Whalen said that the company has been “talking to everybody” about Medfield and that the company first “took a conscious decision to focus on Android,” since “at the moment [Intel's] customers are asking for Android” but that iOS remains a consideration as it continues to grow. But Apple has little reason to want to open its arms to Intel’s mobile processors and plenty of reason to keep them closed, in fact.

It’s not that Intel’s efforts aren’t praiseworthy: The company needs a strong mobile platform, and Medfield looks strong. It’s an SoC that seems like it can hold its own with ARM’s latest, and there is even good reason to believe it will have a strong foothold in the Android market a year from now, not the least of which is Motorola’s endorsement of the platform.

But don’t expect to see Apple’s mobile devices rush to embrace x86 architecture anytime soon. Cupertino has done a lot to make sure that it maintains total control over its chip designs, which are based on licensed ARM architecture. It has acquired two chip-making firms and no doubt worked out extensive, high-volume fabrication contracts with chip-making partners like Samsung to ensure that it can deliver an SoC that is carefully tailored to work with its mobile software and hardware. That affords it advantages when it comes to system performance, power consumption and more; so much of an advantage, in fact, that an analyst recently said Apple had a leg up on Intel when it came to mobile chips.

Apple may have switched to Intel from PowerPC, a tech it helped create, for its Mac line of computers, but the mobile market is not the PC market. Intel still has plenty to prove when it comes to its ability to operate in the realm of smartphones and tablets, and for now, Apple has invested years of development time and huge amounts of money in making ARM-based designs that perfectly suit its software and hardware.

Apple’s recent acquisition of Anobit shows that it wants more, not less control over its product components. That desire for control combined with Whalen’s caginess when talking about Apple specifically lead me to believe it will still be a long time (if ever) before we see Intel architecture in an iOS device.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

VIA manufactures a low-power x86 processor (Apple’s processors are a licensed, ARM-based design), and says the patents in questions “generally concern microprocessors included in a variety of electronic products such as certain smartphones, tablet computers, portable media players and other computing devices.” That seems to cast a fairly wide net, but since the core tech behind products made by VIA and Apple are based on completely different architecture, it could be that its issues are mainly to do with the modifications Apple has made to the basic ARM design in order to makes its A-series processors more power efficient.

VIA Technologies has a strong patent portfolio, part of which it recently offloaded to smartphone manufacturer HTC through the sale of S3 Graphics. S3 won a mixed, but generally favorable decision at the ITC against Apple in July. A final decision resulting from that initial ruling is scheduled for November, and could theoretically result in a ban on sales of some Apple products in the U.S.

An A-series chip is likely to power Apple’s iPhone 5, which according to most reports will arrive sometime next month.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Mobile Q4: The scramble for spectrum continues

The main reason for the lack of haste appears to be due to the length of time that Apple and Samsung attempted to work out the issues prior to Apple filing suit. According to Florian Mueller’s FOSS Patents site, the two companies were in discussions for more than a year:

Moreover, Apple indicated at the May 12, 2011 hearing that it had been aware of its infringement claims for at least a year and engaged in negotiations with Samsung during that time. See Transcript of May 12, 2011 [...] (‘there have been extended efforts . . . to resolve this problem short of litigation. . . . they’ve been going on for at least a year’). The Court agrees with Samsung that the length of time Apple has been aware of its claims and the long history of infringement alleged in the complaint undermine Apple’s claims of urgency to some extent.

In the grand scheme of the overall case, the denial to shorten or quickly get to the briefing period probably won’t have any measurable impact. And it doesn’t say anything about the likely case verdict, although it suggests that the judge doesn’t believe Apple’s business is currently so damaged by Samsung’s products that the case warrants faster action. To be honest, I don’t know of anyone who bought a Samsung product and thought they bought something from Apple, even with the obvious similarities in look and feel. And customers generally have a return period of at least 14 days for a smartphone, so if they wanted Apple and bought Samsung, there’s time to make the swap.

The talks around infringement between Apple and Samsung for at least a year reinforce the idea that Apple has been treading carefully with Samsung, likely due to its reliance upon Samsung for key device components. Apple doesn’t produce its own chips, flash memory or touchscreen displays, although it has designed the ARM-based A4 and dual-core A5 chips that power its mobile devices. It’s far too early to say how this case will be resolved, but I’d bet money that Apple is looking for other component suppliers outside Samsung where possible. Until then, Samsung will keep following an Apple-like strategy, helping it become the smartphone king.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

It’s interesting that Intel looks to the iPad, because Apple uses its own, in-house A4 and A5 processors in that tablet, which are based on technology licensed by ARM, Intel’s primary chip design competitor for mobile devices. Recent rumors have suggested Apple may be considering a move to similar ARM-based designs for its MacBook line, though that wouldn’t be possible for at least another couple of years. Kilroy dismissed such speculation, citing the comparative power of Intel and ARM chips:

Go look at the performance of those platforms. They’re taking our latest and high-end end versions of second-generation core, and ARM doesn’t even come close to any capability there.

