Apple is a for profit company (the largest one in the world). Yes it’s about money. It’s all about money with (pretty much) every body and everything all the time. Except for when it’s about power.
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.
Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back?
- Thread starter dspdoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are people not motivated solely by money, but instead integrity and ethics. It is also possible to have a focus on making great money and yet still have integrity and moral principles. What a novel idea...
By the way, clicking the angry face on every single post of mine is not a good look. You should probably get that rage checked out. It’s not healthy. Your username reflects as much.
Made this username when I was a teenager but not gonna make a new account now.
if you honestly believe the make believe fairy tale you just said I’m not gonna say anything else because you should enjoy your naïveté before you become a jaded cynic like me.
LOL 😂 You clearly haven’t the slightest clue how old I am or how many years I’ve been an Apple person. Suffice it to say, since the very beginning. You don’t have to be young and spry to keep a positive attitude and outlook. That’s a choice... Being angry and bitter is as well. Good luck with that.
Who’s the moral one? Google? Microsoft? Your own company?
[automerge]1593251934[/automerge]
Judging from the tone of your posts here you’re kind of immature for your age then.
I decided to log back in after several years after seeing this question come up. A lot of people are going about this the wrong way. Here's a different perspective:
Currently Apple has chips in their Macbooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros that are not available to other vendors. These chips are binned from Intel's main pool of chips and reserved for Apple, because they want the CPUs with the best power consumption and least amount of leakage. Binning takes time to generate the amount of stock your customers require, so Apple has to wait at least two to three months to build up initial stocks that they can use for their Macs.
In the meantime, they have to design their hardware and iterate on their prototypes to make sure they're ready for production. This is where the bottleneck currently is. Had they been second-sourcing AMD at this point, they wouldn't have been put in this position.
As a reminder, developing new notebooks takes an average of two years from prototyping to production, sometimes three if you need new tooling. If you need new factory tooling, you're going to reuse that tooling for 5 to 10 years to make up for the cost. You have existing relationships with other manufacturers that can't be affected by slowdowns at the bottleneck.
Every vendor has been having issues getting their allocations out of Intel. Vendors are currently in a sort of bidding war to get product on time because 14nm and 10nm production was under strain. Intel also restarted their 22nm production because they needed to backport chipsets to it to make up volume needed for chipset orders (because 300 and 400 series chipsets were 14nm).
On it's own, this isn't a big problem. But larger orders were taking up allocations for smaller ones. You would have Dell and Lenovo and Pegatron sucking the channel dry in order to keep their sales channel stocked, and smaller vendors (in terms of orders) would have struggled for their allocations.
So Apple has to wait more than the allotted time for their chips, and they get less chips overall because they also have to order chipsets.
But wait. Meltdown and Spectre have entered the fray. Not only do you now have chips that need to have features turned off to guarantee that your attack surfaces are smaller, you're also getting into situations where extensions you may have relied on for performance reasons are disabled. Intel just disabled TSX again, as a matter of fact.
If Apple wants silicon that contains Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, they would have had to wait even longer. This results in them relying on their T2 chip more and more.
Here's the next hurdle: 10nm production and the move to 10th Gen silicon. On the desktop, the socket changes from LGA1151 to LGA1200, and you now have compatibility with LPDDR4X memory on mobile. As 10th Gen arrives, chips and chipsets are limited to production availability from 10nm and 14nm fabs. Consequently, LPDDR4X production is also low.
In fact, RAM production in general is lower, which compounds existing issues. The mobile phone market isn't affected by anything going on at Intel, so their orders and purchase power remains the same, only there's less left for everyone else.
So 10th Gen requires a board redesign, and there are new power requirements and different boosting algorithm to work with. Seeing as Apple is already behind schedule thanks to Intel's production issues, they're not likely going to adopt 10th Gen immediately. They work out the kinks, get the boards ready, and lower their orders from other vendors so they're not left with overstock.
As a result, there's a cascading failure in the supply chain of third parties who relied on Apple's orders to make up the bulk of their sales. As Charlie from S|A pointed out in 2015, Intel's failures with 10nm will affect every business related to theirs, or their partners, in the supply chain.
This isn't unique to Apple. Every other vendor threw shade at Intel over the last two years for their inability to meet demand thanks to their fumbling of 10nm, and 10nm+ production being lower. 10nm++ is also on the horizon with Tiger Lake. The difference is that those other vendors could, and did, pick up AMD silicon to make up for Intel's losses. A number of vendors have even given AMD more space in their product offerings now that they've seen how good it is and how well they sold.
Apple couldn't do that. They had designs ready for Intel silicon that was expected to hit the market two years in the future. They didn't have AMD prototypes that they could eventually turn into a new product to compensate for that loss.
Here's the difference between Apple Silicon and Intel: Apple can buy guaranteed production from TSMC. They order wafers, TSMC delivers.
