Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Report: Apple To Switch From Samsung to TSMC For ARM CPU Production

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the but-samsung-is-easier-to-pronounce dept.

Hardware 178

another random user writes "Apple is planning to shift production of its ARM-based microprocessors from Samsung to the Taiwanese chip-baking giant TSMC as early as next year, according to a report by the China Economic News Service (CENS). The report cites CitiGroup Global Markets analyst J.T. Hsu as saying that TSMC will be Apple's sole supplier of 20nm quad-core processors, with volume production to begin in the fourth quarter of 2013. He also noted that Apple began its 20nm chip-verfication process at TSMC in August of this year. Hsu told CENS that the future quad-core chips were intended for Apple's 'iPad, iTV and even Macbook,' turning up the heat on two rumors that have been simmering for months: that Apple is planning a move into the television market, and that an ARM-based MacBook is in the works."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No ARM MacBook (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 years ago | (#41640399)

If it was Microsoft that could have been feasible. But I really don't see Apple making ARM laptops. They don't want confusion and x86 MacBooks and ARM iPads seams to have good distinction.

Re:No ARM MacBook (-1, Troll)

abelb (1365345) | about 2 years ago | (#41640411)

But Apple may want something in between a tablet and a full blown laptop to compete with Microsoft's Surface. Makes sense to me.

Re:No ARM MacBook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640435)

But Apple may want something in between a tablet and a full blown laptop to compete with Microsoft's Surface. Makes sense to me.

This already exists, it’s called 11" Macbook Air.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41640451)

But Apple may want something in between a tablet and a full blown laptop to compete with Microsoft's Surface. Makes sense to me.

This already exists, it’s called 11" Macbook Air.

Air doesn't run ipad apps.
now what they might do would be a hybrid with arm chip for ipad-apps mode.

full osx on arm though? yuck.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41640517)

full osx on arm though? yuck.

Shouldn't run too bad, actually. There are of course MacOS X apps that you wouldn't want to run on an ARM chip, and full MacOS X on an iPad would also be a rubbish idea, but an Air running MacOS X would be feasible. And as long as an app has a 32 bit version and no assembler code, a recompile should be enough.

Re:No ARM MacBook (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640439)

The iPad is already a market leader and theres keyboards available for it if you want the laptoppy thing. ARM MacBook makes total sense, the MacBook Air has two main selling points : small and pretty. ARM lets you go even smaller and still have battery life enough. Noone buys a MacBook air for its raw numbercrunching potential anyways.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

oh2 (520684) | about 2 years ago | (#41640455)

Meh, accidental AC The iPad is already a market leader and theres keyboards available for it if you want the laptoppy thing. ARM MacBook makes total sense, the MacBook Air has two main selling points : small and pretty. ARM lets you go even smaller and still have battery life enough. Noone buys a MacBook air for its raw numbercrunching potential anyways.

Re:No ARM MacBook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640767)

The Macbook Air 11" cannot be made smaller and have a functional keyboard, it cannot be made thinner and have ports, and the weight probably can't drop by more than 10% lighter without the unit becoming flimsy. Wintel software compatibility and virtualization is also a huge part of the mac market, and the reason for popularity of it's laptops since the switch to Intel.

Haswell will probably bring the battery life up to ARM levels.

Re:No ARM MacBook (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 2 years ago | (#41640453)

to compete with Microsoft's Surface

You're funny.

-jcr

Re:No ARM MacBook (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41640657)

a full blown laptop to compete with Microsoft's Surface

That's not how Apple works. Their business model is to identify market segments with no competitors, enter them, hype their product until it's identified with that market segment, and then move on to the next one before the race to the bottom takes over.

Re:No ARM MacBook (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41641285)

That's not how Apple works. Their business model is to identify market segments with no competitors, enter them, hype their product until it's identified with that market segment,

I guess it worked on you then since you've forgotten all these MP3 players (Creative etc.), phones (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc.), tablets (Microsoft etc.) that was before Apple. Of course they've picked their angle of attack to find trendsetters and increase market share quick, but I'd say Apply has pushed a fair number of competitors aside. They're really not into green-fielding completely new types of products, they ambush niches and rapidly increase their size into big markets. I do agree they're looking to be the biggest player though they won't start anything where they'll be second or third fiddle.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41641481)

I guess it worked on you then since you've forgotten all these MP3 players (Creative etc.),

The mobile music player market was immature. Most of the existing players had either tiny amounts (128MB or less) of Flash, or 2.5" microdrives. Apple introduced the iPod with a 1.8" drive almost as soon as they became available (Creative got there just before, but the delay between the two means both were in production at the same time) and, importantly, bought up enough of the drive supply that no one else could manage to ship the same sorts of volumes. The availability of the 1.8" drives was the tipping point for the portable music player, because it was the first time you could (affordably) fit enough storage into your pocket to hold a (small, initially) music collection.

phones (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc.)

