Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Why Apple Started Making Its Own Chips
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- 🍏 *Why Apple Started Making Its Own Chips* 🔧
Apple's decision to develop its own chips, marking a significant shift in its approach to hardware, has transformed the tech landscape. This strategic move has allowed Apple to gain unprecedented control over its devices, resulting in enhanced performance, efficiency, and innovation. Let's delve into why Apple chose this path and how it has reshaped the industry.
For years, Apple relied on third-party suppliers like Intel for its processors. However, the desire for greater optimization and integration led to the birth of the Apple Silicon project. By designing its own chips, Apple could tailor the hardware specifically for its software, creating a seamless and powerful user experience. This integration has been crucial in distinguishing Apple products in a crowded market.
The introduction of the M1 chip in 2020 was a game-changer. Built on ARM architecture, the M1 chip brought remarkable improvements in speed, power efficiency, and battery life. This custom silicon allowed Apple to deliver laptops and desktops with unprecedented performance, rivaling and even surpassing many competitors. The transition to Apple Silicon has been smooth, with macOS and applications optimized to harness the full potential of these new chips.
Control over chip design also means better security and innovation. Apple's custom chips incorporate advanced security features, providing robust protection against cyber threats. Moreover, having an in-house chip design team accelerates the development of new technologies and features, giving Apple a competitive edge in the tech industry.
This move towards self-reliance in hardware design has not only strengthened Apple's ecosystem but also highlighted the company's commitment to innovation and excellence. By taking control of its chip production, Apple has set a new standard for performance and integration, ensuring that its products continue to lead the market in both quality and user experience.
What are your thoughts on Apple's shift to making its own chips? Share your opinions in the comments below, and subscribe for more insights into the world of technology!
💻 *#AppleSilicon #M1Chip #TechInnovation #HardwareDesign #AppleEcosystem #ARMArchitecture #TechIndustry #PerformanceOptimization #SecurityFeatures #Innovation*
I love how the comments explain the "why" in the title of this video LOL - otherwise it's simply regurgitated information.
awesome tips! i’ll definitely be using them.
M1 did not come out of thin air. Apple was getting pretty good at making iPhone chips by then
It’s the Tim Cook Doctrine: Apple is going to own all of the core technology that goes into its products. “We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution,” said Tim Cook. They have completed the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon for Macs. The next transition will be cellular modems in iPhones.
This proved that Intel was so lazy with their own innovation. Better bite the dust Intel you can't innovate faster.
I think they were just focused on milking the market because they can. Classic story of monopolist that loose their markets when sales and cost are more important than innovation and risks taking.
Cool!
When I went to work for Google in 2013, the search team was so pissed off at Intel because they were resting and not working to innovate in their chips and for 5 years from 2013 to 2019 they did absolutely nothing to improve their chips, while charging outrageous sums for data center chips! Apple started pushing on the ARM architecture in 2014 or even earlier in a drive towards making a desktop processor from ARM.
You missed the simplest reason, Jobs asked Ott of Intel to make a more power efficient chip running much cooler, Ott said it couldn’t be done, and the iPhone wasn’t going anywhere. So Steve Jobs did what any good innovations do, Apple designed their own, more powerful chip and less power hungry which ran cooler. Using ARM instruction sets also helped.
A simple Request by Jobs could not be fulfilled by Intel. Think ARM and RISC,
I think the answer is as simple as vertical integration in core components
That is why everyone should sell Intel shares. If it isn't good enough for apple, it isn't good enough for me
I've been using Macs since 1990. I bought my first one in 1992. And have had nothing but Macs ever since. Currently, I own a Mac Studio with a M2 Max chip. Apple is expensive but they are the easiest computers to use. And now they are pushing the power along too.
see how delusional your comment is? "easiest because ive never used anything else" you are missing out big time boy
M1 was amazing. They have run out of power and they run too hot. they also cost too much and don't run other x86 / 64bit software like games and force everyone to rewrite their software to so they can make the same batteries from before run their computers longer.
They looked at the RTX series, were able to extrapolate, and said, "nah."
The M1 uses NO ARM architecture. Rather Apple has an Instruction set license. The M1 is all Apple Architecture.
"Apple M1 is a series of ARM-based system-on-a-chip"
Buddy where do you get this idea?
@@kylorokx1552 Jeffrey is not incorrect. ARM has 3 kinds of licenses with its licensee. One of them is strictly for "FABS: who wish to manufacture chips on its ISA which I will ignore for now.
The 2 others are
a) License of ARM Cortex/Neoverse cores itself Let me call it COre Licensee (COL)
b) License of ARM vN ISA but you are on your own
as far as cores and SOCs. Let me call this ISA Licensee (ISAL)
Mediatek, Samsung, Google, Rockchip etc. belong to COL where in they get the cores like X5, X3, X1, A7nn, (A55, A57 before that) and make SOCs with different fabs. They combine with GPUs fand NPUs that are inhome/sourced from outside.