Not only can they guarantee that production, they can design a modular arch that scales up and down their product stack, and they can use their fab allocation to figure out how much goes to mobile chips, how much to Mac and Desktop, and so on.
Yearly iterations from Intel would have been possible if they hadn't lost the plot. Apple's mistake was not second-sourcing x86 chips from AMD, but since they're all in on their own chips now, this isn't going to be a problem anymore.
Currently Apple has chips in their Macbooks, iMacs, and Mac Pros that are not available to other vendors. These chips are binned from Intel's main pool of chips and reserved for Apple, because they want the CPUs with the best power consumption and least amount of leakage. Binning takes time to generate the amount of stock your customers require, so Apple has to wait at least two to three months to build up initial stocks that they can use for their Macs.
In the meantime, they have to design their hardware and iterate on their prototypes to make sure they're ready for production. This is where the bottleneck currently is. Had they been second-sourcing AMD at this point, they wouldn't have been put in this position.
As a reminder, developing new notebooks takes an average of two years from prototyping to production, sometimes three if you need new tooling. If you need new factory tooling, you're going to reuse that tooling for 5 to 10 years to make up for the cost. You have existing relationships with other manufacturers that can't be affected by slowdowns at the bottleneck.
Every vendor has been having issues getting their allocations out of Intel. Vendors are currently in a sort of bidding war to get product on time because 14nm and 10nm production was under strain. Intel also restarted their 22nm production because they needed to backport chipsets to it to make up volume needed for chipset orders (because 300 and 400 series chipsets were 14nm).
On it's own, this isn't a big problem. But larger orders were taking up allocations for smaller ones. You would have Dell and Lenovo and Pegatron sucking the channel dry in order to keep their sales channel stocked, and smaller vendors (in terms of orders) would have struggled for their allocations.
So Apple has to wait more than the allotted time for their chips, and they get less chips overall because they also have to order chipsets.
But wait. Meltdown and Spectre have entered the fray. Not only do you now have chips that need to have features turned off to guarantee that your attack surfaces are smaller, you're also getting into situations where extensions you may have relied on for performance reasons are disabled. Intel just disabled TSX again, as a matter of fact.
If Apple wants silicon that contains Spectre and Meltdown mitigations, they would have had to wait even longer. This results in them relying on their T2 chip more and more.
Here's the next hurdle: 10nm production and the move to 10th Gen silicon. On the desktop, the socket changes from LGA1151 to LGA1200, and you now have compatibility with LPDDR4X memory on mobile. As 10th Gen arrives, chips and chipsets are limited to production availability from 10nm and 14nm fabs. Consequently, LPDDR4X production is also low.
In fact, RAM production in general is lower, which compounds existing issues. The mobile phone market isn't affected by anything going on at Intel, so their orders and purchase power remains the same, only there's less left for everyone else.
So 10th Gen requires a board redesign, and there are new power requirements and different boosting algorithm to work with. Seeing as Apple is already behind schedule thanks to Intel's production issues, they're not likely going to adopt 10th Gen immediately. They work out the kinks, get the boards ready, and lower their orders from other vendors so they're not left with overstock.
As a result, there's a cascading failure in the supply chain of third parties who relied on Apple's orders to make up the bulk of their sales. As Charlie from S|A pointed out in 2015, Intel's failures with 10nm will affect every business related to theirs, or their partners, in the supply chain.
This isn't unique to Apple. Every other vendor threw shade at Intel over the last two years for their inability to meet demand thanks to their fumbling of 10nm, and 10nm+ production being lower. 10nm++ is also on the horizon with Tiger Lake. The difference is that those other vendors could, and did, pick up AMD silicon to make up for Intel's losses. A number of vendors have even given AMD more space in their product offerings now that they've seen how good it is and how well they sold.
Apple couldn't do that. They had designs ready for Intel silicon that was expected to hit the market two years in the future. They didn't have AMD prototypes that they could eventually turn into a new product to compensate for that loss.
Here's the difference between Apple Silicon and Intel: Apple can buy guaranteed production from TSMC. They order wafers, TSMC delivers.
Not only can they guarantee that production, they can design a modular arch that scales up and down their product stack, and they can use their fab allocation to figure out how much goes to mobile chips, how much to Mac and Desktop, and so on.
Yearly iterations from Intel would have been possible if they hadn't lost the plot. Apple's mistake was not second-sourcing x86 chips from AMD, but since they're all in on their own chips now, this isn't going to be a problem anymore.
Last edited:
It could be because of the contract. Apple usually pre-purchased their components. It could be that Apple made a deal with intel that they will get x amount of y gen chips, but since intel couldn't deliver, Apple was stuck at whatever gen they had a deal the last time. Making a new contract to re-purchase some newer gen that didn't meed expectation might be deemed too costly/bothersome by Apple (those lawyers are not cheap
).