Again, the capacitive touchscreen was a game changer. Apple, again, wasn't quite the first, but they were within a few months and brought the hype machine. People say 'iPhone-like' when they mean 'Smartphone with a capacitive touchscreen' because of this. Nokia didn't have anything similar, and I don't think Sony Ericsson did either. Samsung got there first, but not sufficiently early to define the market.

tablets (Microsoft etc.)

Microsoft is a bad example here - their tablets were a different class of device, just PCs with a (typically stylus-based) touchscreen, not a capacitive touchscreen and an interface designed around touch. There were Android tablet makers before the iPad though.

Of course they've picked their angle of attack to find trendsetters and increase market share quick, but I'd say Apply has pushed a fair number of competitors aside. They're really not into green-fielding completely new types of products, they ambush niches and rapidly increase their size into big markets.

Mostly their competitors are not well established, because it's a brand new market, which typically has only just become technically feasible.

I do agree they're looking to be the biggest player though they won't start anything where they'll be second or third fiddle.

That depends. Look at the mobile phone market. Apple could easily get 50% of the market share, but it would mean introducing low-end iPhones. They don't mind other companies getting the less-profitable end of the market, as long as they can hang onto the high-margin part. This is quite a risky strategy, as SGI will attest: it only works if you keep developing new markets before the old ones are commoditised.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

abelb (1365345) | about 2 years ago | (#41641763)

Maybe I'm living in a bubble here but Microsoft's surface seems like a *competitive* product. It runs on ARM which puts it in the tablet space for power consumption whilst doing most of the things Windows users want to do (Exchange, Office etc) with a real keyboard. I won't be buying one but I would imagine that a smart company like Apple would want to offer an iWhatever alternative, or at least plan for one in this market which has just been given prod by M$.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41640483)

If it was Microsoft that could have been feasible. But I really don't see Apple making ARM laptops. They don't want confusion and x86 MacBooks and ARM iPads seams to have good distinction.

I'm not saying Apple is doing it, it's honestly something I've never thought about Apple doing before, but they could easily avoid confusion by just calling it an iBook. Er, wait...

Re:No ARM MacBook (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41640701)

If you like Apple or not, you have to admit they are good at making an OS that works cross different hardware platforms, and maintain their compatability.

Microsoft couldn't even make a clean transition between 32 and 64 bit.

If you had any experience with Linux in Sparc or PowerPC you in essence needed to recompile near everything, and you are out of luck if you have the few closed source apps.

Re:No ARM MacBook (4, Insightful)

JimCanuck (2474366) | about 2 years ago | (#41641163)

Microsoft couldn't even make a clean transition between 32 and 64 bit.

Difference is Apple could release 64-bit on their terms, Microsoft is at the whims of the hardware manufacturers.

Apple could put out the G5 series as they saw fit. Microsoft is expected to throw something together the moment the hardware becomes available.

Plus having used XP 64-bit since it was available. Most of the issues were with incompatible drivers. With Apple that is not a problem, their is only one or two of each piece of hardware that is your entire "options" so producing a dozen drivers verses having to produce hundreds by all the hardware manufacturers.

Re:No ARM MacBook (1)

Waveguide04 (811184) | about 2 years ago | (#41641649)

The 32 to 64 bit issue really isn't one, its a CPU, make the code run on it. Same rules apply for both MS and Apple. As you mention, the main issue is in the drivers which come in all flavors in the Wild West style when the controllable space is unlimited vs one that has been tested and approved. ie. you don't have 100 companies out there making motherboards with various chip-sets which require special drivers etc. I have spent many many hours in linux with different MBs trying to compile drivers to make machine X work. With Microsoft, its not so much compile drivers as it is try and find one someplace that works. On the Mac, I because of the way they do things, I have never had a driver issue. On all the built in hardware is a given, but even attached things, I have not had to think about I need to d/l some driver or something. Now back to the subject line, its interesting to think about, but I just don't see an ARM macbook in the near future, there are many issues with 'why' and 'how'. it could happen at some point, but I don't see a target market for it right now.

