[jmagar]

I doubt very much that Jobs is underestimating the effort or the risk. This is more likely the Apple response to why an iPhone?

Look, if the COTS chips within the iPhone are available to everyone, (they are), then anyone can implement the same features (they will). The COTS chip makers know this, and in fact often they put only the features that have mass appeal in their SOCs creating a lowest common denominator solution, which maximizes their market.

Now consider what happens if Apple can design a chip that they, and only they use. Then the features within the iPhone will have a full lifecycle advantage over the competition; the SOC vendors will of course copy what makes the Apple feature "cool" but they will always be a generation behind...

[ajross]

You're making the assumption that such a chip would reach market at the same time and in the same condition. The existing chip design companies are, in fact, really good at what they do, and they are rushing these things to market about as fast as can be done. Hardware product cycles are much longer than those for software, especially if you are trying to "innovate" like you posit. You can't just rev a new chipset for ever device release.

[allenbrunson]

Apple doesn't need a chip advantage. They are able to beat the competition just fine without such a thing.

There's no hardware in an iPod that couldn't be duplicated by any other company, easily. Their competitors think "Hey, we can make one of those things far cheaper, with more features." Then they produce a clunky ugly awful piece of junk which quickly fades from view. Yet another "competitor" vanquished.

In the PC realm, Macs have recently become MORE like PCs, not less. Again, a hardware advantage wouldn't help at all.

[xirium]

> I doubt very much that Jobs is underestimating the effort or the risk.

Apple has already acquired PA Semi, a chip design company ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=174301 ). Robert X Cringely implied that Apple could use the acquisition to reduce component costs by US$278 million or more just with the threat of switching to unproven developments ( http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080425_0047... ).