration has allowed them to stay a step ahead of competitors. The latest is the C1 modem that shipped in the iPhone 16e. Because the C1 is much more efficient than Qualcomm's modem, the 16e gets better battery life than the more expensive iPhone 16 with Qualcomm's modem. [3] And because Qualcomm's licensing fees are a percentage of the cost of the device it's in, shipping the C1 enables them to put modems in laptops. The Qualcomm fee is significant: an iPad Air starts at $599; the same iPad Air model with one of Qualcomm's modems costs $749. Customers have wanted MacBooks with cellular modems forever; now they'll be able to do that, since the modem will become part of Apple's SoC in the near future. That's what you can do when you're not constrained by off-the-shelf components. [1]: "First 64-bit Android phone has no 64-bit software"—https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/first-64-bit-android-phone-has-no-64-bit-software/#:~:text=When%20Apple%20launched%20the%20iPhone,hardware%20and%20updates%20the%20OS. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/first-64-bit-android... [2]: https://thehouseofmoth.com/a-little-known-fact-about-the-power-mac-g5-and-what-to-do-with-this-information/ https://thehouseofmoth.com/a-little-known-fact-about-the-pow... [3]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/02/27/apples-c1-modem-breaks-no-records-for-speed-but-is-exceptionally-power-efficient https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/02/27/apples-c1-modem-b...
        fpoling 2y ago
        It is unclear how much Apple have to pay to Qualcomm in patent fees. It can be still substantial.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - philwelch 2y ago
    You’re treating vertical integration as if it’s this absolute thing. Apple is clearly more vertically integrated than any other laptop brand by virtue of designing everything from the CPU to the OS. That remains true even though Apple doesn’t run their own chip fabs or mine their own bauxite.
- specialist 2y ago
  > (originally iPhones) and then expand that to the mac Yes and: (as you know) Aggregate volume also benefits Apple's whole product suite. It's hard for a laptop mfg to justify pushing to next node process for just ~25m units. So competitors have to wait for Qualcomm, Samsung, whomever to transition. It's easier for Apple with ~250m phones, ~50m tablets, ~25m laptops, etc. per year. (Apple's war chest also enables monosopoly of upcoming node processes.) Imagine trying to pull off AirPods or Vision without that deep vertical integration. The ridiculously ambitious Vision is just barely feasible, riding on mobile's coattails. A Vision using 3rd party CPUs would be delayed. -- This all is in addition to the Apple specific optimizations, which you mention.
throwup238 2y ago
Apple is better because they’re not competing on price which is why they can afford to bring so many things in house. That’s how they can afford the talent and other R&D resources. We get what we pay for.
- indemnity 2y ago
  $899 (edu) or $999 is extremely competitive for what you get. Most people buying an entry level computer these days should at least consider stretching to get a MBA than the $300-400 shovelware, they’ll get so much use out of it. My wife is still using her 2020 M1 Air and it’s still as snappy as the day we got it, still works for all her use cases. Incredible value.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    That’s a great point, but I think that’s the result of decades of work enabled by premium pricing culminating in their custom silicon (which is itself a product of their ability to command exclusivity with TSMC nodes). The shareholders demand ever constant growth and Apple is moving down market just like everyone else (looking at you, BMW 3 series).
  - motorest 2y ago
    > Most people buying an entry level computer these days should at least consider stretching to get a MBA than the $300-400 shovelware, they’ll get so much use out of it. I don't think that expecting everyone to waste 3x the money to scratch the same itch is an informed take, specially when the $300 shovelware has far better specs in terms of RAM and by far HD. Nowadays you can even get better performing miniPCs for half the price than your MacBook Air M3, such as any of the systems packing a AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS. I think some people look at the shiny computers and don't look past that.
    - chipotle_coyote 2y ago
      And comparing a miniPC to a laptop is an informed take?
    - 2y ago
sharken 2y ago
Apple is very dependent on using the latest process node from TSMC though. For that reason and the fact that the US cannot match what TSMC does, it all points to Taiwan dictating what kind of aid the US must provide. I don't see the current US leadership wanting to put that in jeopardy.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  More like the US is dictating the aid. Tsmc is opening a fundamentally unprofitable fab in Arizona.