Well if they want ... (3, Insightful)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about 2 years ago | (#41640417)

Well if they want to be independent from Samsung, that's the way to go of course.
This thing is a new reaction to this trial which bothers both of us, normal people vs Apple fanboys ...
 

Re:Well if they want ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640447)

Fandroids are definitely NOT normal people. Quite the opposite. gSheeps with abundant hatred. Never read anything important or constructive from a Die-hard Android fanboy.

Re:Well if they want ... (2, Funny)

collet (2632725) | about 2 years ago | (#41640461)

I don't even own a phone yet I seem morally obliged to support Android over Apple.

Re:Well if they want ... (1, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41640493)

I don't even own a phone yet I seem morally obliged to support Android over Apple.

Why would that be? Google is the world's biggest advertising company, and all their actions are aimed at hurting companies that might interfere with that. That's why you have Google+ attacking Facebook, Google Apps attacking Microsoft, and Android attacking Apple. None of these are there to make money for Google, they are just meant to keep their competitors busy. Google just spent $12 billion on Motorola, to get patents to attack Apple and Microsoft even more, in a business where Google doesn't actually make any meaningful money, just to attack companies that might eventually get into the advertising business.

So what makes you morally obliged to support an OS created by the world's biggest enemy of privacy solely for the purpose to hurt its competitors?

Re:Well if they want ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640553)

They're the only ones that let you run what code you want on your device without needing to get it pre-approved by the mothership? They release the source for their operating system (except for that one release where the engineers were embarrassed by it but management shoved it out the door)?

Re:Well if they want ... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640601)

Very true. But it is a bit of a zero sum game isn't it? Along with all that freedom you get a lot of security problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with the tight grip apple has on their kingdom but you have to admit it zero sums the other way.

Re:Well if they want ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640783)

I prefer to be treated as an adult, not as a child. I'll be responsible for security on my own device, thank you.

Re:Well if they want ... (4, Interesting)

TummyX (84871) | about 2 years ago | (#41640643)

How many people *ACTUALLY* need to run custom code tho? It keeps the iPhone mostly free of viruses or crash prone apps and the target audience for iPhone is customers not DIY hackers.

Android is so open but yet the Jelly Bean installation base is only 1.5% after 3 months. There's a difference between "theoretically open" and actual real world practise.

If you really want to run your own code for whatever reason (custom robot?) you can either Jailbreak or just get an enterprise license from Apple then you can run any code you want.

Re:Well if they want ... (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41641019)

Jelly Bean? I can't even run full ICS! Samsung is closed-source on all the drivers for my "open" Android phone. You can install ICS, but you get no video acceleration or camera - and other quirks like the face sensor and the accelerometers not working properly (or at all). It's a fun geek toy, but honestly you could load not-quite-functioning Android even on the iPhone. [idroidproject.org] (To be fair, that project seems to have stalled recently.)

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641113)

If you really want to run your own code you could just stay away from an iPhone. Morally you should.

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641379)

Strawman Much?

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#41641381)

How many people *ACTUALLY* need to run custom code tho? It keeps the iPhone mostly free of viruses or crash prone apps and the target audience for iPhone is customers not DIY hackers.

Android is so open but yet the Jelly Bean installation base is only 1.5% after 3 months. There's a difference between "theoretically open" and actual real world practise.

If you really want to run your own code for whatever reason (custom robot?) you can either Jailbreak or just get an enterprise license from Apple then you can run any code you want.

Android is open source. Anyone can modify it and submit changes to Google, or just run the modified Android as they see fit (Amazon). There are, indeed, many companies that make Android phones. So it's very practically open.

You mention jailbreaking - I can access any appstore with my Android phone without jailbreaking it. Which again shows that it's very practically open.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

TummyX (84871) | about 2 years ago | (#41641525)

I'm not arguing that its not open. I'm questioning how useful that is for consumers when in the end they can't even run the latest OS release until months or years after its released.

If you want an opn platform for hacking and modifying an contributing back to google then go for android. No problems there. Just don't think that that somehow means its better when you look at it from the consumers' perspective.

