Apple and Intel: Destined to Clash
Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:44 UTC
Intel An interesting article at Ars Technica takes a look at some compelling data (the longer-than-normal processor update cycles in Apple's personal computer lineup) and speculates that Apple's enthusiasm for its partnership with Intel might be cooling. Like Apple's soured relationship with once-BFF Google, this may be the result of Intel's increasing activities in the mobile computing space.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 68 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i7w
Thread beginning with comment 434548
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: AMD
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 27th Jul 2010 09:25 UTC in reply to "AMD"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

That's just silly. Why invest in a market that quite clearly isn't where the future lies (according to Jobs himself)?

Also, it would pretty much leave Intel as the only processor supplier, and I don't think the various government institutions around the world are going to like that prospect.

Edited 2010-07-27 09:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: AMD
by kristoph on Tue 27th Jul 2010 22:56 in reply to "RE: AMD"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

AMD is now a largely fabless company. It's the IP and the brain-trust that matters. If Apple thought that had competitive value they would, I am sure, consider buying AMD.

Your second point does not make much sense. I assume your talking about anti-trust here but anti-trust does not come into play because Apple is not an existing competitor to Intel or AMD. Sure their acquisition by Apple (which would use their chips exclusively) would reduce Intel's competition but anti-trust could not be used in this context to block the acquisition.

That said, I agree that this type of acquisition is unlikely simple because, frankly, AMD has no strategic value to Apple unless their latest IP is significantly superior to intel, which it's not.

I actually think an Apple acquisition of ARM is much more strategic (or Clear or Sprint).

]{

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: AMD
by wargum on Wed 28th Jul 2010 21:53 in reply to "RE: AMD"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

That's just silly. Why invest in a market that quite clearly isn't where the future lies (according to Jobs himself)?

Buying AMD also gives you ATI. And GPUs are very very important these days and in the future. Also, remember that Apple bought PA Semi, a PowerPC maker, after the switch to x86 was done. Talking about "where the future lies" ;-)

Never say never.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: AMD
by MrWeeble on Fri 30th Jul 2010 11:14 in reply to "RE: AMD"
MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18

That's just silly. Why invest in a market that quite clearly isn't where the future lies (according to Jobs himself)?

Also, it would pretty much leave Intel as the only processor supplier, and I don't think the various government institutions around the world are going to like that prospect.


well I was just idly mulling, and it wasn't a properly thought our suggestion, but here are a couple of ideas plucked off the top of my head:
* Jobs likes absolute control, owning AMD would mean he would no longer be dependent on someone else for chips (he as been burnt by chip suppliers in the past)
* Jobs is spewing marketing bullshit. He doesn't believe that desktop computers are now obsolete due to the ipad. If he truly did, he would (a) discontinue the mac and macbook likes (b) release an ipad that didn't require being connected to a pc and (c) replace every desktop and laptop computer in his empire with ipads
* The effect on Intel is not particularly relevant to Apple, monopolies formed not due to anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the monopolist are not prohibited.

Reply Parent Score: 1