Apple Tablet Might Use Apple’s Own Processors

@Neal F. Guye:

Jesus as in Jesus Diaz. Not Jeebus.

Stop being so uppity.

Sandeep Murali

@Digital9: You're right, of course. The law says that, should Apple decide to start making chips in-house again, they have to start exactly where they left off.

USB_Humping_Dog

@rcast1986: Yes, it takes great writing skill to offend half of America while discussing technical details of a non-existent product.

Not just anyone could do that.

Bye bye, Gizmodo! On to my next tech blog aggregator (only 233 left to chose from).

Neal F. Guye

Hey, the eMate 300 was using a 25 MHz ARM 710a RISC processor chip back in '97...maybe they're making an eMate 12th Anniversary edition!

i had a dream about an apple tablet the other nite. it was wonderful, but slightly disturbing because i detest apple for their cultish ways

minibeardeath

@Digital9: So that Apple has better control over its software and less importantly its hardware. Apple was relying on Motorola or whoever with the PowerPC Macs, but those CPUs were so far behind that Apple switched to Intel CPUs. That gave rise to 1) competition with Windows-based computers; 2) Boot Camp; 3) the "Hackintosh"; and 4) Psystar and a law suit (with associated costs).

A lot of people thought Apple's tablet would have an Atom CPU and run regular OSX, but that was always BS. The iPhone OS is already a multitouch optimized variant of OSX that runs on a mobile phone CPU, so there's no need for a 10" multitouch device to have an Atom CPU. Rather than go with one of the new ARM CPUs, they bought a chip company a while ago (2 years?) and designed their own CPU. If Apple has a unique CPU, the OS won't go anywhere, and they can rely on special hardware-based controls, which will be inherently more resistant to hacking.

cobaltage

Or it could be a Giant iPhone :). iPhone uses the ARM chip sets already and has a strip down version of the MacOS. So it wouldn't be so different after all. I also would not be surprised if the new device can run iPhone apps. :)

chyang888

"definitely not the MacBook Pro Touch that Jesus strokes himself to sleep every night dreaming about"

Omfg MattBuchanan You'reMyHero!

They should have the same mac OS X with touch interactivity.

Could be great for the creative market. I could think of a few uses with this thing if it would accept friggin' CF cards or be used like a Wacom tablet.

The-Ohio-Player

YAY.. back to Universal Binaries again!!! /sarcasm

But seriously - we're talking about a new Apple computer that's incompatible with EVERYTHING and whose only real market feature, other than being an Apple product, is that it's as powerful as a NETBOOK?

Wait.. why the hell am I surprised?

@Identity: Secret since 2008: Phemonenon? Blu-ray? I mean, I like it and all, but it's not exactly the most apt description.

@Digital9: Everyone who's responded to Digital9's comment. I think he meant to say "proprietary chip" instead of "Apple manufactured" chip. That's my guess. All this talk of who made what G3/G4/G5 is kinda silly. What's more important is what software will run on this chip/tablet. App Store stuff only? Or will it run VM Ware/Win 7/Linux? $800 for a soup'ed up iPod Touch is kinda expensive when I can get a 13'inch Macbook for $1200.

newgalactic

Apple obviously knows something about PA Semi that no one else does given their purchase of the company so any speculation on PA Semi's involvement in anything Apple does is vaporous until we see it show up somewhere. But thinking PA Semi's acquisition was about ARM design or even hardware chips specifically seems like a red herring to me.

PA Semi had government contracts, right? So what might've been in the Pa Semi skunkworks that fascinated Apple and Steve Jobs so much?

Acquiring PA Semi might've been nothing more than a way to have more leverage against other cpu manufacturers.

Or it could've been to hire a brain trust of personnel that could help Apple eke out every bit of performance out of certain chip architectures.

Or there just might be another reason entirely that Apple will only reveal when they feel time is right.

But really, this analyst is only speculating the rumored tablet will be based around a PA Semi designed chip only because such a chip did not materialize in the latest Apple hardware recently released: the iPhone 3GS.

spittingangels

Might make sense (cents?) for Apple, but it's not something that I'm going to invest in as a consumer. I don't want to spend $800 on a soup'ed up iPod touch. I would much rather get a $300-$400 netbook and install Win7/OSX/Linux ...or whatever else I wanted to install on it. One of the huge causes of Apple's latest round of success in the laptop/desktop market is in allowing other OS's to run on their hardware. Maybe the tablet won't have the chops to run these full blown OS's, and it's a moot point. But $800 is a lot of money. $1200 for a 13'inch Macbook is a much better buy if this turns out to be true.

newgalactic

@Digital9: What chip designs are you talking about? The Apple specific boot ROMs? Because those are pretty much the only chips Apple designed. And I'm not sure how those chips couldn't keep up with the market as there was no competition.

