Just to add color to that - Apple doesn't want external control of their semiconductors. They want to do their own thing starting with the mobile SOCs, then the secure enclave, then the M2 chip, and the GPU, and now mainstream high power processor. What Intel offers is orthogonal.
What Intel offers they still have to compete with.
It always seems like a good idea to do your own thing when your supplier is stumbling. The problem then is you're on your own. If they find their footing you're in trouble -- either you've blown a huge pile of money developing something which you then don't use because the competition has something better, or you use it anyway and get to relive the final days of Sun Microsystems.
And the same thing happens if anybody can beat you. If Intel can't but AMD does, you lose. If AMD can't but Qualcomm does, you lose.
Worse, success precipitates failure. If you make an in-house processor which is only a couple of percent faster, that's boring. You spend a lot for a little. If you make one which is more than a couple of percent faster, that's war. Intel can't have that. Google can't have that. Samsung can't have that. Microsoft can't have that. Even if you're bigger than any of them, you're not bigger than all of them. So they double their R&D, combine their resources, whatever it takes, and soon you're Sun Microsystems again.
When was the last time that a commodity mobile phone soc was even remotely competitive with Apple's latest? 2012? That seems like rather strong evidence against your theory.
I see a lot of Android devices at the top of those lists.
Apple likes to cherry pick. For example, they require everything on iOS to use their browser engine, then they spend a lot of time optimizing their browser engine for their CPUs. But that's not superior hardware performance, it's software optimization, which they could do with whichever commodity CPU they chose as well.
Intel does the same thing. They spend resources optimizing popular software for their CPUs. Qualcomm not so much.
Agreed- all those competitors have been shown up by Apple for years. They've had to take it because they haven't been able to come up with a technical response- even those using the same foundries...
no, it's not purely about control. apple wants reliability and (predictable) advancement in it's supply chain. if intel had delivered on that by meeting it's own roadmap, apple probably wouldn't be looking to move away from them.
it's not apple simply being control freaks (although they are and can afford to be), it's intel shooting it's own foot.
Even when Intel started recycling 14nm why would Apple actually care? Some of their computers have gone years without updates despite newer processors being available, it doesn't seem like an important feature of most of their computers.
In 2008 Apple bought PA Semi to design processors for iOS, make processors for Macs is likely something they've been working on since way before Intel was late on 10nm.
I have only seen a sentence or two mentioned in Bloomberg, etc. But it’s widely known that Intel haven’t delivered a true generational upgrade since Skylake.
10nm Icelake in the new 13" MBP is looking like the first solid generational upgrade in recent memory, but yeah, one qualified success in the last 4ish years does not a roadmap make.
It's one of a few reasons. Macs have worse thermal characteristics than they should; part of that is Apple's fault for making such thin computers with poor ventilation, but part of that is Intel's fault for making such shitty hot chips. Of course there are other matters that can't be laid on Intel, like the keyboard fiasco, but that's beyond the point I think.
The display cables fraying "Flexgate"[1], the numerous battery recalls[2][3], that the iPhone and the MBP, as shipped, could not be connected to each other (the MBP came with USB-C to USB-C; the iPhone with USB-A to Lightning; the magic trackpads also suffered this)[4], the kernel panics with USB-C until they finally got patched, that the flagship monitor (admittedly an LG device, but advertised on Apple's website at the time) had issues with … Wi-Fi (just being near it, from improper shielding), that same display also had huge issues with disconnecting peripherals (you would connect to the display and get picture/power, but no peripherals), the crappy noisey RSI-inducing redesign of the already poor keyboard (admittedly subjective except for the objective pain in my wrist, but, e.g., [5]¹), the poor design of the device s.t. any breakage in a component results in the complete waste of the remaining good hardware as nothing is independently replaceable/servicable, routinely receiving a score of 1 out of 10 by iFixit, Apple fighting right to repair[6], … oh, and the keyboards breaking the entire laptop from a single grain of sand, the terrible suspend/resume times, … and I haven't upgraded to Catalina yet. I hear that's gone so well for so many.
Yeah, Intel's chips are not the biggest fish in the Apple fish fry.
I'm not even an Apple customer, I'm just forced to use them by my employer. (And it feels like most employers nowadays.)
Intel can’t meet deadlines which forces Apple to restructure their plans constantly.