Apple should start selling their chips to 3rd parties

[Zest28]

Since Apple cares so much about saving the planet (Apple says they don't ship chargers for this reason), Apple should start selling their chips to other companies.

Huge datacenters of Google and Microsoft would save alot of energy and cooling if they are able to use these chips and this would have a positive impact on the planet.

So Apple should do the right thing (after telling so much BS that they made those changes not for the money, but for being "green").

 

[thenewperson]

But I heard they throttle too much so that'd be bad.

 

[Zest28]

But I heard they throttle too much so that'd be bad.

What are you smoking?

The cooling systems of these datacenters are huge. They can easily handle chips from Apple without thermal throttling.

 

[thenewperson]

What are you smoking?

The cooling systems of these datacenters are huge. They can easily handle chips from Apple without thermal throttling.

Nah, they'll throttle. Not worth it.

 

[jdb8167]

Since Apple cares so much about saving the planet (Apple says they don't ship chargers for this reason), Apple should start selling their chips to other companies.

Huge datacenters of Google and Microsoft would save alot of energy and cooling if they are able to use these chips and this would have a positive impact on the planet.

So Apple should do the right thing (after telling so much BS that they made those changes not for the money, but for being "green").

Apple would have to document all the extra components on the SoC. I don't think they would see that as an advantage. Right now they have trade secrets that let them have unprecedented performance per Watt and a lot of that goes beyond the CPU and GPU.

I'd love for Apple to open up the Apple silicon SoCs and document the hardware. Then sell the hell out of their SoCs but I don't think that is going to happen.

 

[Blue Quark]

Right now there's a bill (maybe it's been signed into law?) to promote U.S. domestic chip manufacturing investment, and under that rubric, maybe it's something Apple could (note the "c" and not a "w") leverage, and then sell AS to other companies. That said, I don't think there's a chance Apple would do that. They'd look at it as giving competitors a leg up, and I just don't see them going down that path.

Separately, just under half (like 40%) of my country believes Climate Change is a myth, and feel threatened by experts (the so-called "elite") and science and learning and all that fun stuff, so if they have their way, they'll make sure our data centers are roasty-toasty and sucking down all the electrical power they can.

 

[ADGrant]

Since Apple cares so much about saving the planet (Apple says they don't ship chargers for this reason), Apple should start selling their chips to other companies.

Huge datacenters of Google and Microsoft would save alot of energy and cooling if they are able to use these chips and this would have a positive impact on the planet.

So Apple should do the right thing (after telling so much BS that they made those changes not for the money, but for being "green").

You know that the leading cloud provider AWS already offers ARM64 servers right?

 

[Zest28]

You know that the leading cloud provider AWS already offers ARM64 servers right?

Just because it is an ARM64 chip doesn't mean it is as good as Apple their chip.

An example are Android phones, who constantly get beaten the Apple Silicon inside the iPhone.

 

[ADGrant]

Just because it is an ARM64 chip doesn't mean it is as good as Apple their chip.

An example are Android phones, who constantly get beaten the Apple Silicon inside the iPhone.

Well Android apps are mostly written in Java so the phones start with a disadvantage.

That aside, it seems very unlikely to me that Apple has cornered the market in ARM64 chip designers and what does "as good" even mean? Apple's SoCs are optimized for mobile end user computing. Server work loads have different requirements. For example most servers do not need to encode ProRes or H265, they do however often need huge amounts of RAM, potentially more than the current Apple SoCs can support.

 

[jav6454]

What are you smoking?

The cooling systems of these datacenters are huge. They can easily handle chips from Apple without thermal throttling.

He’s trolling you. That said, Apple would rather sell you the entire machine than just a chip.

 

[tastesliketailpipe]

That’s hilarious.

 

[theorist9]

It probably wouldn't make sense for Apple to enter the datacenter market, for two key reasons:

1) It would require a significantly different chip design, because the tasks that datacenter chips are asked to perform are very different from those performed by personal computer chips. And Apple already has its hands full keeping up with the regular redesign of its A-series, M-series, and S-series chips.