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641223)

You mean running code you don't want.

Your argument is flawed. The Apple App store has more apps than all Android software sources together. If you jailbreak your iPhone, you even get more. Chances are, you're more likely to get the code you want if you have iOS.

Re:Well if they want ... (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41640569)

Google only uses its patents defensively, never attacking like Apple does. Its products compete by being better and more innovative, not through litigation.

They are far from perfect but Apple has actually gone over to the dark side.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641181)

Motorola (Google) vs Microsoft

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641547)

Well aren't you clever. You know that was well before Google acquired Motorola, right?

Re:Well if they want ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640583)

Why would that be? Google is the world's biggest advertising company, and all their actions are aimed at hurting companies that might interfere with that. That's why you have Google+ attacking Facebook, Google Apps attacking Microsoft, and Android attacking Apple. None of these are there to make money for Google, they are just meant to keep their competitors busy. Google just spent $12 billion on Motorola, to get patents to attack Apple and Microsoft even more, in a business where Google doesn't actually make any meaningful money, just to attack companies that might eventually get into the advertising business.

You keep using that word but you clearly don't know what it means.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#41641209)

You keep using that word but you clearly don't know what it means.

You clearly have never thought about _why_ Google would bother releasing Android at all.

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641587)

Competition. Google likes to make money, just like any other company. Are you just too stupidly on apple's side to see? If we turned it around, it could be said that everything apple released was to attack someone else.

Re:Well if they want ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640585)

So what makes you morally obliged to support an OS created by the world's biggest enemy of privacy solely for the purpose to hurt its competitors?

You mean it has no other merits at all, that's why 60% of smartphones are Android and they're keep improving it just "to hurt its competitors"?

This whole post is so ridiculous it doesn't even merit refuting it point by point.

P.S: "(Score:5, Insightful)", LOL. Nice troll! I'll bookmark this shit for the next time some butthurt appleite mentions "pro-Google /. groupthink"

Re:Well if they want ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640623)

And 90% of desktop computers are running Windows. What's your point? Having the largest market share doesn't make it's usage more intelligent or the product better. VHS vs Beta. VHS was shit, yet had the biggest market share. Just like Android and Windows.

gSheeps.....

Re:Well if they want ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640689)

Yes, and quality of OS (though I find Windows on desktop, Linux on server and Android on mobile to be good choice for me) wasn't even the original point. Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

Hint: GP's point was "everything Google does is solely to keep competition out of advertising business". Try again.

Re:Well if they want ... (5, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 years ago | (#41640647)

"Competing" or even running at a loss for a while, trying to break into a market, isn't "attacking", What Apple is doing, meanwhile, IS attacking.

And you're wrong about Android. Google is making plenty of money, and NOT from advertising. While Android proper is free, anybody who wants-in on Google's Apps (Gmail, maps, navigation, etc) and the Market / Play Store, has to get a license from Google. They're making good money from it.

What's more, Google has no reason to use patents to attack Apple or Microsoft. Google doesn't have any lock-in on Android that would make that profitable from an advertising perspective. Anybody (see: Amazon) can change out the Google apps, and not use Google search... Some handset makers change everything to Bing, because the Microsoft money is better (though their service is unreliable), and I personally changed my Android phone to use DDG. Meanwhile, Google *does* have ample reason to aquire patents for defensive purposes, since there are concerted attacks by Apple, which Google needs to defend against to ensure the survival of Android.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641249)

Some would argue that Google being new has relatively few patents to attack with and a business model which lends itself to directing users to their search engine.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

java_dev (894898) | about 2 years ago | (#41640659)

Well stated!

In the same way you support stalin over hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640573)

You know, like America did in WWII along with the UK and the rest of the Allies.

Even though they knew Stalin (toward the end of WWII anyway) was a dick and dangerous, they chose him over Hitler.

Even for an apple fanboi like gnasher should be able to get this:

Stalin: Android
Hitler: Apple

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41640675)

The best strategy for the USA in this situation might have been to broker a peace deal between Germany and Britain and let Hitler and Stalin destroy weaken themselves with a long war before stepping in to pick up the pieces, providing covert support to whichever side looked like losing until both empires were in shambles. They didn't, because countenancing genocide on that scale wouldn't have gone over well with the electorate in any vaguely civilised nation.