QCOM was one of the earliest of ISAL and to my knowledge INTEL too was with Strong ARM (which it sold to Marvel/BCOM). The whole Snapdragon series was a result of that. But the last few generations of SD SOCs, QCOM became a COL after the power issue with its designs. So now ARM considers QCOM a COL
Apple moved from COL long back to ISAL when it started to make its own ARM SOCs even for Mobile. That is where I disagree with Jeffrey in that even before M1, for years Apple had been an ISAL with its "A" series SOCs.
www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-pixel-8-tensor-g3-chip-good-or-bad-explained/
Check the above link table. SD8G4 and TS3 have Xn and 7nn ARM cores (COL) while A17 has "Performance" and "Efficiency" cores.
Google Tensor G3
================
Samsung 4nm fabrication
Nine-core CPU
1 x Cortex-X3 @ 2.91GHz
4 x Cotex-A715 @ 2.37GHz
4 x Cortex-A510 @ 1.70GHZ
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2
==========================
TSMC 4nm fabrication
Eight-core CPU
1 x Cortex-X3 @ 3.2GHz
2 x Cotex-A715 @ 2.8GHz
2 x Cotex-A710 @ 2.8GHz
2 x Cortex-A510 @ 2.0GHZ
Apple A17 Pro
==========
TSMC 3nm fabrication
Six-core CPU
2 x high-performance cores @ 3.78GHz
4 x efficiency cores @ 2.11GHz
Nuvia too was a ISAL company but then QCOM bought them. So QCOM now feels that it can have a foot on both the sides. COL and ISAL. Which means having an ear/visibility into ARM core roadmaps and may tailor a NUBIA core to be better than ARM core. Essentially that is what the QCOM vs ARM case is all about as ARM feels that QCOM has to now chose between ISAL vs COL and cannot have both.
@@rspgpfamily You need to get yourself a girlfriend PDQ...
Apple started by going to Intel during the initial iPhone design work. Intel said no that they did not see a need for a CPU with power requirements that low.And was not interested in building a chip with those specifications for Apple as a single customer.
Apple bought a company that was specializing in Power PC (PPC) low power parts and already had an instruction set license from ARM that they had gotten during the Newton development.
Apple quickly ramped up performance while maintaining efficiency. Apple's SOCs were soon getting close to Intel's CUs, at a much lower power efficiency. Intel again said no to a low power X64 chip to go into Ale only products.
That is not what happening, are you just making everything up? The Newton ran on a Apple custom ASIC H1000 from LSI Logic which had a ARM license.
M3 Air
Nahhhh dude, 300 dislikes and 49 likes. 💀
Is this Ai voiceover or real voice? Sounds really good!
@@seanvideoediting real voice no ai voice over
Not so much "why", but lots of "I read this off wiki." Gods, I hate clickbait.
PS: Your final line in the video description sounds like rejected marketing from 1980s EPCOT: "What are your thoughts on Apple's shift to making its own chips? Share your opinions in the comments below, and subscribe for more insights into the world of technology!" - (please don't use exclamation points... we're not that excited)
That is a lot of non-sense claims in one video ...
This video is 4 years too late 😂
Everything you said is true except the save cost bit, because if that were true prices would not have gone up so much in just about every device category!
I prefer chips made from potatoes, but that's just me.....
Don is fat!!
Robot voice? "R-I-S-C" instead of "Risk" (Risc). Nobody talks like this. But cool video, albeit primitive.
Its definitely an AI voice and an AI video. Look at this channel's oldest post, completely different voice
Apple does not make any of its own chips, that would be TSMC, otherwise this channel is just another one of those crap channels out there. Make as in fabricate to be perfectly clear.
Seems pretty obvious...if they manufacture their own chips they control the architecture as well as drastically cut costs since they don't have to pay a licensing fee/buy a 3rd party made one. The reason Apple products work well is because they use proprietary technology that speaks the same language across the board (for the most part, or is modified to do so). So it was only a matter of time before they upscaled their iPhone/iPad chips to become computer processors since they had become so powerful they could in theory be a computer when plugged into a monitor. I know that's the general idea with the iPad Pro, but they need to just give in and allow OS to be used on the highest-end iPads. For the money you pay for those things, it doesn't make sense not to. Although, looking at it logically, they wouldn't want it cannibalizing the sales of their actual computers.
apple license the ISA from ARM. this is an arrangement somewhat unique to only a few large companies. they do not quite control the architecture. while they can extend armv8 their core designs still need to comply to it (in other words, it should be compatible with armv8)
@@cinnamon4183 Thank you for educating me on that, that's really interesting! Also thank you for not treating me like an idiot for not knowing this. I appreciate the courtesy, kind sir, and the information!