Apple change of strategy?

With all of the recent chatter regarding the disappearance of Intrinsity from the technology community, a question opens up about the strategy of the company that has in all likelihood bought them: Apple.

It all started with the announcement of the Hummingbird processor by Samsung - see my January 27th post about the ipad for a link in the comments to the press release surrounding the Samsung/Intrinsity collaboration to create a 1GHz implementation of the ARM Cortex-A8 processor.

When the iPad was announced, and the clock speed was said to be 1GHz, and it runs the iPhone OS, and the timescale was about right for Hummingbird to be in production, it was clear that the great performance of this hardware is in part down to the excellent implementation skills possessed by Intrinsity, since this chip is in all likelihood an exact match for a Hummingbird enabled System on Chip (SoC).

So why would Apple buy Intrinsity? I think the answer lies somewhere between their need for full custom silicon across the board (including at the processor RTL micro-architectural level), and the need to proceed quickly to market with the fastest possible implementation of off-the-shelf components, built in a semi-custom manner using Intrinsity's techniques.

Intrinsity possess a mix of technology and knowhow that allows them to do a really good job of making designs operate faster. They create a custom version of a given off-the-shelf processor design that addresses the slowest paths through the chip, and then adds special fast logic into those paths to speed them up. This makes the logical path between the clocked elements of the processor shorter, allowing the clock to run faster.

Because a strategy that focusses around Intrinsity relies on feeding them with other people's silicon designs (they do not actually design anything - they customise the generic design descriptions for fast operation in a given semiconductor companies process node), this suggests to me that Apple might be continuing with their use of ARM's licensable processor IP for the foreseeable future.

If Apple sticks with optimising off-the-shelf components in ways that other people cannot - now that they own Intrinsity - what does this say about their suspected ambitions towards designing their own in-house ARM processor?

I think the answer is two-fold.

Firstly, Apple are getting good performance out of ARM's "soft" cores by being clever in how they are implemented. This is quite low-hanging fruit, since the whole design and verification task has been done by ARM in creating the CPU in the first place. The "only" thing Intrinsity would have to do is identify the areas of the design that were holding back the top-end frequency, and make optimisations to those for speed.

Secondly, it isn't easy designing a processor from scratch. I believe that Apple retain a large percentage of the CPU design talent that they obtained from PA Semi - it would only have been the top-brass involved in business development that would have left to form Agnilux (now bought by Google). However, PA Semi's last ARM implementation would have been the experience gained from working on StrongARM at DEC and the ARM architecture has certainly moved on to include many new features. For an architect to get up to speed on that, and then work out what the CPU will look like is non-trivial, and bringing a team up to scratch on how to build that - and verify it - is not a two year task. It can take up to 4 years to turn around a CPU from scratch, especially if you've not worked with the architecture either for a long time, or on it's latest incarnation.

It also opens the question of what Apple thinks they can achieve over and above what ARM can achieve in CPU design? ARM are experts at designing their own CPUs, and have a spectrum of nifty high-performance implementations available in the applications CPU space. Give or take wanting a CPU with better performance or lower power, I can only think that Apple have decided to take their time on designing their own processor, and will stick for the foreseeable couple of years using optimised ARM macrocells.

If/once Apple do successfully complete the creation of their own CPU, the Intrinsity guys would then be deployed to analyse it, and make its implementation go faster. However, if you have that many in-house implementation engineers working alongside your designers, it would be possible to feed information to the designers about where the worst paths were in the design, and get them shortened before moving from the design description into the synthesis and layout stages of the project. This to some extent negates the value of having Intrinsity on board, because their skills lie in taking a pre-verified box off-the-shelf that you cannot change in any way, and making logically equivalent cycle accurate implementations of it that are faster and possibly lower power than if they were just synthesised automatically into standard bulk-CMOS. As such, it is a little bit questionable how much of Intrinsity's unique abilities can co-exist with the presence of an in-house design team, and what percentage benefit can be gained by using Domino logic on a design that is as fast as it can be in its RTL implementation.

So I've said it before in a previous post and it is worth repeating here - PA Semi designed CPUs in Apple devices will take many years to appear. Now I can add that they will only be marginally faster than what opther companies are capable of now that Intrinsity co-exist alongside a design team working towards a common cause. Just where I think Apple's own processor designs might wind up appearing in the product line is a matter for another post. But one thing is sure - Apple are intent on crafting their own silicon, and the game is changing still.

ARM takeover by Apple? Rubbish

The speculation about ARM being taken over by Apple is unfounded. ARM's business model runs contrary to everything Apple stands for. Apple are a closed, secretive, paranoid business intent on guarding every aspect of every product. ARM has an open, partner driven business of supplying intellectual property to the whole of the electronics industry. If Apple bought ARM and kept them entirely to themselves, they would be stripping the entire electronics industry of the only standardised supplier of IP, leaving the army of ARM partners and customers completely in the lurch, without any further prospect of plugging their roadmaps in future. This would have the consequence of leaving Intel as the only architecture left inside the marketplace. Other niche suppliers such as MIPS would then be the only companies left in the silicon IP business, each of whom do not have anywhere near the level of ecosystem that ARM has to fight off the insurgence of Intel. This takeover would devalue the price paid for ARM to such an extent that the acquisition alone would be suicidal for both Apple and ARM.