homefree 2y ago

They have superior technology because they control the full stack and have taken more and more ownership of it over the years (most recently building their own modem in the iPhone 16e). They could design chips for an exact set of constraints (originally iPhones) and then expand that to the mac. Intel with x86 had to support legacy and tons of different devices (and bad leadership caused them to ignore efficiency and later ignore gpus). Other laptop manufacturers have to run other people's software and few really make their own underlying hardware to the extent apple does.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
No they don't all their technology is equivalent to what's in the industry save their chips. Which btw is manufactured by TSMC so the chip itself is not vertically integrated.
- homefree 2y ago
  My argument is they were able to develop the chip because of their control. The constraints allowed them that freedom and the constraints come from the top down integration and control. I'll bow out here because I can just tell this won't be a worthwhile thread.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    But what other advantage did this give them? Like name specific examples. Feel free to leave, but I honestly don't see where you're coming from.
    - alwillis 2y ago
      > But what other advantage did this give them? Like name specific examples. Feel free to leave, but I honestly don't see where you're coming from. Back when Apple used Intel processors, they were at the mercy of Intel's roadmap; if Intel missed a deadline for a new chip, Apple had to change plans. Obviously, that's no longer the case. Back in the Motorola/IBM days, their G5 processor ran so hot that Apple had to create a special case with 7 fans to cool it. It was an amazing engineering feat, but something Apple would never do unless they had no choice. I've used a Power Mac G5—it sounded like a jet taking off, and the fans stayed on. [2] They get to integrate new technologies quicker than being constrained by the industry. Apple launched the first 64-bit smartphone, the iPhone 5s, in 2013—at least a year before any Android manufacturer could. And when Qualcomm finally shipped a 64-bit processor, no version of Android supported it. [1] There are dozens of examples where Apple's vertical integration has allowed them to stay a step ahead of competitors. The latest is the C1 modem that shipped in the iPhone 16e. Because the C1 is much more efficient than Qualcomm's modem, the 16e gets better battery life than the more expensive iPhone 16 with Qualcomm's modem. [3] And because Qualcomm's licensing fees are a percentage of the cost of the device it's in, shipping the C1 enables them to put modems in laptops. The Qualcomm fee is significant: an iPad Air starts at $599; the same iPad Air model with one of Qualcomm's modems costs $749. Customers have wanted MacBooks with cellular modems forever; now they'll be able to do that, since the modem will become part of Apple's SoC in the near future. That's what you can do when you're not constrained by off-the-shelf components. [1]: "First 64-bit Android phone has no 64-bit software"—https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/first-64-bit-android-phone-has-no-64-bit-software/#:~:text=When%20Apple%20launched%20the%20iPhone,hardware%20and%20updates%20the%20OS. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/first-64-bit-android... [2]: https://thehouseofmoth.com/a-little-known-fact-about-the-power-mac-g5-and-what-to-do-with-this-information/ https://thehouseofmoth.com/a-little-known-fact-about-the-pow... [3]: https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/02/27/apples-c1-modem-breaks-no-records-for-speed-but-is-exceptionally-power-efficient https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/02/27/apples-c1-modem-b...
      - fpoling 2y ago
        It is unclear how much Apple have to pay to Qualcomm in patent fees. It can be still substantial.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- philwelch 2y ago
  You’re treating vertical integration as if it’s this absolute thing. Apple is clearly more vertically integrated than any other laptop brand by virtue of designing everything from the CPU to the OS. That remains true even though Apple doesn’t run their own chip fabs or mine their own bauxite.
specialist 2y ago
> (originally iPhones) and then expand that to the mac Yes and: (as you know) Aggregate volume also benefits Apple's whole product suite. It's hard for a laptop mfg to justify pushing to next node process for just ~25m units. So competitors have to wait for Qualcomm, Samsung, whomever to transition. It's easier for Apple with ~250m phones, ~50m tablets, ~25m laptops, etc. per year. (Apple's war chest also enables monosopoly of upcoming node processes.) Imagine trying to pull off AirPods or Vision without that deep vertical integration. The ridiculously ambitious Vision is just barely feasible, riding on mobile's coattails. A Vision using 3rd party CPUs would be delayed. -- This all is in addition to the Apple specific optimizations, which you mention.

throwup238 2y ago

Apple is better because they’re not competing on price which is why they can afford to bring so many things in house. That’s how they can afford the talent and other R&D resources. We get what we pay for.

indemnity 2y ago
$899 (edu) or $999 is extremely competitive for what you get. Most people buying an entry level computer these days should at least consider stretching to get a MBA than the $300-400 shovelware, they’ll get so much use out of it. My wife is still using her 2020 M1 Air and it’s still as snappy as the day we got it, still works for all her use cases. Incredible value.
- throwup238 2y ago
  That’s a great point, but I think that’s the result of decades of work enabled by premium pricing culminating in their custom silicon (which is itself a product of their ability to command exclusivity with TSMC nodes). The shareholders demand ever constant growth and Apple is moving down market just like everyone else (looking at you, BMW 3 series).
- motorest 2y ago
  > Most people buying an entry level computer these days should at least consider stretching to get a MBA than the $300-400 shovelware, they’ll get so much use out of it. I don't think that expecting everyone to waste 3x the money to scratch the same itch is an informed take, specially when the $300 shovelware has far better specs in terms of RAM and by far HD. Nowadays you can even get better performing miniPCs for half the price than your MacBook Air M3, such as any of the systems packing a AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS. I think some people look at the shiny computers and don't look past that.
  - chipotle_coyote 2y ago
    And comparing a miniPC to a laptop is an informed take?
  - 2y ago

sharken 2y ago

Apple is very dependent on using the latest process node from TSMC though. For that reason and the fact that the US cannot match what TSMC does, it all points to Taiwan dictating what kind of aid the US must provide. I don't see the current US leadership wanting to put that in jeopardy.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
More like the US is dictating the aid. Tsmc is opening a fundamentally unprofitable fab in Arizona.