He wouldn’t go so far as to guarantee that Intel will be included in future MacBook products, but obviously that’s not something Apple would ever allow a manufacturing partner to do, even if a deal was in fact in place.

Meanwhile, at Intel’s annual investor day yesterday, CEO Paul Otellini addressed the perception that Intel is losing the mobile processing game by pointing out that his company still makes the most money on smartphones and tablets today. He says (via Barron’s) that’s because “the money is in the infrastructure,” and Intel is still very much the leader in supplying data-center oriented processors, which are in high demand to support connected mobile devices.

Otellini also brought up Intel’s role as a chip foundry, noting, “[i]f you look at the profitability around the smartphone chips, it’s mostly going to the foundry guys.” Intel is reportedly interested in becoming a foundry partner for Apple, which seems to want to expand beyond its main processor supplier for the iPad, Samsung. Samsung is arguably Apple’s most significant hardware competitor when it comes to mobile devices, thanks to the successful Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets.

Apple just unveiled new iMacs featuring the Intel Sandy Bridge line of processors, and the company is expected to release similarly equipped MacBook Air notebooks soon. According to all the obvious signs, the relationship between Apple and Intel has never been tighter. Intel could do far worse than hitch its mobile hopes to Apple’s wagon, and between Apple’s NC data center and a foundry deal, it would certainly be doing just that.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast
• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• Better Battery Life Motivates Mobile Chipmakers

Could this be a WWDC Keynote sent from 2012?

Tech blog SemiAccurate sped up a slow news Friday with a so-crazy-it-might-be-true rumor that Apple will be switching CPU architecture. Again. According to SemiAccurate “moles,” Apple is planning to transition its laptops to ARM architecture in “2-3 years,” and “presumably” desktops, too, though without a time frame. The plan is a “done deal” according to the site.

This seems hard to believe. While it’s arguable the Apple A5, derived from the ARM Cortex-A9, can keep up with Intel’s Atom in a netbook, there’s simply no comparison between ARM chips and the Intel Core CPUs used in Mac laptops. Of course, in 2013 it wouldn’t be the A5 in a hypothetical ARM-based MacBook Air, but a CPU derived from the ARM Cortex-A15.  Based on a 32nm fabrication process, with up to 8 cores and clock speeds up to 2.5 GHz, as well features like virtualization and access to the 64-bit ARM instruction set, the A15 certainly packs enough keywords to qualify for a Keynote presentation on paper. Unfortunately, the most salient benefit of ARM architecture, power efficiency, will diminish as computing potential increases. Is the diminishing difference worth another major architectural transition for Apple, one that would undoubtedly require a vast amount of engineering effort?

Even should the computing potential of the A15 be sufficient for mainstream use in 2013, software written for current x86 Macs would either have to be rewritten or run in some kind of emulation mode. It’s hard to imagine Rosetta 2 running x86 applications on ARM being the engineering miracle the original was when running PPC applications on Intel Macs. That would leave Mac users waiting months, possibly years, for ARM versions of applications like Office for Mac or Adobe Photoshop. Considering the incredible success Macs have enjoyed since transitioning from PPC to x86 architecture, this rumor seems ridiculous.

And yet one can’t discount the possibility of ARM extending beyond mobile; certainly Microsoft isn’t. As much as Apple has grown in traditional computing over the last five years, x86 PCs running Microsoft Windows sell about 19 times as many computers in aggregate. That’s why Microsoft announcing Windows 8 will be available for ARM-based systems matters. If Microsoft sees value in the platform, then Apple, with its growing mobile focus, no doubt does as well.

Also important, if true, is the rumor reported by EE Times that Intel is seeking to become a foundry for Apple fabricating ARM chips. One could argue that Intel doesn’t care what kind of chips it sells Apple, as long as they come from Intel.

Regarding the problem of applications, while current Mac apps wouldn’t run on an ARM MacBook, it could open the library of apps that run on the iPhone and iPad. Imagine a touch-screen MacBook running Angry Birds. Considering iOS devices outsell Macs by a ratio of six to one and growing, there’s a good argument that iOS developers could quickly take up the app slack for ARM-based Macs. Apple is reportedly making the Mac App Store the “preferred” method of distribution for OS X software beginning with Lion, so that could give it greater control when it comes to handling a chip architecture transition with developers.

Finally, there’s something to be said for Apple’s desire to control its own destiny. It banned Flash from iOS, for example. Rants about security and power management aside, Apple doesn’t want Adobe controlling any part of their mobile operating system. Considering Apple’s painful CPU history with Motorola (now Freescale) and IBM, and most recently the GPU spat between Intel and Nvidia impacting Macs, underestimating Apple’s corporate obsession with controlling the “whole widget” would be a mistake. A transition to Apple CPUs would give the company much more control over its own product, in the same way the A4 and A5 chips have done for its mobile devices.

