6 ms·

The article feels a little shallow on the analysis side. For instance I would expect this oddity to be caused by the fact that they aren't a traditional hardwa

by Guvante 13y ago

The article feels a little shallow on the analysis side. For instance I would expect this oddity to be caused by the fact that they aren't a traditional hardware manufacturer (they don't have any fabs and outsource their production) nor are they a traditional software manufacturer (their software focus pales in comparison to Google or Microsoft). Since developing silicon and software are two of the biggest drivers in the industry and Apple doesn't focus on either, it makes sense they have a low R&D budget.

josefresco 13y ago
"they don't have any fabs" Isn't this not true anymore? I thought Apple brought chip production "in house" as well as other specific hardware related to their iOS products.
- nilsimsa 13y ago
  They brought some chip design in house. Chip production is quite expensive that only a few companies do it in house.
  - dba7dba 13y ago
    I know this is a hearsay but at the height of the apple/samsung law suit I was following a story and one of the commenters claimed Apple's chip R&D was being done in a borrowed facility at a Samsung owned chip factory in Austin, TX. Intrinsity based in Austin had been doing work with samsung and since Intrinsity was bought out by Apple, I think there's some chance it's true. No way I can verify if it's true it'd be pretty funny...
    - donavanm 13y ago
      Intrinsity did design, not process. They did some design work for Samsung around the A8/Snapdragon days. Shortly after that Apple acquired Intrinsity and brought them in house ala PA Semi.
- revelation 13y ago
  Chip fabs are extremely expensive. You basically need to invest $5B+ every two years just to stay up-to-date on technology, and then the same amount or more to do the necessary research and build the thing in the first place. (Reference in point: history of Globalfoundries)
- dragontamer 13y ago
  You are correct. Apple just spent billions of dollars buying up a fab lab. However, it will be years before this investment sees any practical use at Apple. http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/ http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/
  - gress 13y ago
    Is there a link to substantiate that claim that doesn't put the information behind a paywall?
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Not one that I know of. Charlie isn't the typical blogger though, and I prefer his paywall style over the ad-based models that other sites have done. When Charlie wrote a few honest (but blasting) reports on various companies a while back... the ad-companies held his revenue hostage. They didn't like him writing the way he did. As such, he stopped doing ad-hosted content and was forced into the paywall model. Now to be fair, Charlie is a bit rambunctious and exaggerates some claims, but his fact-gathering tends to be months or years ahead of others (Do a double-take at the date of this article: http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/sony-playstation-4-will-be-an-x86-cpu-with-an-amd-gpu/ http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/sony-playstation-4-will-b.... I personally can verify the date on that article, as I read the article when it came out and didn't believe it.) . His writing style is abrasive though, and ad companies didn't want much to do with him. He gets things wrong sometimes, because he's really trying to predict the future. But since he gets things right more than 50% of the time, I'm pretty confident in his claims. Overall, he does good work. It is unlikely that other sites will have his information for another few months at least.
      - gress 13y ago
        There are a whole bunch of other sites linking to this piece calling it a rumour, and that there is little detail beyond the paywall and no corroborating evidence since then. I think it's false.
scdc 13y ago
Don't Apple's A7 and other chips count as "developing silicon"? And you don't see Apple focusing on "developing software"?
- cromwellian 13y ago
  Yes, but it is abstract development that relies on lower level discoveries. It's like designing a medical treatment that relies on anti-biotics, if no new antibiotics are discovered, and the old ones become less valuable, then new treatments hault. The A7 is a marvelous chip, but the reason these super smartphones exist is silicon manufacturing prowess. If we could not make these chips smaller and less power hungry, the mobile revolution would not have happened. Apple stood on the shoulders of giants who went before them in this regard. Intel, IBM, TSMC, et al, plow a lot of money into advancing silicon manufacturing further. Lots of other companies plow billions into tools to support this sector. In some ways, taking in huge margins on silicon upstream (while the downstream players are squeezed to minimize their margins), without plowing money back into the system, could be seen as somewhat parasitical. I used to work at IBM Research, and one of the things I used to love doing was reading IBM Systems Journal. Research, like on scanning electron microscopes, measuring quantized magnetic flux in superconducting circuits, new kinds of giant magneto resistive effects, it was all very exciting to know that right down the hall, stuff I'd normally read about in Scientific American, Nature, or other places was being done. IBM T.J. Watson Research was given relative autonomy when I was there, they could spend money without have to justify it as being linked to a product, and I think that was very valuable for long term development. The new players in Silicon Valley don't seem to have the same commitment to basic R&D, long term R&D. Everything has to be linked to something shiny that can be sold in 2-3 years.
  - stephencanon 13y ago
    Apple is indirectly plowing billions of dollars into that research via their contracts with Intel and the foundries. If the margins on those contracts aren’t sufficient to provide for further research, that’s on the head of the supplier’s pricing teams, not Apple.

