Apple Dumps PortalPlayer Chip 147
Quash writes to mention a BusinessWeek article about Apple's decision to not use the PortalPlayer chip in a future version of the iPod nano. From the article: "PortalPlayer stock promptly shed $9.46, or nearly 42% of its value, and more than $220 million in market value. Apple generally doesn't discuss future products, nor its manufacturing or component supply strategies. It had no comment on the matter. But theories about who may have been the beneficiary of PortalPlayer's misfortune are abounding."
Why were they dumped? (Score:5, Interesting)
So - were they dumped for practical reasons or for punitive reasons? What do people think?
Onto a different aspect of this story - the company being touted as the most likely supplier of replacement chips is Samsung (allready a supplier of a good deal of ipod flash memory) [technewsworld.com]. Is it really wise for Apple to trust a competitor [samsung.com] with components crucial to Apple's core business? (ipods are Apple's core business now).
Well, I guess Apple are happy doing business like this [microsoft.com]
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:5, Funny)
"I'm going to fucking kill PortalPlayer!"
Whoops. Wrong Steve...
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Of course, this comment obliterates all subtlety that remains. Hmm.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Samsung is more diversified in more markets than Apple, but their MP3 player lineup is just as expensive and much less appealing than Apple. I don't see Samsung picking up the MP3 player market if Apple falls. The only brand that could win by default is maybe Creative.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:1)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Intel have been working with Ovonyx [ovonyx.com] since 2000 on a technology called phase change memory [sciencenews.org] (or PRAM, for short). Basically, PRAM uses chalcogenide - the same material used in rewriteable optical media - in a solid state RAM, only it is manipulated electrically, instead of optically. This gives the RAM nonvolatility and random accessibility. It is several orders of magnatude faster than flash (nearly as fast as DRAM) and has a write cycle endurance of 10^12 demonstrated as of about 4 years ago.
2) Intel patent applications have led me to believe that they have made great strides in the technology, while remaining very tight lipped. Here's some insight [uspto.gov]. Note that they are discussing the displacement of SRAM, DRAM and flash with this technology. Noteworthy, is the following:
[0058] Turning to FIG. 5, a portion of a system 500 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention is described. System 500 may be used in wireless devices such as, for example, a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop or portable computer with wireless capability, a web tablet, a wireless telephone, a pager, an instant messaging device, a digital music player, a digital camera, or other devices that may be adapted to transmit and/or receive information wirelessly. System 500 may be used in any of the following systems: a wireless local area network (WLAN) system, a wireless personal area network (WPAN) system, or a cellular network, although the scope of the present invention is not limited in this respect.
Now, here's where it all begins:
Envision, if you will, a high-speed, nonvolatile memory with very low power consumption. This enables the following:
1) Intel Robson Technology [google.com]. This would answer the question of durability. Why would Intel demo such a technology if flash memory would wear out in short order? With PRAM, you've got CMOS compatibility so you can throw the whole deal right into the processor.
2) Ultra-low power wireless devices. Add Intel's Wireless USB [intel.com] and you've got the perfect medium to talk to your iPod. In addition, your gonna end up using it for more than just an iPod. Store your entire "desktop" on the damn thing, add some authentication mechanisms and you can use any wireless USB equipped PC to log into your "wireless personal server".
There's more, but this should be good for now.
You, sir... (Score:2)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
and their Pc software sucked horribly.
Personally I dont want to transfer music at 802.11g speeds. firewire is insanely faster.
Soniqcast Aireo [engadget.com] is the wifi mp3 player.
dont be tempted. it completely and utterly sucks based on the software and crappy firmware in it alone.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
If you re-read my original post, you can see that I suggested wireless USB (480mbps). I think that you'll find the bottleneck elsewhere in this case.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it wasn't really about a supposed technology ramp-up which they touted and I doubt they were banking on "future" technologies. The way I see it, it was simply a matter of the bottom-line: you really can lower costs when using high-availability parts. Go figure.
Never-the-less, that's some fun technology to be watching.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2, Interesting)
That is no doubt part of the story... but what could the cumulative per unit savings really add up to? While there is a very real cost savings on the cpu and associated architecture, the cost of the transition is huge. Rosetta development, maintaining support for 2 architectures, convincing 3rd party developers to ship UBs, Osbourne effect... If it really were only about saving a buck or two, it was a pretty risky move. Still,
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
The AMD infrastructure is still of a much lower volume than the Intel infrastructure and has fewer suppliers. Intel is still going to be cheaper in the long-run. The other costs involved in the switch are not negligible but neither are they insurmountable, especially since this time around they were porting an already provably portable OS. I wouldn't be tempted to claim the osborne effect in t
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2, Interesting)
Even so, given AMD's traditionally lower costs, and Apple's (relatively) low volume, this could have likely been a cheaper way to make a mac.
What I find very interesting is the false presmise that Apple needed to switch their computing platform to Intel to be able to broker (speculatively I should add) unrelated technology deals with Intel that concern the iPod platform. There is little or no sens
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Intel has great brand recognition among most consumers. All those "Intel Inside" ads were not just played to give TV networks money. Apple wants to be associated with a top brand, since they want to be the top brand. AMD does not have nearly the brand recognition that Intel has. I have seen few, if any, AMD ads on TV.
The fact is many consumers and businesses trust the Intel brand. Intel does not really sell direct
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel processors (ARM or XScale?) on a touch/widescreen video iPod in the near future. So I think your theory may be correct about Apple seeing the benefit of a strong Intel partnership not just for the Mac, but for
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
europium chalcogenides were the first semiconducting magnets, predating the field of spintronics (spin electronics which has been a subject of a few
word.
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:1)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Ohhh! You don't mean Parameter RAM!
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Also, if you find yourself writing to the same single bit one hundred million times per second, you should consider some other technology for your hardware buffer.
Re:FYI chalconides (or chalcogens).... (Score:1)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:1)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:3, Interesting)
The PP2002C,D, etc and PP5003 were good designs to get Portal off the ground, but it was never a product designed for Apple, just a convenient all-purpose dual core CPU with some
CLEARLY INTEL (Score:1, Interesting)
My answer is that there were two categories of chips in the running: computer chips and potable product chips. By combining both chips in a deal, Apple could leverage much better pricing and have more influence over whoever was their supplier. It's a little known fact but AMD also have an ARM like product based on the MIPS architecture (Alchemy AU1200 [amd.com]) which has
Re:CLEARLY INTEL (Score:1)
Re:CLEARLY INTEL (Score:2)
AMD "lost" because they could not provide what Apple wanted; hell, I doubt they were even in consideration.
Re:CLEARLY INTEL (Score:2)
Wait unti the hard part is done, then we'll see what Apple does.
They were dumped to use intel chips (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
...this announcement from Apple...
Apple did not make this announcement. Portal Player did. Something about wanting to remain up and up with investors...
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Re:Why were they dumped? (Score:2)
Much of the work of several chips has been bundled into single chip solutions by Broadcom, making fabrication much easier for video applications and handsets (cellphones).
Sigmatel or their own? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Sigmatel or their own? (Score:2)
Re:Sigmatel or their own? (Score:1)
Samsung (Score:1, Insightful)
Not dumped entirely (Score:3, Informative)
Instead, Apple announced that PortalPlayer's latest chip will not be used in an upcoming version of the iPod Nano. PortalPlayer is the supplier for this particular chip in the current Nano and Video iPods. The announcement made no mention of changing the supplier for the current product line.
Re:Not dumped entirely (Score:2)
As such there was nothing said about Apple's plans, as it was not an apple release.
Re:Not dumped entirely (Score:2)
Excellent observation! This announcement really only affects future flash based iPods. It is interesting to note that Apple did already stray from PortalPlayer for the shuffle. Not that PP really cared, shuffles didn't exactly sail off the shelf.
PortalPlayer is still very much in consideration for future video iPods.
So, who will get the new Nano business? My money is on Intel XScale, but a good argument can be made for Samsung.
Disclaimer: I work for PortalPlayer (but I have no inside knowledge as to
Seems obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
With this move Apple shifts from having a critical part supplied by a bit player to the part being supplied by one of the behemoths of the industry in Samsung.
Furthermore the Korean semiconductor companies are infatuated with marketshare. I am certain Samsung offered them a tempting deal as long as they were the singlesource.
Re:Seems obvious (Score:1)
I just spoke to Dvorak, he knows. (Score:5, Funny)
You heard it here first folks!
Let Me Guess.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let Me Guess.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nughhh, huh, what? What other processor pulls 0.001W/MHz and can run up to 600MHz?
As to integrated peripherals: the standard PXA package has sufficient facilities to pull USB, bluetooth, several serial ports, a color LCD, memory management, audio, various wireless and wired networking options, I2C, and a big honking cache on a single chip. There's a reason the Gumst
It's not you, PortalPlayer... (Score:3, Funny)
-Apple
Power of Apple (Score:2)
Re:Power of Apple (Score:1)
Re:Power of Apple (Score:2)
PP is expensive! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is probably just a cost cutting move for Apple.
Re:PP is expensive! (Score:2)
The PP chip does not require an external audio codec (what do you think those two ARMs are for?). Also, just to clarify, the PP chip contains dual core ARMs (not requires). The current video iPod is reported to use an external video codec (perhaps that is where your confusion comes in).
You can bet that Apple negotiated a favorable pricing deal on the Portal Player chips. I don't think cost is the whole issue.
Re:PP is expensive! (Score:3, Interesting)
You're confusing terminology on this point. The parent was correctly referring to the external D/A converter chip, such as the Intel Aduio Codec '97 chips often found in PC Hardware (and which the PPI chips support) or an I2S chip such as Wolfson Microelectronics' or Sigmatel's offerings -- which are more suited to the portable embedded space than power-hungry AC'97 chips.
So the parent's claims are that the BOM
Re:PP is expensive! (Score:3, Interesting)
With this huge devaluing of their stock, maybe Apple will consider buying the company outright.
What an internesting manipulation of the markets this would make.
1) Get annoyed at component costs for you main supplier of a hit product.
2) Leak that you are dumping them to put their stock price in the tank.
3) But company outright and do away with peksy contacts.
4) Profit by not having to pay the old company's margin anymore.
Re:PP is expensive! (Score:2)
If they let them innovate (Score:2)
Other Theories (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Other Theories (Score:1)
Concentrate on that in future and you might save some money :)
Re:Other Theories (Score:3, Informative)
Search for portalplayer here: http://www.rockbox.org/irc/rockbox-20040811.txt [rockbox.org]
Granted, this isn't PR speak, but people wondering why in the world someone would use the product. Of course, as an investor, this is probably the first thing you are tracking, how good is their product relative to their competitiors. I'm
Re:Other Theories (Score:2)
Re:Other Theories (Score:2)
But based on the numbers I've got in hand, it seems like the stock is very underpriced.
Not content with moving iMac to iNtel... (Score:1)
Is intel properly ARMed for this? (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
The reason they dumped PortalPlayer (Score:5, Interesting)
So, congrats to Apple for finally ditching them. You should all look forward to some better performing and longer lasting iPods in the future. Yes, I'm rather bitter from having to deal with the muppets at PortalPlayer in the past.
Re:The reason they dumped PortalPlayer (Score:2)
Yes, I'm rather bitter...
I think that explains your ridiculous comment quite well.
Apple is not stupid. For whatever reason they chose to go with another supplier, I can assure you that it was not due to any technical issues or lack of capabilities on the Portal Player chip.
Could be good, probably not. (Score:2)
Apple also needs something a little more robust, to offer such features as some PDA like functionality, games, or better video support (i.e. HD video out).
Either that, or someone just offered Apple a cheaper version of the same concept so Apple can make more profit on their cheaper product lines.
Re:Could be good, probably not. (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, Apple clearly needs to do something about it's 80% market share [macnn.com] in the portable music player business. I mean, clearly, consumers aren't about to put up with this shoddiness.
Re:Could be good, probably not. (Score:2)
Seriously! I mean, come on, a music player that just plays music??? Who would want such a useless thing???
Why, how would I microwave my lunch, clean my toilet, brush my c
Re:Could be good, probably not. (Score:2)
Have you taken the time to read the fine print that the asterisk in those claims points to? You get 30-50 hours on files compressed to 32kbps WMA, meaning more files fit into the RAM buffer. You could easily do the same on an iPod by compressing to 32kbps AAC files.
Re:Could be good, probably not. (Score:2)
So, your profit allegations are baseless.
As for the playback time, Apple has been bitten by a class action for claiming that the iPods played longer than expected. Once bitten, twice shy. Also, don't forget the end sentence on the Sony site:
"so-called" (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems like anytime some media type doesn't understand tech, they drop 'so-called' in front of the name.
Re:"so-called" (Score:2)
'Cause I sure don't understand them.
Red flag (Score:2)
Then it's a good indication the rest of the article is probably wrong too.
what's the DAC in the ipod shuffle? (Score:2)
the bass is well-known to be superior quality.
the one thing that stops me from buying OTHER apple players is that NONE of them (but the shuffle) use that really amazing DAC. shame!
Re:what's the DAC in the ipod shuffle? (Score:2)
thanks. next obvious question is: will apple use this (or one like it) again?
I remember reading that, for some reason, flash based apple players used this kind of DAC and the spinning-disk based ones used the other one (that apple used). which was why the disk based ipods never sounded quite as good as the shuffles.
I don't think the nano uses a DAC like this one, though (?). I tried a nan
Re:Apple didn't make this announcement. (Score:2)
Re:Apple didn't make this announcement. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're whingeing about. Nobody said anything in the title or summary about an "announcement" by anyone.
Hell, I guess technically, you're correct; within the context of what shows up directly up in /., Apple didn't make this announcement. But doinking the editors is just silly and trollish.
Hell, there are plenty of things to doink editors about here; making crap up is pointless.
Re:Apple didn't make this announcement. (Score:1)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:4, Informative)
"Apple said it shipped 1,112,000 Mac computers and more than 8.5 million iPods music players during the quarter. The iPod shipments represented a 61 percent increase over the same period last year."
Therefore what you have just said is patently incorrect. QED.
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:1)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:1)
Massive Drop? (Score:1)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, didn't post the link [eetimes.com]
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:5, Informative)
For more information on this "massive drop in iPod sales" please read: http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/26405 [ipodobserver.com]
Highlights from the above story:
iPod shipments are up 61 percent compared to last year, and the company has now sold over 50 million units.
The iPod market share is up, too, accounting for 78 percent of the portable music players sold. In December 2005, that number was at 71 percent
Outside of the United States, the iPod is the top-selling MP3 player in the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
Despite strong iPod sales, Apple sees room for major growth in the MP3 player market. Based on sales of other consumer electronic devices, Mr. Oppenheimer noted, "The MP3 player market has a lot of room for growth. According to Forester research, U.S. household MP3 player penetration was less than one quarter that of digital cameras as of the end of 2005."
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:1, Insightful)
Why would you make such an obviously false claim when the iPod sales figures show EXACTLY the opposite of what you are claiming in a chart just a couple posts above you?
iPod sales have NEVER decreased after the holiday quarter EVER in the life of the product. And for the first time sales not only didn't continue to accelerate after the holidays, they DROPPED 40% and you are trying to claim t
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2)
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18result s .html [apple.com]
"Apple shipped 1,254,000 Macintosh® computers and 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 20 percent growth in Macs and 207 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter."
They saw a 207% increase year over year in the first quarter for iPod sales. This is why there was such a sharp drop. The previous quarter was an anomoly and shou
January sales (Score:2)
January and February are the 2 worst months in retail sales; people over-spend for Christmas, then take 2 months to pay the bills. The fact that an ex-niche product aimed at the rich (a 400$ discman-equivalent IS a rich boy's toy) became a normal consumer product explains that "huge" slump.
Or maybe Levi's are in trouble because they have a 2-month decrease in sales every year.... you choose.
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:1)
Why would this kill the ipod? (Score:1)
One of several "ipod killers" with better features, cheaper, gapless playback etc. should have killed ipod.
How many times have we heard this item will kill the ipod? The only one who can kill the ipod is Apple, or maybe if for some reason it stops being cool.
Algerath
Re:Why would this kill the ipod? (Score:1)
cool factor is part of it (Score:1)
Algerath
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2)
Using a cell phone has some definite disadvantages, from using air time to download music to not having the easy-to-use interface. Plus, I want to pick a phone based on its features as a phone and my music player based on its features as a music player. I don't want to have to worry about trade-offs for either one.
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:4, Funny)
Onward Mac Soldiers! Let the unbelievers perish in a hail of moderation!
Damn funny (Score:2)
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:1)
I think it's a bit early to draw that conclusion, I think it's more likely that the iPod sales just had a massive spike during the christmas shopping season. There was an extreme jump in sales last quarter, and if an extraordinarily large number of people were given iPods for christmas, they don't need to buy one the following quarter.
Wikipedia iPod sales graph [wikipedia.org].
My magic 8-ball predicts... 9.5
Re:Massive Drop In iPod Demand (Score:2)