Pure rubbish, espoused by people in the city who don't have a clue about ARM, or what a poor fit it would be for Apple.

iPad - all the hall marks of hummingbird

Apple today announced the iPad - their slick looking tablet computer. It is based around an ARM architecture processor, but in a chip package designed by their semiconductor team from P.A. Semi. Their role has undoubtedly been vast in the creation of the chip (called the Apple A4 chip), taking on various technologies and combining them together into one SoC.

Their semiconductor manufacturing partner is Samsung, and a recent announcement from Samsung regarding a custom implementation of the Cortex-A8 processor using Intrinsity's Fast14 domino logic seems the prime target for the processor in the iPad.

With Apple's investment in Imagination Technologies, Apple will have one of the latest PowerVR SGX cores sitting nicely alongside the Cortex-A8. This pairing - alongside possible video engines, and other features like high performance memory controllers etc., make the SoC design undertaken by Apple thoughtful, but not mind-blowing. Their use of a domino logic implementation  for the A8 macrocell is the key to the speed uplift, and the low power usage even at just 1V. But there is no mystical P.A. Semi designed custom ARM CPU implementation in there right now. They've merely added the necessary tweaks to get what they already use in the iPhone running as fast as it can possibly go without burning a hole in your purse.

Where Apple seem to be best at differentiating themselves is in the software, though. That thing looks slick, and I can't wait to get a play around with it! The browser and maps look flawless, indicating a very good level of performance in the adapted iphone OS. And their graphics drivers will have to be a step up from what is required for iPhone, given the extra clarity in the display.

I didn't like the name, and I didn't originally like the concept, but Apple stuff is always so beautiful, and it always just works. I now look forward to its arrival here in the UK.

The fact that it doesn't have Intel anywhere near the thing also makes me glad.

Crisis Mapping - the power to help

The most inspiring stories of human fortitude and courage have been trickling out of the aftermath of Haiti's devastation, and I can't help the welling sense in my heart that I need to do something to help.I could give my money, but this just feels so pitiful. I know the DEC (Disasters Emergence Committee), and other groups like it, are undoubtedly the best-placed when it comes to the logistical nightmare of accumulating donations, and airlifting essential supplies to those in most desperate need of the most basic care. £50 could pay for a kit to help treat the wounds of 25 people. But it just seems like so little, when compared to wanting to save everyone, and restore their lives to how they were before this cataclysm.

So it is with great hope that I read about the efforts being put in by groups like the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) to provide communications equipment that can be deployed in a disaster to restore the essential links necessary to share information between agencies on the ground. I was also relieved to hear of the quirk of Haitian ISPs (Internet Service Providers), which sees the vast majority of them routing their internet service over robust - but slower - satellite links, rather than over the single - damaged - under-sea fibre optic cable that the country installed in the 90s.

As such, the little known activity - not quite discipline - of crisis mapping has been able to flourish, allowing for the visibility of many pieces of vital information related to everything from infrastructural damage, to the whereabouts of people - to be shared. When combined with the powerful routing capabilities of online mapping systems, great things start to happen. An agency can see where roads are impassible and route their convoys around those obstacles. They can query live information about hospital capacities in outlying cities, and find routes for ambulances to take the injured for treatment. A map of damaged buildings can help target temporary shelters at a particularly ruined area.

With this information being input by volunteers on the ground, the visibility of so many important parameters in the chaos of disaster relief increases in proportion to the number of volunteers there are to maintain that information. And so it shall be that I plan to "bone-up" on crisis mapping as a way to possibly help in future disasters. There's a great little site here about it.

in essence there are two types of information that maps (and other related information systems) will carry - static data, and dynamic data.

The static data relates to the status of infrastructural elements, such as the impassible roads. Once a road becomes impassible, it will remain that way until someone sorts out a clearance operation. It then enters the realm of dynamic information later on, for the recording of the atomic change in state from impassible to open, but then it settles back as static information.

The dynamic information is harder to track, and involves the semi-liquid movement of supplies, people  and relief workers. It involves the tracking of empty beds in hospitals, the location of vital assets such as earth moving equipment, and the list of living (and dead) residents of a particular encampment. Such systems are less accurate, and the ephemeral nature of their data often means these systems are under-developed, and are sometimes bespoke for that particular disaster. They tend to address local needs, and are often based on the pre-existing systems of the local infrastructure, and of the relief agencies themselves. A lot of the effort here is dedicated to integrating the various systems together, and providing shared portals to aggregate information from different sources.

This blog is about novel uses for technology. Although mapping is not that novel, the technology that can show where would be a good place to eat out is also the best at showing usthe way through the most destructive of crises.

Testing email posting

This is my first email post, and I just thought I should say happy Christmas to any readers out there!

Portable technology I didn't know existed

I am typing this on a Nokia N770 Tablet in my Kitchen. The device is connected by Wifi to my home network, and the keyboard I am using is an iGo Stowaway I bought on ebay for 39 pounds sterling. You'll notice I didn't use a pound sign - that's a flaw I currently have with my techno setup. However, I digress into the world of needing keyboard drivers another time.

This keyboard connects to the tablet via bluetooth, and provides me with a complete touch typing experience on a 4" handheld device.

Speedwise, the N770 has what would be considered a paltry 250MHz ARM926 processor. The thing that will amaze and shock all of you techno-petrol heads is that the experience of surfing the web and typing on this is comparable to doing the same on any other device I own with a keyboard. The experience is certainly superior in almost every way to that which I have typing on my Psion Series 5. It is a somewhat hunched experience, having to get in close to what is quite a high resolution screen for such a small size - proportionally, I think the pixels are smaller on this screen than on any computer monitor, making it harder to see what one is writing.

I have found that adding a 1GB RS-MMC card to the tablet affords me the luxury of doubling the amount of memmory the device has to 128MB. This means more applications can be opened and swapped onto the memory card.

Overall, I am able to do most of things I can on any other computer, and I can fit both keyboard and tablet into a coat pocket with room to spare.

Next time, I will talk about my experiences with the Samsung ST1000 GPS/Wifi/Bluetooth touch screen, gesture driven all singing all dancing camera.

some thoughts on the dual nature of the universe

For most of our waking times, we look at the world around us and see nothing but the usual “this and that”. To ask someone if they truly understood the world around them would be met with strange looks. But do we really know anything about this world? Do we know enough to really be able to say that the principles which govern its mechanics will truly be tied up in one neat formula?

The concept of duality – a paradigm particularly revered by the Egyptians – underpins our very existence to the extent that we cannot perceive it. It is a factor so deeply engrained in the fabric of the universe that, were we to actually be granted an understanding of it, we would not be able to handle its true power. I do not profess to understand duality or its depth. My writings here are a simple mind piece to exercise the brain.

Duality is the natural need for all things to have an opposite. It could be argued that, without an opposite, some things would be imperceptible, and others would run amok. It could also be argued that, were some things not to have an opposite, that our ability to perceive the world around us would indeed have evolved differently to compensate for the absence. Can it be said that the world around us presents the epitome of perfectly balanced opposition?

Take, as an example, the simple duality of night and day. If night were not to exist, and we were to live only in daytime, our ability to perceive time and to carry out our sleep cycles would be governed by very different processes to how they are today. All life would be affected, plants would suffer an over abundance of sunshine and people would be forced to spend half the day away from the blazing heat. The global environment would probably be different, where more sunshine would create more clouds, which in turn would block more sunshine, balancing out the temperatures somewhat. In this world governed completely by day, what if we were then told the concept of a night, and what it could mean for us, having never had an inkling of such a concept? Would we then be better off, at this later stage of evolution, to have night thrust upon us? Would we find it as hard to perceive night as we would today to perceive a world with either night or day missing?

In order for some things to come into being, they must first reside in space either in a state of opposition to itself or as a pre-formed consequence of opposite forces. Take the example of a book to be written by an author. In order for that book to come into being, the author must oppose the “force” willed upon him by the blank writing medium, and by his own writers block and gaps in his creativity. I know it may seem strange talking of a piece of paper as having a “force” opposing a writer, but this is true. Opposition, in all of its guises comes down to one thing – the need to expend energy and effort in changing a void into an act of creation. It’s a simple fact that I cannot get from here into town without opposing the separation of me from the town. It is a fact that I cannot go out with a girl if there is hatred getting in the way. A snooker player cannot win a match unless he knows how to play snooker.

Anything that requires practice and hard work lie within the realm of opposition forces. War does not happen without opposing sides. Reproduction doesn’t happen without a man and a woman.

An understanding of the force of opposition can be a very useful thing. It is a belief of mine that the Egyptians and other ancient cultures had an understanding of this force, and used that understanding to build temples and run their great civilisations. From a simple engineering point of view, there is no adequate explanation of how the Egyptians built the Valley Temple at the end of the Sphinx causeway – containing multi-hundred ton blocks of limestone, hewn very accurately and hoisted foot decades into the air. Slave labour is not an adequate means of explaining this feat. Where are the pulley systems strong enough to lift the blocks? How did they organise the thousands of men required, and how did they order and attach the ropes? The same goes for the fallacy of using ramps to build the pyramids. In order to build the limestone and granite pyramids with ramps, up which the blocks were dragged, the ramps themselves would have had to be made out of a material AT LEAST as strong as the blocks that were being dragged up it. The reality is, however, that the ramp would have been several times bigger than the pyramid they were building. For a pyramid of height ~800feet, with a light incline of 15 degrees on the stone ramp, this would necessitate a ramp of length 2985 feet. So what – wouldn’t they need a ramp to build the ramp? A sand ramp would be decimated by the stone blocks, whether carpeted on top with wood burgs or not. Yet somehow the Egyptians opposed this force hampering the creation of their legacy, and conquered it. How, I do not know. Since everything has an opposite, they obviously found it and used it to build their great structure.