The space savings not only would be useful for cramming more flash memory in, but more battery. I estimate next year's model will have one new nice feature and double the battery life. I also bet they will use the same chip in both the ipod touch and iphone. I also am fairly certain they will continue to only increase memory as its available to Apple for an equivalent price (otherwise, they would be selling a $500 phone under contract)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Developing ARM Processors for iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The space savings not only would be useful for cramming more flash memory in, but more battery. I estimate next year's model will have one new nice feature and double the battery life. I also bet they will use the same chip in both the ipod touch and iphone. I also am fairly certain they will continue to only increase memory as its available to Apple for an equivalent price (otherwise, they would be selling a $500 phone under contract)
you could view PDF on the original phone release; you can read iwork files as well. Copy and paste will be nice, but luckily I haven't needed it.
yeah, but having a lite version of iwork and copy and paste will mean the world to winning over business customers. exchange support went half way, apple needs finish down the homestretch.
But that would be rather pointless. All that Apple needs is low tens of millions of tiny ARM chips for its iPhones; that doesn't require a fab. If Apple wants to build chips, they can just give TSMC a call and get any amount of chips they want in 45 nm technology. Costs maybe a million dollars to get production running instead of a few billion for a modern fabrication plant.
If apple had a single chip/processor that could drive a multi-touch trackpad, 480x320 screen, connections to usb and wireless (wifi/bluetooth/cell) networks or the chips required, not to mention data storage flash or HD. And all the things that Apple might look to stream line in a iPod Touch SoC.
We also know in Mac side processors are moving towards CPU's and GPU's with there own memory controlers and direct interface to the PCI base, so all the devices just need to also hang off that bus.
I wonder if Apple might design future Macbooks (generation after the one we are waiting for now) to include these iPod SoC as a sort of pseudo southbridge base allow an always connected super low footprint system, that could play music, collect push messages, or run any touch apps without the need to run the whole system.
Would sure make that Intel prototype with e-ink screen on the outside.
We also know in Mac side processors are moving towards CPU's and GPU's with there own memory controlers and direct interface to the PCI base, so all the devices just need to also hang off that bus.
I wonder if Apple might design future Macbooks (generation after the one we are waiting for now) to include these iPod SoC as a sort of pseudo southbridge base allow an always connected super low footprint system, that could play music, collect push messages, or run any touch apps without the need to run the whole system.
Would sure make that Intel prototype with e-ink screen on the outside.
Apple should add custom ARM Processors to the Mac.
Think about this:
If Apple adds custom ARM Processor to the Mac, then they can run some Mac OS X code through the ARM Processor, rather than the Intel Processor.
This would completely prevent Mac Clones.
Mac OS X would become dependent on custom ARM coprocessors coupled with Intel Processors. These would not be present on generic Intel boards - of course.
The ARM coprocessors could do anything - including doing video decryption, etc. Off-loading work from the Intel Processors and GPUs.
But Clones would become nearly impossible since the Cloners would have to have the same processors.
Think about this:
If Apple adds custom ARM Processor to the Mac, then they can run some Mac OS X code through the ARM Processor, rather than the Intel Processor.
This would completely prevent Mac Clones.
Mac OS X would become dependent on custom ARM coprocessors coupled with Intel Processors. These would not be present on generic Intel boards - of course.
The ARM coprocessors could do anything - including doing video decryption, etc. Off-loading work from the Intel Processors and GPUs.
But Clones would become nearly impossible since the Cloners would have to have the same processors.
This should work out much better than Apple's last foray into processor manufacturing as they don't have to worry about someone deciding that it wasn't worth it and slacking off. I just hope that Intel doesn't get pissed off, though it's doubful that Intel would forsake the exposure that Apple's machines give them.
If PA are making an ARM CPU (as it seems they are), then it will probably be a single CPU that can be used for all of Apple's next generation iPod/iPhone devices. Just look at what goes into such a SoC these days!
- ARM CPU Core
- (Second ARM CPU Core for high-end devices using MPCore, can be disabled in the iPod nano)
- GPU (PowerVR SGX from Imagination)
- DSP (Audio and Video decode, Imagination have a suitable product)
- Wireless a/b/g/n
- Bluetooth 2.1 with Low Power Support
- Multitouch Driver
- Flash controller
- Memory controller
- Audio subsystem
- USB
- all that other SoC stuff like UARTs, JTAG, LPC buses
- ARM CPU Core
- (Second ARM CPU Core for high-end devices using MPCore, can be disabled in the iPod nano)
- GPU (PowerVR SGX from Imagination)
- DSP (Audio and Video decode, Imagination have a suitable product)
- Wireless a/b/g/n
- Bluetooth 2.1 with Low Power Support
- Multitouch Driver
- Flash controller
- Memory controller
- Audio subsystem
- USB
- all that other SoC stuff like UARTs, JTAG, LPC buses
No, it would mean higher margins for Apple. Apple never passes cost savings on to customers. Even on computers with 2 year old video cards, Apple doesn't cut prices.
That would be absurd and extremely expensive. Apple can never have Intel's economies of scale.
Well if Apple gave their chip (or one of their chips, who knows what their plans are) a PCIe interface, then it would be relatively simple to add one to the system as a slave device for offloading certain tasks, or running even when the computer is otherwise asleep. This has been done before (last year I think) but the idea of external displays on laptops hasn't taken off.
Scales of economy might be a valid issue if you were talking about going from 1000 units to 100000 units, but we're talking about going from 50000000 units to 55000000 units.
Just in case you think that I think that Apple is going to do this, I must be clear that I don't think Apple would want to sully their machines with auxiliary low-power music/email notification screens, nor is there much point to offloading music playing when standard CPUs are so powerful anyway.
who said it needs a second screen?
They only need a way to isolated part of the main screen.
At the Resolution of the current MacBook it's would use 5" of the screen.
Sure Apple aren't going to be happy with that and would find away to get to work full screen.
The big advantage would be battery life when just playing music, using email, or safari. An iPod touch gets 6 hours of video out of a ~4WattHour Battery so a MacBook with it's 55WattHour battery could get maybe 60hours running in this basic mode. Sure it full power mode your only going to get the same as current.
They only need a way to isolated part of the main screen.
At the Resolution of the current MacBook it's would use 5" of the screen.
Sure Apple aren't going to be happy with that and would find away to get to work full screen.
The big advantage would be battery life when just playing music, using email, or safari. An iPod touch gets 6 hours of video out of a ~4WattHour Battery so a MacBook with it's 55WattHour battery could get maybe 60hours running in this basic mode. Sure it full power mode your only going to get the same as current.