In this situation, however, no one actually dies when the two sides 'fight', so the best strategy is to encourage them to pursue a course of mutual destruction until a non-obnoxious competitor appears (this may take a while).

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#41640799)

They didn't, because countenancing genocide on that scale wouldn't have gone over well with the electorate in any vaguely civilised nation.

As the magnitude, or even existance, of the nazi genocides were not known to anyone outside Germany until after the war, I find this reasoning dubious.

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41640889)

As the magnitude, or even existance, of the nazi genocides were not known to anyone outside Germany until after the war, I find this reasoning dubious.

Actually, reports on events taking place in Auschwitz first appeared in Western media in June 1944.

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 2 years ago | (#41640991)

OK, let me correct that to "before after D-day".

Already in June? Reports form whom? Allied forces? Did they reach concentration camps that soon? Or the red cross?

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41641197)

OK, let me correct that to "before after D-day". Already in June? Reports form whom? Allied forces? Did they reach concentration camps that soon? Or the red cross?

Well, I've found this [nytimes.com] - American press had finally got whiff of it - which reported on the exact place, nature and scale of events. However, the information had been diffusing ever since Wetzler, Vrba and others escaped from Auschwitz. Wetzler and Vrba passed their report to Hungarians, and those were unwilling to believe it for quite some time. As far as non-public information is concerned, even before that, Witold Pilecki had been sending his reports to the Brits between 1941 and 1943, but they kept dismissing them as an unreliable exaggeration. And what about this [projectinposterum.org] ?

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41640817)

Congratulations, you just made godwin's law imply that indeed, it's wrong to favour android over iOS.

Nope, that's only true if you're neonazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640875)

If you deny the Holocaust, then of course you would think that.

Nope, Hitler WAS worse than Stalin.

You would NOT favour Hitler unless you're a nutjob.

It's a false dilemma (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640937)

Maybe he prefers Mussolini^WWindows Phone.

Re:In the same way you support stalin over hitler (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#41641441)

That was quick. You just godwinned an Apple/Samsung story.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41641681)

I do own a phone (an old Nokia) but likewise, Apple's behavior against Samsung is immoral, and my next phone purchase will probably be a Samsung. I like a lot of what Apple did historically (loved the early Mac's) but their behavior now, boycotting Apple is unfortunately the only moral thing to do.

Re:Well if they want ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640847)

Are you trolling or you really are that stupid?

The iSheep/Fandroid wars aren't that fucking simple. Primarily, because there's no such thing as a "fandroid".

The part iSheep don't get is that they are irrational and total brand loyalty to anything and everything Apple shits out, to the extent of defending to the death bad products.

So-called 'fandroids' on the other hand, would switch from Android to Symbian, BB10, whatever (I can't be bothered listing other smartphone OS's) *tomorrow* if (by some miracle) it was BETTER than Android, and they'd ditch their Samsung for whatever, if they felt like it.

So you see, you will always be iSheep and an easy target.

Meanwhile, calling us 'fandroid' and 'shamstung' is like water off a duck's back to us - in fact calling us that only goes to highlight just how utterly and completely you iDrones don't get it.

The 'war' isn't so much about a hatred of Apple, as it is a sport targetting Appletards for amusement.

Re:Well if they want ... (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#41640555)

This is not a new reaction. It was confirmed last year that TSMC would be making Apple A5 chips in addition to Samsung. From a logistical standpoint does it make sense for Apple to have only one supplier of a critical component? Also 20nm is another reason to use TSMC. Samsung won't move to this size until later from what I remember.

Re:Well if they want ... (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | about 2 years ago | (#41641039)

All this from something that probably started as a negotiation to bring the price of the chips down. Now it's full out war, and Apple are planning on leaving now (though that became obvious some time ago), time for Samsung to just dump them fully, re-use that capacity for cheaper/faster Android phones.

Samsung make the iPad screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641641)

Samsung displays make the iPad's high resolution display, so if Apple want to play games with Samsung it would likely not go well for them.

I think personally that Sammy has been holding off using the super high res displays for Android to be nice to Apple. If Apple start getting crappy with them, that won't last long.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/04/samsung-tablet-ipad-retina-display/

Ah that sour taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640423)

It is delicious, you must have some!

Seems that Apple are a little mad. I wonder why...

A lesson learned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640429)

This is what happens when you mess and screw up with your biggest customer.
You'll loose a 6++ billion key account.

Just the same Google did. They make more money with iOS than with Android yet were eager to alienate an ally.

Brainzzzz......

Re:A lesson learned (2, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41640473)

Show's how little apple fanboyz know. Apple been stealing others idea's for years, not exactly a new concept.

Re:A lesson learned (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640645)

What kind of new concept has Google invented? Answer : not one.

Search : Excite
Maps : Mapquest
Webmail : loads of companies
Google+ : Facebook, MySpace
Ad supported business model : beyond being old
Google glasses : known from SciFi movies (hey, if you gSheeps celebrate Samsung for using that reference, I can use it too)

So tell me : where is the original thinking from Google? There is none.

Re:A lesson learned (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41640743)

At that level, nobody is actually original. There's only something resembling originality in the outskirts (technical stuff, business models, etc).

Re:A lesson learned (0)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41640825)

Right... Which is rather the farce that the parent was trying to point out, no? Saying Apple doesn't invent anything is like saying Google didn't invent anything, or Edison didn't invent anything... Rediculous.

Re:A lesson learned (2)

IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) | about 2 years ago | (#41641399)

Edisson, indeed, was a brutal leech sucking the blood and inventions of other people who worked for him. He was succesfull at that, yes, but he was not the inventor you seem to be implicating here.

Re:A lesson learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640789)

Mapquest didn't invent cartography, the Babylonian's did.

Re:A lesson learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641425)

They even stole the idea of suing from patent trolls.

Or they'll go Intel: Haswell processors from 10W (3, Informative)

IYagami (136831) | about 2 years ago | (#41640437)

According to Anandtech, Intel Core 2013 ULV processors will start from 10W

See http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/4 [anandtech.com]

" Finally, at IDF Intel showed a demo of Haswell running the Unigen Heaven benchmark at under 8W.
The chain of events tells us two things: 1) Intel likes to play its cards close to its chest, and 2) the sub-10W space won't be serviced by Atom exclusively.
Intel said Haswell can scale below 10W, but it didn't provide a lower bound. It's too much to assume Haswell would go into a phone, but once you get to the 8W point and look south you open yourself up to fitting into things the size of a third generation iPad. Move to 14nm, 10nm and beyond then it becomes more feasible that you could fit this class of architecture into something even more portable."

Re:Or they'll go Intel: Haswell processors from 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640527)

Any chip will scale to below 10w if it's run slow enough - ergo, the proof is in the pudding.

Re:Or they'll go Intel: Haswell processors from 10 (3, Informative)

gsnedders (928327) | about 2 years ago | (#41640707)

That's not really relevant, to be honest: it's still at least double the power consumption compared with Cortex-A15 SoCs (and you can be sure as hell the Intel figure is processor only, not memory, chipset, interfaces, etc.), and they idle at an order magnitude less, which is important for mobile devices.

Re:Or they'll go Intel: Haswell processors from 10 (3, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41640829)

8W is way too much for an iPad... The current iPad uses 1.5W for the processor and 2W for the screen... 8W on the processor is not gonna happen.

o please apple won't make a tv (3, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41640467)

There is no money in TV market, most companies in the market lose money only a hand full make money. Apple knowing them would sell their tv's at 50-100% markup compared to next closest set. Only apple fanboy idiots would buy them, everyone else will say screw that and get cheaper ones that are proven to be good quality tv.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 years ago | (#41640529)

I think you're right.
But, that's what people said about Apple making phones.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41640567)

There is no money in TV market, most companies in the market lose money only a hand full make money. Apple knowing them would sell their tv's at 50-100% markup compared to next closest set. Only apple fanboy idiots would buy them, everyone else will say screw that and get cheaper ones that are proven to be good quality tv.

But the apple fanbois would buy one just because it's Apple

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640727)

go back to Ars and troll you narrow minded idiot

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640777)

It could actually be true. I would never buy any apple product, as there every alternative is cheaper and does the same, but millions still do.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640755)

except the point of the apple tv is to stream the display off your macbook air and eventually ipad onto your giant 72 inch screen or whatever. when itunes starts rolling out higher than bluray rez videos for the next generation of hd people with ipads would rather just buy an apple tv rather than get some new sony disc player since discs are dead. apple tv isn't actually a tv, it's a way to stream the display from other apple products on to your tv. as usual apple haters don't get it, which is why they don't run a mutli-billion dollar company.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640855)

appleTV != iTV Get off your high horse and pay attention to the article.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 2 years ago | (#41640831)

That exact argument would have made exactly as much sense when it looked like Apple were rumored to be entering the Phone market.

All apple needs to do is find something their TV can do that none of the competitors do well (for the iPhone it was browse the web, well), and make that the killer app.

apple should make a TV box to bad the cable co's (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41641029)

apple should make a TV box to bad the cable co's have to much control and the satellite market is just as locked in.

Cable card is nice when it's working right but the cables co's seem to do a lot to make it hard to work so you rent there box and in some systems you need the add on SDV tuner as well.

also no VOD and must order ppv events by phone. And the lack of VOD sucks on comcast as they have cut down on the HBO HD, STARZs HD, SHOW HD and MAX HD channels and they say most of that is on VOD.

Tru2way does have VOD and all the 2way stuff but it forces the cable co Guide on you.

All vid is not going anywhere as well as the cable co want to lock you into there own all vid like boxes that can't work with your own boxes.

Re:o please apple won't make a tv (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 2 years ago | (#41641159)

Welcome to the world of cell phones. Only three companies are making any money selling phones - Apple, Samsung, and HTC with Apple making 2/3rds of the profit, HTC making 1%, and Samsung making the rest.

Cheaper Alternatives (3, Funny)

dohzer (867770) | about 2 years ago | (#41640469)

I can't wait for the prices of non-Apple TVs to crash, just like the MP3 player market.
This can only be good for the discerning consumer.

Re:Cheaper Alternatives (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#41640615)

You want them even cheaper than they are now? That's hardly possible.

Re:Cheaper Alternatives (4, Informative)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41640621)

Don't hold your breath.. The TV business already has thin margins, and the display manufacturers partly make it up on smaller screens.

Re:Cheaper Alternatives (5, Interesting)

ikaruga (2725453) | about 2 years ago | (#41640641)

Doubt it. The first reason AppleTVs are not popular is because home consoles even though they cost way more. The PS3 and Xbox360 can do everything the AppleTV do and much more(Bluray and DVD, real games, more digital content etc, better media streaming tools, better control interfaces and recording capabilities). The only thing I know more complete than a PS3 to hook up to a home theater setup is a custom made HTPC.
The other reason is the bad marketing. Apple success is marketing and when they find a way to distort the reality around the appleTV, it will fly off the shelves.

Re:Cheaper Alternatives (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41640823)

As you say, consoles cost way more than the Apple TV ($99). They also tend to be a lot bigger and have fan noise. Now say you want streaming media to four TVs in a household. That cost difference becomes a problem. The solution is a very small, very silent puck for under $100. Welcome to Roku. $50 to $99, same form factor (almost exactly) as Apple TV. The advantage of Roku is they push their SDK for third party apps as whoring hard as possible to everyone possible. Apple is mired in their desire to have tight control over content.

That is the real reason Apple TV is not popular.

Re:Cheaper Alternatives (0)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 2 years ago | (#41641545)

Internal memos at Apple show that THEY HAVE TREATED the AppleTV as kind of a hobby project -- another extension of iTunes.

They aren't dominating the TV market because they haven't decided to until now.

There are dozens of ways an iOS powered device connected with Wireless (maybe using the upcoming 50Ghz standard) could make life much easier and fun for the TV.

I also have an XBox, and we don't want to pay for XBox live just to watch netflix, and we've watched about four movies on it. The DEMO seems promising, but it really doesn't have a huge assortment of content yet.

Google's offering is geekware and not ready for prime time.

>> No, the TV market is ripe for the picking, and I think you have a limited imagination if you don't know how.The major impediment is the kind of licensing that Apple managed to swing with iTunes. It's much tougher now to consolidate content -- but there is hope because groups like NetFlix and Blockbuster know their time is limited if the service providers end "unlimited" and get into the content business at the same time with things like; "streamed content from us doesn't count towards your bandwidth cap." Great -- they meter the internet our tax dollars paid for....

Basically, the greed and the coming "cap and trade" with video content is going to make more content providers go with Apple. The major impediment is bandwidth, as the carriers are trying to pretend it's limited. The solution isn't about a better device or gimmick or marketing -- whoever solves the "Smart TV" of the future problem is going to have to create an infrastructure that gets around the gatekeepers with their hands out.

Mac Pro (4, Interesting)

Jerry Smith (806480) | about 2 years ago | (#41640485)

Dammit Apple, how about doing something on your other lines?? Mobility is nice but desktop needs improvement! Big improvement!

Re:Mac Pro (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#41640617)

New iMacs would be good too.

Re:Mac Pro (4, Informative)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41640669)

Dammit Apple, how about doing something on your other lines?? Mobility is nice but desktop needs improvement! Big improvement!

Apple doesn't want you to use desktop computers any more because you're likely to do something besides shop.

Re:Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640911)

yeah, man. i need a new mac mini bad but i'm not buying the current model which is old with no usb3, limited ssd and only quadcore in the server version (which sacrifice the video card).

also i can't wait for the matte screen imacs, not that i would buy one for myself but i work on an imac all day at school and the reflections in the current imac screen are distracting like when some hot chick is sitting behind you and her face is reflected in the screen haha.

Made in Taiwan (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41640631)

Made in Korea -> Made in Taiwan

This means they will sell cheap crap for big money. Who would buy it? Oh...

ARM laptop (5, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#41640687)

Actually, I could imagine having a 64-bit ARM Ubuntu laptop. Something fairly light-weight and long battery life, but with a number of cores (most CPU intensive stuff I actually do on my laptop is very parallelisable), plenty of memory and a largish SSD.

This won't save them from Samsung/Android. (5, Interesting)

csumpi (2258986) | about 2 years ago | (#41640997)

My wife just swapped her phone for a Samsung Galaxy S3. In a long time (probably since the iPhone1) I'm jealous and want one, too. The S3 looks fantastic and works great. The interface is awesome, there's no need to root it like with older Android phones.

The patent trolling from Apple also made Google/Samsung to invent. One example is screen unlock. On the S3 you can swipe the screen anywhere and even launch apps (like email or camera) directly from the unlock screen. Better user experience with more functionality.

In the meantime Apple had to do some catching up and they made the screen larger on the iPhone5. But instead of making the screen larger in both directions, they opted to change the aspect ratio, so now ios developers have to support yet another screen layout (at least pre-iphone5, iphone5 and ipad for a universal app). On the other hand, Android was designed from the beginning to support multiple aspect ratios, so one layout can handle it all (and no, this is not a cause of fragmentation, it's a solution to it).

Then Apple tried to stick it to Google with dropping maps. We all know how that turned out.

The solution is simple: Apple should stop with the patent trolling. It is biting them in the rear. Android is here to stay. They should go back to inventing and competing, otherwise they will be out-invented and out-competed. I know they are making money hand over fist, but just take a look at their stock price since iphone5 release.

Re:This won't save them from Samsung/Android. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641355)

oh yeah? the Samsung Galaxy S3 display is clearly inferior. Why would you want that?
Then the cheap flimsy plastic quality all over, I just don't get it. What the hell are you doing?

Re:This won't save them from Samsung/Android. (0)

TummyX (84871) | about 2 years ago | (#41641497)

I don't think patent trolling is what you think it is. Apple actually use their patents in products.

Re:This won't save them from Samsung/Android. (1)

mbourgon (186257) | about 2 years ago | (#41641579)

Yes to skip the trolling, but "multiple aspect ratios" only really came with ICS.

Re:This won't save them from Samsung/Android. (-1, Flamebait)

romanval (556418) | about 2 years ago | (#41641735)

I think Steve had a personal vendetta against Android since Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) was on the Apple board at the time, thus was privy to some of iPhone's development-- which obviously influenced how the final Android phones turned out nearly a year later. But in other cases, Apple isn't worried about Samsung/Android; they're making tons of money off their product line regardless.

I do know there's plenty of things done wrong with Android. I hear grumbling about the size: ~5" phones are almost mini-tablets, and are quite a lump to try shove in an average size pocket-- it also makes it pretty awkward to operate one-handed. The battery life is atrociously short. (My running joke is: "Android phones are like Cinderella's night: It may work like a dream but everything shuts down before midnight".)

Coming soon: (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about 2 years ago | (#41641625)

TSMC sued for unreasonable pricing.

Advantage needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41641791)

Balance: Cost vs Performance vs Power

Apple will do what it must, inspire & cajole others & keep ahead of the pack to stay in the curl.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?