Looking forward to future hardware designs. Let's how they do without the Intel thermals and other issues. But I don't expect we will see it this year, just a current gray laptop or Mini with their chip. I hope we get away from gray and Apple brings back colors.
Honestly the simple answer OP is that silicon is always later than expected for a whole bunch of reasons. Design issues, fab issues, assembly issues you name it and it can go wrong and cause delays. Its not just Intel, it will be ARM in the future also and it will apply to all sorts of devices. CPU's, GPU's and my own personal experience of 20 years in Bluetooth and WiFi chips. This sh*t is not easy to get right and on time for the market.
So Apple blames Intel, in the future they will blame ARM. It's just a corporate PR game.
So Apple blames Intel, in the future they will blame ARM. It's just a corporate PR game.
I guess when you rely on others to do something your make for customers to buy, that's one piece that can hold up production, delays and such, not to mention possible issue (perhaps Apple thinks they can always do it better) and who can blame them for thinking that.
When you reckon you got a good thing goin', you just can't stop. Everything goes more smoothly if you do it all yourself..
That's why Intel now makes motherboards as well as CPU's. (..and now apparently Apple wanting top spot too)
From a practical standpoint, the issue is really limited to laptops and imacs (which are not built like a conventional desktops, imacs use mostly laptop silicon)
Intel at current process and design runs pretty hot with 10 cores and 20 threads at 5ghz - but in a desktop computer it's not really a problem at all. The processors are not the bottleneck. Scale to workstation chips and it's the same - the processor is not the bottleneck on a Mac Pro.
Then take AMD Zen 2 which is seamlessly compatable with x86 Linux and x86 Windows and has a 12 core 24 thread processor that runs cool on a desktop with a small, included fan - and there really is no reason to switch to ARM for a theoretical 10-20% bump (which Zen 3 will close the gap on that) when heat and size are not the concern. And then threadripper for workstations.
Supply chain management is not a good enough reason to willingly disrupt what is working perfectly fine on x86.
However, these new apple laptops are going to be amazing - cool and with long battery and desktop-like performance in many ways.
Intel at current process and design runs pretty hot with 10 cores and 20 threads at 5ghz - but in a desktop computer it's not really a problem at all. The processors are not the bottleneck. Scale to workstation chips and it's the same - the processor is not the bottleneck on a Mac Pro.
Then take AMD Zen 2 which is seamlessly compatable with x86 Linux and x86 Windows and has a 12 core 24 thread processor that runs cool on a desktop with a small, included fan - and there really is no reason to switch to ARM for a theoretical 10-20% bump (which Zen 3 will close the gap on that) when heat and size are not the concern. And then threadripper for workstations.
Supply chain management is not a good enough reason to willingly disrupt what is working perfectly fine on x86.
However, these new apple laptops are going to be amazing - cool and with long battery and desktop-like performance in many ways.
The obvious answer to the OP’s question is because Apple is the sole supplier of hardware to the Mac market. They‘re not like Dell or HP, where they have to worry about competition - and few people will be cross-shopping between Macs and PCs. If updating to the latest ‘generation’ CPU only gives slight benefits and usually means a new motherboard - all expense and hassle to Apple - why should they bother?
Not upgrading the 2013 Mac Pro at all was pretty disgraceful though. Thermal corner or not, they could have done something. One aspect of the ‘Apple Tax’.
Not upgrading the 2013 Mac Pro at all was pretty disgraceful though. Thermal corner or not, they could have done something. One aspect of the ‘Apple Tax’.
Last edited:
Intel exited the motherboard market in 2013.
[automerge]1593379944[/automerge]
The iMac does not use “mostly laptop silicon”. This is common misinformation that keeps being repeated that shouldn’t.
Because Intel never released a 9th Generation CPU in the BGA packaging the Mac Mini uses and so far they have not released a 10th Generation CPU, either. Intel also did not release a 7th Generation CPU in the BGA packaging which is why the Mini was "stuck" on 6th Generation for an extended period of time until Intel released an appropriate 8th Generation CPU in 2018, at which point Apple updated the Mini to use it.
Primarily because Intel's release road-maps do not map well to Apple's release schedule. The 10th Generation Comet Lake-H CPU that the iMac can use was not released until late May of this year and even when Intel "releases" a new CPU family, they often have very low availability due to poor initial yields so just because Intel says "it's shipping" does not mean they are making millions of them a day so all the OEMs - Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. - and retail are fighting for stock. Apple also uses the "best" version of the CPUs - the unlocked K series - and those are probably the model Intel makes the least of per wafer due to them having to be "perfect" and Intel probably makes more money selling those into the retail channel (for BYOB) so that likely constrains how many Apple can get for a time after the "launch" so they have to push back their release.
Also, Apple often has to wait on AMD, as well. The RDNA 1.0 GPUs that are upgrades to the current 500-Series have been trickling out this year so Apple will not want to release a new iMac with new CPUs and old GPUs or vice-versa, so they have to wait until both are ready - which is why October has usually been the "refresh date" for the past few years since the CPUs and GPUs are available in quantity by then.
And finally, Intel tends to bring out a new CPU socket with each new generation so Apple has to design a new motherboard. It is usually the same with AMD and GPUs, so Apple would rather wait and create one systemboard with both the new CPU and GPU socket then have to make two.
With respect, you are building one PC a year. Apple builds tens of millions. The scale is a bit different.
Good to know, in any case imac sacrifices the benefits most other desktop PCs enjoy, for the sake of a small footprint, and will benefit in a way that a fully standard desktop wouldn’t from the x86 transition, since there are greater thermal and expansion constraints on iMac.
Every new Intel CPU requires a new socket and chipset, Apple doesn't want to "keep up with the Joneses" at the expense of profits.
Apple needs faster CPU's that are pin and chipset compatible to give incremental speed boosts until they are ready to redesign according to R&D costs and Fab costs.
Doesn't matter anyway, Apple will fully ditch them in two years.
I'm fed up with this argument.
People want nice phones, watches and computers, but they don't want to pay for it.
I don't believe Apple inc. is a non-profit. Or is it?
If you don't like their pricing, then there are other options out there for you.
It's that simple.
What a silly and angry response. There’s a distinct line between making a great profit and full on price gouging/greed. Apple has always ridden that line. Their RAM and HD pricing is a perfect example. To state otherwise is laughable.
You must be a stockholder. Otherwise a glutton for punishment. It’s that simple.
That’s not a silly or angry response at all. The price of Apple’s computers are what Apple thinks the market will bear. Your ideas of what constitute price gouging and greed are your personal interpretations and differ from any other person’s idea of price gouging and greed.
Don’t try to interject your personal beliefs/opinions as the baseline or gospel in this thread. If that what you believe yourself, your entitled to your own belief, but that doesn’t make it the only belief or the truth in this case or any other case.
How funny, you tell me not to interject my own beliefs on other people while simultaneously stating that you can more or less speak for everyone else’s ideas on price gouging and greed. Give me a freaking break.
What Apple is charging for their Mac mini RAM is almost three times what I can buy it for. That’s just one of numerous examples of outright greed.
Don’t come at me with this elitist “know it all” nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
I never spoke for anyone else on this forum or this thread, they can all speak for themselves. I simply stated that Apple, who determine the prices for their own products, have determined through cost analysis what the market will bear and charge that for their computers, the same as Dell, HP, Lenovo or any other PC OEM. That’s simple market research, economics and accounting and due diligence that any business does when determining pricing for their good and services. What you or I think about their pricing is fairly irrelevant. Buy it or don’t buy it, just like the other poster stated.
You’re the one who came into these forums with a chip on your shoulder. I’m not even sure why you’re here other than to stir things up. If your intent is to bash Apple, then have it, but don’t be surprised that you get pushback from others here and don’t expect understanding when you can’t keep a civil tongue.
Many Tier One PC OEMs (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.) charge similar or even more for their factory-installed memory and storage upgrades.
Please just stop with the hypocrisy, preaching and posturing. You keep doing precisely what you’re accusing me of. Did it ever occur to you that you can scroll past something you disagree without having to push your agenda? You’re wasting your time.
I know the facts. I’ve been an “Apple person” for 30 years. Just because I prefer their platform doesn’t mean I need to stand up for or justify their questionable practices.
I think they make great products, but I’m also impartial enough to call it what it is, greed. I have no skin in the game other than my own money spent, so I am not a blind “cult-like” member either. I’ll leave that for the investors or for those who just have some twisted addiction/obsession with Apple. Those types are immediately identifiable by their continued defensive and passive aggressive attacks.
I know I have an unpopular opinion here in the “Apple lions den”, but you might wanna take a look over at your shoulder and remove your own gigantic “chip”. Like I said, the hypocrisy is pathetic.
Last edited by a moderator:
~$300 for 16GB into a Lenovo I spec out for work frequently. Makes me laugh.
Agree to disagree. Not even close to the markup on RAM that Apple charges. Besides that, most of these companies you name allow you to install your own RAM and HDs in their portables. They aren’t soldered on and are easily user replaceable.
[automerge]1593449945[/automerge]
Listen, my biggest beef with Apple despite how great their ecosystem and products are, is their shameless planned obsolescence. They solder RAM and HDs because they know that without a doubt, sooner rather than later we will buy new machines. So instead of milking a nice long life out of a laptop by upgrading the RAM and HD, we have to simply buy an entire new machine. It’s very simple. I’m sure the stockholders are giddy over this tactic.
Last edited by a moderator: