Daniel Hruska The A-series processors powering iPads, including the A8X model in the latest iPad Air 2, are costing Intel billions of dollars in financial losses and adding to the woes of companies such as Qualcomm, Samsung and Nvidia. The tablet market is very important for these companies, and Apple is creating quite strong wrinkles for them with its actions.
When Apple introduced the first iPad in 2010, there were rumors of a collaboration with Intel and its mobile x86 processor, dubbed Silverthorne, which later became Atom. However, instead of an iPad with an Intel processor, Steve Jobs introduced the A4, an ARM processor modified directly by Apple.
In its first year, the iPad easily nearly wiped out competition in the form of Microsoft's Windows Tablet PC. A year later, the iPad 2 coped with competitors such as the HP TouchPad with WebOS, the BlackBerry PlayBook and a number of tablets running on the Android 3.0 OS, such as the Motorola Xoom. At the end of 2011, Amazon made a futile effort with its Kindle Fire. In 2012, Microsoft introduced its Surface RT, again without much success.
Since the launch of the Surface RT, Apple has been selling iPads at a respectable rate of 70 million units per year, carving out the largest share of the tablet market. However, Apple is not only defeating Samsung, Palm, HP, BlackBerry, Google, Amazon and Microsoft as a tablet manufacturer, but also the companies that manufacture the chips that power the tablets of the mentioned companies.
Losers in the ranks of chip makers
Intel
Undoubtedly, the most affected was Intel, which not only did not get the lucrative business for the production of processors for iPads, but also began to lose significantly in the field of netbooks, the decline of which was also caused by the iPad. Apple completely killed off the Ultra-mobile PC market with devices like the Celeron M-powered Samsung Q1. Growth in the Intel-dominated PC industry has stalled and is in slight decline. So far, there is no indication that Intel should do significantly worse, in any case, it missed the train in mobile devices.
Texas Instruments
The company's OMAP chips powered the BlackBerry PlayBook, Amazon Kindle Fire, Motorola Xyboard and several Galaxy models from Samsung. Apple surpassed them all with the iPad. Although the OMAP chips were not directly to blame, devices running on them failed to successfully compete with the iPad running iOS, and so Texas Instruments abandoned the production of consumer electronics processors altogether.
Nvidia
Who does not know the manufacturer of graphics cards. I know many people who once preferred a combination of an Intel processor and Nvidia "graphics" on their desktop. It seems that Nvidia will follow in the footsteps of Intel in the mobile sphere. The first Tegra was installed in Microsoft's failed Zune HD and KIN devices, Tegra 2 in Motorola's Xoom, and Tegra 3 and 4 in Microsoft's Surface.
The latest generation chip from Nvidia is called K1 and you won't find it in the new Google Nexus 9. It is the first 64-bit ARM chip capable of running under the Android OS, and it contains 192 ALUs. However, before the K1 could even be sold in the Nexus 9, Apple introduced the iPad Air 2 with an A8X containing 256 ALUs. The A8X beats the K1 in performance and lower consumption. Nvidia has already abandoned mobile phones, it may also abandon tablets.
Qualcomm
Have you heard of the HP TouchPad and Nokia Lumia 2520 other than when they were launched? If not, it doesn't matter - the first mentioned tablet was sold in 2011 for only three months, and the second one is not very successful. While the iPad with A-series processors occupied the highest ranks with its prices, Qualcomm was left with the market of low-end, mostly Chinese tablets, where the margins are minimal.
Qualcomm supplies Snapdragon processors to some of Samsung's 4G phones and tablets, but Samsung integrates its Exynos, albeit slower, Wi-Fi models. The company continues to supply Apple with MDM chips for antenna management in 4G iPhones and iPads, but it's likely only a matter of time before Apple builds this functionality directly into its A-series processors, just as Intel, Nvidia and Samsung have already done.
Since Qualcomm doesn't have much to sell Snapdragon to, we can only debate whether it will try to develop a new processor that could compete with the Apple A8X in order to offer it to the leading manufacturers. If this does not happen, Qualcomm will remain with processors for cheap tablets, or other semiconductors needed in computers and mobile devices.
Saying goodbye to Samsung
Before 2010, all iPhone and iPod touch processors were manufactured and supplied by Samsung. Every Samsung customer benefited from the supply of ARM processors, as well as Samsung itself. However, this changed with the arrival of the A4, as it was designed by Apple and "only" manufactured by Samsung. In addition, part of the production was taken over by TSMC, thus reducing the dependence on Samsung. In addition, the South Koreans are fumbling with the introduction of a 64-bit ARM processor that could seriously compete with the A7 and A8. For now, Samsung uses ARM without its own design, which causes less efficiency and performance compared to Apple's own design.
An alternative to Intel
The billions of dollars earned from sales of iPads and iPhones running on A-series processors have allowed Apple to invest heavily in the development of next-generation proprietary chips that approach low-cost computers with their computing and graphics performance. Compared to them, however, they can be produced more cheaply and at the same time offer better power management.
This is a threat to Intel because Macs are showing excellent sales. Apple might one day decide it's ready to make its own powerful processors for its computers. Even if this should not happen in the coming years, Intel faces the danger of introducing a completely new type of device that Apple would equip with its processors. iOS devices and Apple TV are probably the best examples.
Apple's next product – the Watch – is expected to contain its own chip called the S1. Again, there was no place for Intel. Likewise, other smartwatch manufacturers use ARM processors, however, due to the use of a generic design, they will never be as powerful. Here too, Apple is able to finance the development of its own processor, which will be more powerful than the competition and at the same time cheaper to manufacture.
Apple has an effective way of using its proprietary processor design to leapfrog the competition. At the same time, this process cannot be copied in any way, at least not without a huge sum of money. And so the others are fighting for "small change" in the low-end segment, while Apple can profit from large margins in the hi-end, which it then invests in development again.
hey, are you just translating everything here? or do you write something of your own?
Well, the question is, what would be the compatibility of the own processors for Macs with Windows. A lot of Mac users use Windows, and I can't imagine that I would hang myself without Windows.
Especially if a person does not use a Mac only for home use, but also needs to use applications from a corporate environment
I don't see a reason why apple should be concerned with the compatibility of windows with their chip. People buy Macs because they want a different OS. Sure, I also have a fork in the virtual one because of sw that is not on the mac, but apple won't be interested in that..
it doesn't even have to.. The Mac market is still growing.. When more than 20% of people in the world have a Mac, now I suspect it's around 3-4%, then developers will make apps for Mac as well as for Win.. It will only be more difficult for developers.. But on the other hand, I wouldn't do anything for win.. For mac it's different.. When it's on the appstore, it's hard to steal it.. But when it's for win, it's just always someone put it on the net, and it's free.. I can't often find the Mac version from the appstore, and it's also quite familiar..
Everyone around me who bought a Mac also runs Windows on it, and they wouldn't have bought it without them. True, all the mentioned people use Mac in a corporate environment and I need to get into the corporate information system. Unfortunately, just like the CAD field, I also ignore the Mac world of information systems.
I wouldn't say that I'm just ignoring it.. There is such an autocad (including the last apps from Autodesk) on the Mac
You are supplemented, even at home we have Win on Mac, because some applications for Mac simply do not exist.
Rosetta for ARM? ;) The world of applications from a corporate environment is definitely not what will drive growth in the future.
My personal tip is that within 5 years at the latest, there will be Macs with ARM processors, and Intel would be very happy to set up a factory for the production of such chips.
Why should Apple be interested in compatibility with Windows on the cheapest devices? The A8X schematic was already published, even if the part was covered. That chip has 8-core graphics and 3-core processor, and other parts are not disclosed. There is probably a quarter inactivated core. If I add a fourth core, the performance in the benchmarks will also be like that of the cheapest mac mini (cheapest iMac, cheapest macbook air). When developers learn to use Metal, I will be able to release games for cheap devices. Suddenly, a cheap mac mini or Apple tv becomes a cheap mac and a cheap game console in one with powerful graphics and a reasonably powerful computer for home use. Windows will not solve this problem.
Nothing will ever be cheap at Apple :-)
I think that compatibility with Windows will interest Apple. Already today, the interconnectedness of software products from Microsoft and Apple is much bigger than rock fans want to admit.
The article seems a bit false to me, because Qualcomm is definitely a big manufacturer of chips even for the highest classes, for the high-end.
First of all, when I look, it is translated incorrectly - Samsung puts its Exynos chips only in the WiFi versions of its top tablets, and that is because it cannot/does not make versions with support for data networks (3G, LTE). That's why SIM versions have Qualcomm processors. So a few sentences in this article are a lie. But no problem, just read the source better next time.
It seems to me that manufacturers have given up the fight with Apple in the field of tablets. I see the Surface as the strongest competitor so far, because MS is pouring a lot of money into its marketing, but even so, I don't think it has a very big chance.
And anyone who has even read Jobs's biography knows that Intel has itself to blame for this.
But come on, of course apple probably leads in the number of produced pieces of one product, but in the number of tablets produced, it's no mistake.
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2014/10/idc_2Q14_tablets.jpg
It's only for the year 2013/14, so if we take into account how many people work with older iPads, Apple clearly dominates
we'll see, but there was once a situation when apple did everything by itself .. and also without Steve .. hopefully the situation won't repeat itself, but this time there is no Steve to save the company ..
Bullshit
Everyone has the right to an opinion and to mistakes.
In terms of graphics performance, the A8X definitely does not surpass the K1. On the contrary. But comparisons in this field are absolutely meaningless. Both HW solutions would have to be hosted by the same OS, which will probably never happen.