Other Regarding the A17 Pro SoC...

[TheAppleFan2004]

I know it's too early for definite iPhone 16 rumours, but what if Apple has a long-term plan with this new naming scheme?

I think they're simply going to remove some of the most "Pro" features from the A17 Pro SoC for the standard iPhone 16's and rename it to the A18, while the 16 Pros will get the true upgrade to the next-gen A18 Pro SoC. This could make the A-series SoCs quite similar to the M-series SoC's in terms of naming, and it also gives Apple to start using the same number for its iPhone SoC's again, albeit with the "Pro" suffix for the Pro phones.

 

[sack_peak]

I wouldn't read too much into it.

A9 was just called the A9.

A10 was called A10 Fusion.

A11-A16 had Bionic attached to it.

Naming conventions changes over time and purposes.

Like, what's so Pro and Max about the AirPods?

This is just me... unless anyone has work related to iPhone app dev or is scheduled to buy a new iPhone I wouldn't bother geeking out on it.

 

[TheAppleFan2004]

Like, what's so Pro and Max about the AirPods?

Pro - More features than the Standard AirPods
Max - Bigger than the standard AirPods

Might've not been the best comparison...

 

[sack_peak]

Pro - More features than the Standard AirPods
Max - Bigger than the standard AirPods

Might've not been the best comparison...

What's so professional about the "Pro"?

It's just branding to distinguish and price appropriately.

 

[Rnd-chars]

That’s an interesting idea. It’s possible they’ll have an Axx and Axx Pro, but I could also see them going with something like this:
iPhone 16 = A17
iPhone 16 Pro = A18 Pro
iPhone Ultra = A18 Ultra

There are a lot of advantages to using last year’s chip (or binned versions of them) in iPhones and iPads, but I think it would be a bridge too far to take that same chip from last year and now rename it to the current generation.

If you were to substantially tweak it (e.g., remove ProRes encoders, add a GPU core, etc.), then it might make sense to rename it to something like A18, but at that point you’re losing a lot of the cost benefits of using last year’s chip to get simpler branding.

That’s not totally unreasonable, but if I were Apple, I would want to see sales data showing users are buying iPhones less because of the name/perceived value associated with it. I‘ve read some comments here indicating folks feel that way, but I suspect they’re in the minority and most people just buy whatever the current generation iPhone is that meets their needs, regardless of the SoC name.

Who knows, though? iPhone is their best selling product so it might make sense for them to create genuine A18, A18 Pro, and (eventually) A18 Ultra CPUs for the lineup, even if it means losing some of the savings and engineering optimizations they have in their current approach. If it nets them more money in the end, it’d be worth it.

 

[JulianL]

...
There are a lot of advantages to using last year’s chip (or binned versions of them) in iPhones and iPads, but I think it would be a bridge too far to take that same chip from last year and now rename it to the current generation.

If you were to substantially tweak it (e.g., remove ProRes encoders, add a GPU core, etc.), then it might make sense to rename it to something like A18, but at that point you’re losing a lot of the cost benefits of using last year’s chip to get simpler branding.
...

I suggested exactly the same renaming idea in another thread just yesterday. (I'm not claiming the OP got the idea from me - 2 people thinking about the same thing can obviously come up with a similar idea completely independently of each other.)

One thing I did mention in my post was that to some extent Apple has form in doing this. The s8 SoC on the Series 8 Apple watch is (as I understand it) identical to the s7 in terms of CPU and GPU core designs, the only difference being some peripheral stuff such as accelerometer and gyroscope.

You do make a good point about "losing a lot of the cost benefits of using last year’s chip to get simpler branding". Next year could be slightly different though. With the rumours of a switch next year from N3B to the better yielding hence cheaper N3E process for that one-off transition it might be reasonably cost-neutral to move the current A17 Pro SoC to the N3E process (obviously involving a one-off redesign cost) while at the same time renaming it A18. The resulting component cost reduction from the switch to the cheaper process just might be as good or better than keeping the N3B fab line for this year's A17 Pro SoCs running for another year.

You could argue whether a change in process is sufficient justification to rename the SoC if the architecture is identical and even if that is what were to happen it still leaves the elephant in the room - what to do in future years when a shift to a cheaper fab process won't always be available to offset the cost saving forsaken by not continuing to use last year's SoC.

I think it's an interesting topic for discussion but sadly we're going to have to wait for another year to find out how even the next chapter unfolds.

 

[TheAppleFan2004]

I suggested exactly the same renaming idea in another thread just yesterday. (I'm not claiming the OP got the idea from me - 2 people thinking about the same thing can obviously come up with a similar idea completely independently of each other.)

Didn't notice it, just typed my post on an impulse

 

[TheAppleFan2004]

There are a lot of advantages to using last year’s chip (or binned versions of them) in iPhones and iPads, but I think it would be a bridge too far to take that same chip from last year and now rename it to the current generation.

Yeah, I'm suggesting that Apple will just rename the SoC to A18 instead of calling it the A17, with no major changes to it and it just being binned. It'll be quite similar to the S6, S7 and S8 SiP's in that regard.