SemiAccurate has proven itself fairly reliable with similar reports in the past, including the prediction that Nvidia would eventually disappear from Mac computers, and that Light Peak would make its way to Apple products. TUAW points out the original story on SemiAccurate is tagged “humor,” but a quick look at how that tag is used in other stories doesn’t indicate that site isn’t serious about the claims made regarding Apple’s intended use of ARM. We contacted Apple for comment, but have yet to receive a response back.

What do you think? Is this latest rumor crazy or conceivable?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Overview, Q2 2010
• Infrastructure Q1: IaaS Comes Down to Earth; Big Data Takes Flight
• A 2011 Green IT Forecast

According to the EE Times, Richard says that his sources indicate Intel (which recently made forays into the foundry business) is competing for some of Apple’s chip-making capacity. Apple is reportedly looking around for additional suppliers of the A4 and A5 chips it uses to power its iPod touch, iPhone and iPad devices, in an effort to reduce its reliance on Samsung, its existing manufacturing partner for Apple’s ARM-based application processors. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC) has been cited as a new foundry partner for Apple in the past, but Richard says Intel is another likely candidate.

It does make sense for the two to partner, as Intel would become one of the largest ARM suppliers (and therefore a major player in the mobile device market), and Apple would be able to distance itself from Samsung, which it recently took to court for patent infringement (Samsung countersued in response). Samsung’s Galaxy line of smartphones, tablets and now portable media players are Apple’s closest competition in terms of post-PC device dominance. The cosy supplier relationship between the two companies won’t be as easy to maintain as Samsung’s star continues to rise.

Intel would also benefit, as it owns its own manufacturing plants, which are expensive to build and more economical to run full-out — producing chips even when there is no demand. Additionally, as semiconductor designers make chips that pack in more transistors, the chips themselves become smaller, and more fit on a single wafer of silicon.

Essentially, it means that Intel is producing more and more chips as its semiconductor designs get better. But since it has so far missed the mobile wave, it is faced with a coming future where it has multi-billion fabs producing more and more chips that fewer people want. Sure, the demand for Intel’s PC and server chips will continue, but Intel can’t afford to stay on the sidelines of the mobile revolution, so if it can’t get there with its own silicon, it may decide to get there making someone else’s. Then its capital investment in manufacturing — which has been all but abandoned by most chip design firms who now outsource their chipmaking — will still contribute to the bottom line.

Richard notes that any significant shift in Apple’s foundry supplier relationships will take as much as a few years to materialize. That’s because of how Apple manages its supply chain, part of which involves signing high-volume contracts in order to lock-in prices and create component scarcity for competitor products.

With additional reporting from Stacey Higginbotham.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• The Future of Workplaces

The sources cited by the Evening Standard are well-informed “gossips,” but there’s evidence to suggest that this rumor may have more too it than just idle speculation, since the stock price of ARM rose significantly on the news as five-thousand shares of the company were traded, making it the biggest gainer on the day.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the company, ARM isn’t actually a chip maker itself, but instead it licenses its designs to hardware manufacturers like Apple, who will then build the tech into their own products. A prime example is the A4 chip that powers the iPad, which Apple developed in-house. The A4 is based on an ARM design. It isn’t the only one, either. Qualcomm’s Snapdragon, a popular Android processor, also uses an ARM-based design. In fact, 75 percent of global devices that use 32-bit processors use ARM tech.

The Advantages of Acquisition

Apple’s bid is said to be around the $8 billion range, which sounds crazy, until you consider that Apple apparently has cash reserves of $41.7 billion on hand to fund ventures and acquisitions exactly like this one. Once acquired, ARM would allow Apple certain privileges. First of all, it wouldn’t have to license its own tech in order to develop new chips, so you can bet more projects like the A4 would go ahead, especially for Apple’s growing stable of mobile devices.

Of course, that’s not the only advantage. ARM would still likely continue to be the place most mobile device makers go to get their chip design licenses, so Apple would then gain all the revenue from that branch of the business, too. And not only would they get that revenue, but they would also be in the power position of owning the technology most of its competitors license whenever they create a new device.

Antitrust and other industry regulations would obviously prevent them from doing anything as brash as blocking competitors like those using Google’s Android OS from being granted licenses, but that’s not the only way Apple could use its new found authority. Since other hardware makers would have to apply for a license before beginning their chip development, Apple would be privy to information about its competitors’ product release plans well in advance of usual, and Cupertino would be paid for the privilege.

An Arms Race

If this is an arms race between Google and Apple, an ARM acquisition would definitely put Apple ahead in the chip department. Google only recently nabbed AdMob out from under Apple’s own bid for the company, forcing the Mac maker to look elsewhere to help back its iAds plan.

It’s only just come out that Google has since answered Apple’s acquisition of chip maker P.A. Semi with the purchase of AgniLux, a startup chip company founded by P.A. Semi employees who left that company when Apple originally acquired it. Ars Technica doesn’t think Google acquired the company with any intent of making its own chips, but as a preemptive defense against possibly having to route its chip licensing plans through Apple…it could make sense.

The most likely outcome if an ARM acquisition actually does go through? Nothing but good things for future iPhone, iPod and iPad owners. All iDevices could conceivably receive significant boosts in battery life and processor power with an entire chip design company working ’round the clock to eke more out of ever more energy conserving designs, with direct access to prototype Apple hardware to test them out on. So cross your fingers for this one, even if it does put more power in the hands of Apple than it should rightly have.

Related GigaOM Pro Research: As Devices Converge, Chip Vendors Girding For a Fight

A number of different tidbits of information are pointing towards Apple shifting its chip design in-house, including the acquisition of P.A. Semi and the hiring of Mark Papermaster, but ARM clearly wants to give it every reason not to try to go it completely alone. It’s responsible for the Cortex A8 processor powering the much zippier iPhone 3G S being released later this week, and now, according to CNET, it’s already teasing the dual-core capable A9, due for inclusion in production smartphones in 2010.

The Cortex A9 will be the first smartphone processor to be dual-core configuration capable, further narrowing the gap between what your computer can do and what your phone can do. Next year’s chip will be only 45 nanometers, down from the “bulky” 65 of the A8. The size reduction should reduce power requirements enough to allow a dual-core configuration of A9s to use just about as much power as the current A8.

Not only will the A9 allow for much-improved performance due to its superscalar (can execute two separate instructions per clock cycle) and out-of-order capabilities, but it should also pave the way for much better graphics. The OMAP 4 from Texas Instruments, which is based on the Cortex A9 platform, is said to support 1080p playback and HD recording and image capture capabilities. In other words, if put to proper use, the next generation of smartphones could be capable enough in the A/V capture department to actually allow you to leave the camera and camcorder at home during that European sightseeing vacation you’ve been planning.

Though the current Cortex A8 processor in the iPhone 3G S is technically Apple-branded, many suspect the actual manufacturer to be Samsung. ARM licenses its processor designs for a fee to third-party manufacturers, many of which will tweak the design somewhat and rebrand it as their own product. Texas Instruments, for instance, makes the OMAP 3, which is the processor powering the Palm Pre, and is based on the Cortex A8 design.

If Apple does decide to start making its own processors, one avenue for the company to take is to license ARM’s IP and use that as the basis for its designs. In many ways, it is the smartest solution, since ARM has over 25 years of industry experience under its belt, and the R&D work they put into its designs represents a very large chunk of saved cash compared with doing your own in-house. P.A. Semi was a licensee of ARM design when it produced the StrongARM processor in 1995, which was then part of the spec list for the Apple Newton.

If Apple is working on its own processing chip for the next-generation iPhone, expect it to be based on the Cortex A9. 2010 will be the year of the dual-core smartphone, and that could bring about the first major leap in smartphone tech. Could be one good reason to skip the iPhone 3G S, unless you’re just going to get every model they release anyway because you have a problem, like me.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Green IT Forecast
• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast

The latest move in this complicated chess game is by Adobe, and it’s not a direct retort. Instead, MacNN reports the multimedia powerhouse is announcing today that they will be rolling out an ARM-optimized version of Flash 10 in 2009, while not mentioning any specific phones by name. Of course, iPhone followers will know that the current processor for Apple’s cellular device is the Samsung ARM 1176, meaning that it would benefit from Adobe’s proposed optimization.

Flash Lite, which until now has largely stood in for Flash on handheld platforms, doesn’t pack anywhere near the punch of its full-fledged sibling, which is itself sluggish on the iPhone. The proposed new ARM-optimized Flash would use OpenGL ES 2.0-capable hardware and newer, faster processors to allow complex apps and advanced video to come to portable devices, without sacrificing speed and usability. The move could also see the introduction of Adobe AIR applications on smartphones, which would be a first.

While it is positioned as a move which encompasses a wide range of devices, the optimizations described fit the iPhone’s current hardware capabilities perfectly, and seem tailored to Jobs’ comments regarding Flash’s suitability for implementation on the device. Adobe seems not only willing to make concessions, but to eliminate any possible excuse Apple may have not to use the updated software. Combined with the decision to offer AIR and Flash to developers without royalty, which will definitely increase adoption, the optimized version will be hard for Cupertino to pass up. Or, if they do, they’ll have an even harder time explaining why to consumers.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: How Mobile Cloud Computing Will Change Tech
• A 2011 Green IT Forecast
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview