4 ms·

"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

"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.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Fair enough. As I've said before, Semiaccurate is only "mostly" correct. Charlie has been wrong before, mostly because he pushes (likely) hypotheticals. I have however, read the contents behind the paywall, and Charlie is quite specific. He has the company name, some vague details on the deal, and the location of the facility. He is stretching the hypothetical a bit to say that "Apple bought a fabrication lab". That may have gone to far... but those details are discussed in the paywalled article.

"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.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Fair enough. As I've said before, Semiaccurate is only "mostly" correct. Charlie has been wrong before, mostly because he pushes (likely) hypotheticals. I have however, read the contents behind the paywall, and Charlie is quite specific. He has the company name, some vague details on the deal, and the location of the facility. He is stretching the hypothetical a bit to say that "Apple bought a fabrication lab". That may have gone to far... but those details are discussed in the paywalled article.