by Guvante 13y ago

josefresco 13y ago

"they don't have any fabs" Isn't this not true anymore? I thought Apple brought chip production "in house" as well as other specific hardware related to their iOS products.

nilsimsa 13y ago
They brought some chip design in house. Chip production is quite expensive that only a few companies do it in house.
- dba7dba 13y ago
  I know this is a hearsay but at the height of the apple/samsung law suit I was following a story and one of the commenters claimed Apple's chip R&D was being done in a borrowed facility at a Samsung owned chip factory in Austin, TX. Intrinsity based in Austin had been doing work with samsung and since Intrinsity was bought out by Apple, I think there's some chance it's true. No way I can verify if it's true it'd be pretty funny...
  - donavanm 13y ago
    Intrinsity did design, not process. They did some design work for Samsung around the A8/Snapdragon days. Shortly after that Apple acquired Intrinsity and brought them in house ala PA Semi.
revelation 13y ago
Chip fabs are extremely expensive. You basically need to invest $5B+ every two years just to stay up-to-date on technology, and then the same amount or more to do the necessary research and build the thing in the first place. (Reference in point: history of Globalfoundries)
dragontamer 13y ago
You are correct. Apple just spent billions of dollars buying up a fab lab. However, it will be years before this investment sees any practical use at Apple. http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/ http://semiaccurate.com/2013/07/12/apple-has-their-own-fab/
- gress 13y ago
  Is there a link to substantiate that claim that doesn't put the information behind a paywall?
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Not one that I know of. Charlie isn't the typical blogger though, and I prefer his paywall style over the ad-based models that other sites have done. When Charlie wrote a few honest (but blasting) reports on various companies a while back... the ad-companies held his revenue hostage. They didn't like him writing the way he did. As such, he stopped doing ad-hosted content and was forced into the paywall model. Now to be fair, Charlie is a bit rambunctious and exaggerates some claims, but his fact-gathering tends to be months or years ahead of others (Do a double-take at the date of this article: http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/sony-playstation-4-will-be-an-x86-cpu-with-an-amd-gpu/ http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/sony-playstation-4-will-b.... I personally can verify the date on that article, as I read the article when it came out and didn't believe it.) . His writing style is abrasive though, and ad companies didn't want much to do with him. He gets things wrong sometimes, because he's really trying to predict the future. But since he gets things right more than 50% of the time, I'm pretty confident in his claims. Overall, he does good work. It is unlikely that other sites will have his information for another few months at least.
    - gress 13y ago
      There are a whole bunch of other sites linking to this piece calling it a rumour, and that there is little detail beyond the paywall and no corroborating evidence since then. I think it's false.

scdc 13y ago

Don't Apple's A7 and other chips count as "developing silicon"? And you don't see Apple focusing on "developing software"?

cromwellian 13y ago
Yes, but it is abstract development that relies on lower level discoveries. It's like designing a medical treatment that relies on anti-biotics, if no new antibiotics are discovered, and the old ones become less valuable, then new treatments hault. The A7 is a marvelous chip, but the reason these super smartphones exist is silicon manufacturing prowess. If we could not make these chips smaller and less power hungry, the mobile revolution would not have happened. Apple stood on the shoulders of giants who went before them in this regard. Intel, IBM, TSMC, et al, plow a lot of money into advancing silicon manufacturing further. Lots of other companies plow billions into tools to support this sector. In some ways, taking in huge margins on silicon upstream (while the downstream players are squeezed to minimize their margins), without plowing money back into the system, could be seen as somewhat parasitical. I used to work at IBM Research, and one of the things I used to love doing was reading IBM Systems Journal. Research, like on scanning electron microscopes, measuring quantized magnetic flux in superconducting circuits, new kinds of giant magneto resistive effects, it was all very exciting to know that right down the hall, stuff I'd normally read about in Scientific American, Nature, or other places was being done. IBM T.J. Watson Research was given relative autonomy when I was there, they could spend money without have to justify it as being linked to a product, and I think that was very valuable for long term development. The new players in Silicon Valley don't seem to have the same commitment to basic R&D, long term R&D. Everything has to be linked to something shiny that can be sold in 2-3 years.
- stephencanon 13y ago
  Apple is indirectly plowing billions of dollars into that research via their contracts with Intel and the foundries. If the margins on those contracts aren’t sufficient to provide for further research, that’s on the head of the supplier’s pricing teams, not Apple.