2) Other companies are already making more efficient ARM-based datacenter chips, e.g., the AWS Graviton. So any server chip Apple did design wouldn't have the efficiency advantage vs. those that its M-series chips have vs. Intel's laptop and desktop chips. And for that reason, I'm not sure how much planetary benefit there is here.

If Apple wanted to be more green, there are other things it would make sense for them to do, like allowing the SSD in the Studio to be upgradeable, which could extend its life, and having done a better job designing the Retina iMacs so they could be used as external monitors after they became obsolete as computers (AirPlay has significant downsides).

 

[mr_roboto]

Just because it is an ARM64 chip doesn't mean it is as good as Apple their chip.

An example are Android phones, who constantly get beaten the Apple Silicon inside the iPhone.

Just because Apple's chips are good in phones and tablets and personal computers doesn't mean they're good at being server chips.

 

[leman]

Na, Apple can barely produce enough chips for themselves, forget about wider industry. Also, Apple Silicon is way to expensive and there is the problem of software layer. It's not that I absolutely reject the idea of them doing servers again, but it's not really Apple's kind of business. Too risky, too much competition, too much investment required. Of course, selling chips is completely out of the question, but maybe we will see them offering cloud compute services using virtualised Linux. I won't hold my breath though.

On a different note, I see that @Zest28 is embracing the good work done by the likes of sunny5 and mi7chy. Oh boy.

 

[Larsvonhier]

Nah, they'll throttle. Not worth it.

You're clearly the expert!

 

[Madhatter32]

The real secret sauce is in the manufacturing of these chips, which Apple has a stranglehold on capacity through its relationship with TSMC. The designing of the chip can be reversed engineered and iteratively changed to comply with pertinent law. When other manufacturers begin to up their game, other companies will begin to compete.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

It's important to remember that Apple designs its own chips using a license from ARM, and then has them manufactured by another entity. Calling them 'Apple's chips' therefore really isn't telling the whole story.

And just as important as the chip itself is the integration of it within the whole device, hardware and software. If Apple didn't control macOS and the rest of their Macs, then the efficiency and performance gains would not be nearly as impressive.

 

[Wizec]

If it made financial sense, they probably would. However, as other posters have noted, Apple can’t even get enough to meet the demands for their own products.

It would be foolish for Apple to sell the Apple Silicon Mx chips themselves for what would be low margin profit, when compared to a finished product such as desktops, laptops, tablets and phones, where margins are much, much higher. The sum of the parts is much greater than whole in this scenario.

 

[leman]

It's important to remember that Apple designs its own chips using a license from ARM, and then has them manufactured by another entity. Calling them 'Apple's chips' therefore really isn't telling the whole story.

According to this logic there are also no "AMD chips" and also not very clear whether there are any "Intel chips". Not sure you want to go through with this

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

According to this logic there are also no "AMD chips" and also not very clear whether there are any "Intel chips". Not sure you want to go through with this

Well, you are right 😜 AMD and Intel are just brands.

 

[Slartibart]

#TheyShouldBringBackTheClones 🤪🤣😂

 

[headlessmike]

Not that it makes any sense for Apple to allow it. But something like a Nintendo Switch 2 using an M1 or M2 chip would be pretty awesome. Based purely on reported flops values, the M1's GPU is about 4 times faster than the GPU in the Tegra X1 that the current Switch uses. Both have 15W TDPs and 4+4 CPU cores, so it would appear to be a perfect fit.

 

[altaic]

can be reversed engineered and iteratively changed to comply with pertinent law

Huh? What laws are you insinuating Apple Silicon designs violates?

 

[headlessmike]

Huh? What laws are you insinuating Apple Silicon designs violates?

They weren't. But if somebody copied the Apple Silicon designs straight off then they would be violating IP laws and would thus have to make changes to the design before trying to sell it.

 

[altaic]

They weren't. But if somebody copied the Apple Silicon designs straight off then they would be violating IP laws and would thus have to make changes to the design before trying to sell it.

Ah, I misunderstood, my apologies.

I do wish MR would purchase analyses of M1 Max (or Ultra if the reports are ready) from Tech Insights and give us a peek into some of the IP and design decisions. That would be a fresh breeze compared to click bait and vacuous assertions.