Since you need to get one, here's a clue, Apple never made CPU's.

rip

They have extensive experience with the ARM cores anyway (see iPod and most likely iPhone). Not a big stretch at all.

ErcoleKabobular

@matt buchanan: Matt, don't you know not to let facts cloud their rants?

@FriarNurgle: Well, duh! Doesn't everyone? ( :

I thought netbooks were a bag of hurt. Oh wait, no that's that other consumer phenomenon: Blu-ray...

let the rampant speculation begin

elchimpo

@AkkiRonin:
I need bleach for my brain!

bitgod

@tvcity6455:
the G5 ran too hot to put in a laptop. You'd be burned with in 20mins of using that computer

Akiyia

Yeah, that's right Apple is going to ignore the Atom chip for a RISC chip. Even when the OS path is leaving the RISC chip's behind.

Sorry just doesn't seem likely.

Akiyia

@tvcity6455: Actually PowerPC was designed by IBM/Motorola/ and Apple. But Apple really only went to purchasing them after the initial design work.

Jim Topoleski

@Digital9: uhhhh... i don't think they ever made their own chips. The G series processors were from Motorola and IBM. Prior to that, they may have been your talking late 80s early 90s if not older. As Matt said, they also purchased a chip maker not long ago.

imTheKing

@Digital9: first of all Apples chip designs where perfectly fine, the problems where with IBM and Motorola.

Second other than the G3 Apple really didnt design any chips after that, much of the G4 and G5 where from the other two in the group.

Third they now OWN a chip maker.

So its not stupid, its actually smart. They are cutting out the middle man (and thus making more profit than they would otherwise be making due to chip licensing) AND get to tightly integrate it into their device.

Jim Topoleski

@Digital9: Um, they did pay a large sum of money for a chipmaker.

@Digital9: If you're referring to the PowerPC line of processors, IBM develops those, not Apple. IBM wasn't paying enough attention to the portable market (no PowerBook G5), so Apple switched because the G4 simply couldn't keep up with modern x86 processors.

tvcity6455

"Jesus strokes himself to sleep every night dreaming about."

That's an image I really didn't need in my head.... *shudder*

lets wait until apple moves it to intel

@Digital9: oh my god, i can't wait for this!!!!!!!

Digital9

Dumb. why would apple, who decided that their chip designs couldn't keep up with the market, start making chips again.Here's a rumor, microsoft is thinking of ditching project natal and focus all their energy on recreating the power glove with interchangable weapons.

Digital9

We will blindly trust anything posted on the Giz.

I was told to never trust strangers either, but i found out that dudes in van's have the best candy! http://punditonline.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/free-candy-truck-1.jpg

@Bigbadbikernerd:
There ya go! :-)

@bitgod: I know right! There's just some things you can't un-read.

I like the idea of a tablet running OSX. I *don't* like the idea of a tablet running some other OS I can't run my OSX apps on, and I wouldn't buy it, any more than I would buy a tablet for WIndows, for which I don't have apps either.

If we're talking about a glorified iPod, then again, no, not interested. Already have an iPod touch.

It seems to me -- and this is certainly only my opinion -- that the only viable configuration is one that runs OSX, and in an intel-binary compatible mode (since the whole PPC compatibility thang is going away with Snow Leopard, leaving machines only a couple years old without support... something to keep in mind as well.)

There's another thing, too... Apple says it has re-written the entire OS for Snow Leopard. And they expect this to go well.

But consider: The most recent OS update completely broke HDTV support (that had been working fine) on many machines. They have no idea when this will be fixed. They can't even get a marginal update right; we're supposed to be eager to have them do this to the entire OS?

The reason I bring this up right now is because for those who are suggesting that this tablet run yet *another* new OS... I don't think you've really thought through the problems. OSX as it stands now is the result of years of testing at Apple and in effect, by Apple's users. Many updates, many fixes.

Do you *really* want to go through that... again? I sure don't.

OS will be in the middle, running both OSX and iPhone apps.
It will just limit the OSX open apps to a number, in order to ensure resources.

vballas

@TheWerewolf - Causing headlines!: why would you assume it's incompatible with everything?

loriensleafs

@Sandeep Murali: Hahaha, I was trying to figure out wtf he was going on about before I read your reply. Is that really what he was saying?

@loriensleafs: Because ARM chips can't run x86 binaries. Which is why I think this rumor is BS.