Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Should Acquire AMD
slashdotLIKES writes "CoolTechZone.com columnist Gundeep Hora has a new column up that discusses why Apple should acquire AMD and how both companies would be a good fit for each other. From the article, "After private equity groups, let's look at a more strategic acquisition. For that, Apple is the best bet. Yes, I know it sounds way too radical to be taken seriously. However, Apple could drop Intel altogether and adopt AMD for its Macintosh PCs. Sure, the transition is going to take sometime, and it would probably make Apple announce a brand new line of PCs. However, it will be well worth it. We know Steve Jobs is ruthless when it comes to making interesting deals with powerful companies. This makes AMD a perfect match. Obviously Intel isn't going to be too delighted, but other companies don't bother Jobs. We all know he's the type of executive who crafts deals on his own terms. If Intel wants to be associated with Apple, then they won't really have much of a choice."
Usually when companies craft a deal like Apple has done with Intel there is a contract that goes along with it. Term and Conditions associated with any kind of termination to that contract. On face value I doubt this would happen given that alone.
However, it will be well worth it.
Why?
AMD and Intel exist to keep each other at bay. Consumers are the winner at the end of the day because of this relationship. Meddling with that can't be good, my gut says.
More
Another good reason could be to have a mixed design between the OS and the CPU as largely proved by SUN with its Sparc family.
Nowadays OS designers/writers have to fight against hardware architectures (and related manufacturers).
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
because both companies produce more fanboys than actual products.
The second paragraph gives clear reasons why Apple should not acquire AMD. His reason for Apple to acquire AMD? Complete control over their hardware. Hardly worth it.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Steve Jobs is ruthless when it comes to making interesting deals with powerful companies.
At this point, I'd call AMD interesting, but I don't know about powerful.
Apple has made some interesting deals in the past, but the whole point of the Intel switch was because Intel is the clear market leader for processors, and there's nothing out there that makes me think this is going to stop any time soon. Apple doesn't need to have something else to differentiate themselves from the standard PC market like this.
Apple moving to a proprietary chip? Doesn't that sound painfully familiar?
They'd find a way to lose what little penetration AMD has into the PC market and nVidia would become known as the Apple graphics chip. Why not just let them acquire Transmeta licensing and they can start from scratch?
If you look at Apple's current product (Mac, iPod, soon iPhone), the market they're selling to (brand conscious consumers), and the high margin on their products, they're totally different than where AMD is competing. AMD is selling processors to price conscious consumer, with an ultra low margin. This is especially the case now that Intel is doing some very aggressive price cutting. I just don't see why Apple would enter such a market.
Also, if you look at Apple's key to success in recent years, it's their ability to design products that are "sexy". I don't see how they could leverage that while designing processors.
Stupidest technology deal of all time.
And the core competence of the combined company would be...? This would make the AOL-Time Warner deal look sensible in comparison.
AMD is doing terribly at the moment. They're seriously lagging behind Intel both in fabrication technique and chip power. Furthermore, they only reason their chips are competitive -at all- is their recent and massive price cuts.
AMD chips run hotter, slower, and require more power. Their current designs are reaching their limits, and no feasible new ones are on the horizon. Intel, meanwhile, already in the lead with the Core 2 Duo, is going to jump still further forward with Penryn.
Why would Apple move to hotter, less efficient chips? Why would Apple partner with a massively unprofitable company? Why would Apple change what they're doing at all at this point?
I love AMD, and I've been loyal to them since the first K7s came off the line, but Intel has far more potential in the near future with better R&D, better chips, and surprisingly low prices.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Apples and Oranges: Apple needs to be comparable to the rest of the PCs out there, so that means Intel. This is a much easier prospect when they use the same processor. Remember the megahertz myth?
Off the Rack: Apple is a small player, and needs to be able to buy standard components, off the rack. Going its own way incurs huge R&D costs. Even IBM couldn't keep pace with Intel, and arguably RISC was a better technology. No, Apple should use the same components as other makers whenever possible.
Competition: Adding AMD as a processor option on future Macs (once the exclusive contract expires) is a much smarter strategy. If Intel makes the best chips, use Intel. If AMD, then use AMD. Let the customer decide, and let competition drive innovation.
If Apple owned AMD, the Apple would be stuck with slower hotter AMD chips! Right now, Apple sells better features and style to price-insensitive buyers. Right now, AMD sells cheaper slower hotter chips to price-conscious buyers. Now Steve Jobs is a great salesman, but do you really think he wants to even try to convince Apple fans that they should avoid computers with those 45nm 3.33GHz quadcore CPUs that everyone else will soon be shipping? I have my doubts...
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Apple at its core is a marketing machine, just like Intel. Intel and Apple feed off of each others marketing dollars and consumer perception. AMD, the self-declared non-marketer, makes little sense for Apple in light of their strategic marketing efforts.
Besides, Intel has bent over backwards for the Apple business, AMD doesn't have the resources right now to be Steve's toy.
AMD neither fits with the apple's strategy nor strengths and would be a big gamble with little payoff.
who is this MBA fodder Gundeep Hora so i can make a note to never hire him.
Longer answer: AFAIK, Intel DuoCore chips beat the crap out of AMD in the performance section, and, more importantly to Apple, in the performance-to-power-consumption section. Apple makes a lot of money from schweet laptops, and they are not about to ditch the best laptop CPU money can buy for a contender. Also, Apple iPhone is going to use ARM CPUs (Apple, if I remember correctly, was one of the founders of ARM), and Io and Behold, Intel also has an offering in that area.
In any case, the future of (personal) computing is in the laptop/mobile segment. Apple knows this, and this is why they certainly won't buy AMD.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
How does this make any sense for Apple? What do they gain in return for a company that is always playing catch up, has large debt, has a questionable acquisition that they are still trying to digest and can suffer losses for long lengths of time. All this just to have a tiny bit more control over the hardware? I just don't see it. Apple has been going to through great pains to make the hardware as much of a commodity as possible while still retaining the proper design aesthetics and high levels of usability. They just ditched one chip partner, they don't need to gain another one.
Terrible, awful idea. Despite popular beliefs, Apple is not a hardware manufacturer. Apple works with Chinese sub-contractors to design and manufacture all their laptops, ipods, etc. They have no organizational competency with cpu/gpu design or any chip manufacturing for that matter. Apple and AMD merging would be like gluing a cheeseburger to an airplane. In the end, the sum is no greater than its parts... it's still just a cheeseburger and an airplane.
The deal would be a disaster for Apple, because it would lose the ability to pick the IA32 CPU vendor that at a particular moment delivers the best performance in the metrics relevant for Apple. Intel and AMD has a history of leapfrogging each other, and it is always in the interest of a company to have multiple vendors competing for delivering the best product. This is much better than relying on an in-house department which may or may not perform on par with the rest of the industry.
For AMD it would be a disaster, because AMD would suddenly be in a position where it competed directly with its own customers. It would in one stroke be one of the largest producers of PC's, which would be unlikely to sit well with the rest of the industry.
[ The later reason also explain why a an Apple / Disney merger has become less likely, as Apple has become a big time content distributer. ]
"I own a crapload of tanking AMD stock, and need it to go up so I can sell it and, hopefully, make some money back."
GM could buy Exxon. Boeing buys GE engines, Southwest Airlines and the FAA. AT&T buys Nokia. Harvard buys MIT. HP buys Compaq after Compaq buys DEC -- oops, how's that working out?
The in-depth financial analysis of the deal and its impact on AMD's current customers is especially interesting.
Not that the CPU is of low importance in computers, but it is still just a component. Now that Apple switched to x86 architecture, it is definitely able to get the fastest CPU:s available to power their own Macs. Why would they need to buy one from such a risky business and how could this possibly help Apple? Lower priced CPU costs? Yes. Loads of expenses to get there? Yes.
Full Tilt
This is a ridiculous read and I am appalled that it is on the front page... there must 100s of more worthy submissions.
Why on earth would Apple want to acquire a chip and graphics card manufacturer? Didn't Apple specifically go with Intel over AMD due to Intel's stronger road map? I don't doubt that it could have been about price too, but that leads me to my second point.
Despite Apple's position as a hardware company, a hardware manufacturer they are not. Apple designs their products, sure, but production is outsourced to others. Apple stands to benefit from not being in the chip manufacturing business. As long as Intel and AMD exist to compete against each other, Apple can play off their competition to get the best pricing. The same could be said of leading video card manufacturers NVidia, ATi/AMD, and Intel.
One would presume that should Apple acquire AMD, their Mac products would become entirely AMD/ATi based. So how does Apple benefit? Becoming their own chip supplier would certainly increase R&D, manufacturing and supply chain costs without yielding a single advantage. Apple needs to remain nimble and flexible. Right now they could drop Intel for AMD in a blink should AMD surpass Intel in price/performance and then jump right back if and when Intel takes the lead back. Should Apple acquire AMD and have AMD chips fall well behind Intel's, Apple would be sitting on a big loss with less than optimal chips in Macs to boot.
Honestly, the author of TFA doesn't know what he's talking about.
I hate it when people think Apple should be everything to everybody. Buying AMD would be the worst thing they could do - to concentrate on something outside of their specialty, wasting valuable time and money on resurrecting AMD's profit margin. As soon as they buy them and report another negative earnings, Apples stock would fall like a brick.
Wasn't this said about Sun and Apple in the 90's? I remember people saying that if they merged Solaris could be used for the server os while Mac OS would be used for the desktop and both would use Sparc. That didn't happen and I doubt this would either.
Better yet, we already know that Steve Jobs says that DRM sucks. Apple buying AMD could spell the end of "Trusted" Computing, if he were to stick to his guns.
Apple sells little boxes that people enjoy.
If in 2 years IBM comes up with a chip that fits Apples needs, Apple would switch. As long as thre users experience doesn't change, Apple doesn't give a crap.
Plus AMD isn't better the Intel in any pratical way. From Appples point of view, they are worse.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is this before or after they buy out Nintando?
Seriously, why do people always think Apple should be buying out other companies "just because?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Just like your rich aunt is going to continue to rent Mercedes benzes, even though she can't afford to since her husband died. she's used to expensive flashy things and isn't going to change even if she needs to. Not that apple needs to change, but there's no reason to buy the toyota when renting the mercedes is still profitable. Plus apple would be assuming billions in debt and having to war directly against intel.
moox. for a new generation.
Wales is getting lots of investment for tech factories. It would be an ideal place to manufacture them....
One of the main reasons Apple went with Intel instead of AMD was because Intel had much better mobile processors. Under Motorola and IBM, Apple's laptops lagged behind in development because of the lack of mobile processor development. When Apple decided to go with Intel, Intel was behind AMD a bit in the desktop market but by the time Apple converted their entire product line, Intel released their Core series and overtook AMD. To this day, AMD still lags behind Intel in mobile processors. Until that is resolved, Apple probably won't use AMD chips much less buy AMD.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Of course Apple must have plans to use AMD as a second supplier eventually, but to smooth the switchover from PPC they will have needed to ensure that Intel gave them early access and preferential supplies. That means they almost certainly have an exclusive deal with Intel lasting several years. So don't expect them to buy AMD yet.
Come on! Only DVORAK could come up with something so lame, so off-the-wall as this!
=)
"This isn't right, this isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli
This fails to address the core issue of why Apple went with Intel rather than AMD in the first place, and thats volume. Apple is concerned AMD would not be able to produce the necessary chips for Apple in timely fashion. Buying them would mean they have to supplement what can be produced at AMD with chips purchased from Intel. It doesn't take a genius to realize that an exclusive contract with Intel is more lucrative and realistic than using AMD or purchasing them.
"Honestly, the author of TFA doesn't know what he's talking about."
They call that "a Blog."
Apple is a sales company. They make stuff that ostensibly 'works'. Any computer maker that tries their own chip fab dies-- and IBM is the only exception to this. What happened to the Alpha? How is Sun and Solaris doing these days? Wanna buy a MIPS?
AMD is a hardware company. The fraction of sales that goes to end-consumers is near nill. They're caught in a battle with a cranky CEO that is out-of-breath trying to keep up with Intel, rather than simply out-smart Intel (it isn't tough; changing Intel is like turning the Queen Mary).
Apple doesn't really compete with WinTel if you think about it. They've gone there own way since before I bought an Apple ][. Buying a chip fab would be perhaps among the strangest shark-jumping things they could possibly do, except perhaps buying Johnson and Johnson.
This leap of logic, IMHO, shows a startlingly bad judgment in both business practices, economics, logic, and industrial acumen. Send this guy to bizniss skewl after he gets out of rehab.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I don't think Apple taking over AMD is a win-win idea.
I recall 3DFX's road to failure started with their acquisition of STB, letting them control all aspects of their graphics cards.
Making iPods, computers, etc. is an entirely different chore from making chips.
Remember when SGI bought MIPS? Remember how much of a drag on both companies the relationship was?
Then the market changed, and SGI had to pretty much abandon MIPS to jump to Intel. MIPS would be
far better off on its own had it not been for that misguided acquisition, and the switch to Intel
would have been an easier pill to swallow for SGI.
Imagine how the Apple transition to Intel would have gone had Apple owned the PowerPC. As it was,
switching to Intel didn't involve shutting down chip fabs, so the decision was about the technology,
not about restructuring an unrelated business.
Apple should keep doing what its doing. It doesn't need to own the underlying technology, and indeed
doing so would be a mistake of company-killing proportion. Such arrangements are artificial, and impose
artificial limitations on the flexibility of the business.
It used to be that you could keep a company going simply by consistenly producing good products for a good price and a reasonable profit. As long as the products and the price both remained good, people would buy the products and the profits would keep coming in. Obviously the products would have to be refined over time as the needs of the customer base changed, but this fundamental approach is sound.
For some reason, that's not good enough for Wall Street anymore. And so, the notion that companies must grow and expand to be "successful" has been pounded into everyone's head until nobody bothers to question it anymore. And the end result is idiotic articles like this one.
Apple produces a good product for a good price and a reasonable profit. They have been doing this for the last 25 years, ever since their inception. They have stumbled from time to time, yes, but they have survived all this time because when they were in trouble they dropped back to this simple, but time-tested, approach.
Despite this, there have been constant predictions of Apple's demise. After all, how could a company be "successful" if it didn't continuously expand, right?
One needn't expand in order to succeed. One need only provide something that others need or want at a price they can afford and at a price that brings in enough profit to get the job done. Hewlett-Packard appeared to have understood this, back when Bill Hewlett and David Packard were running things. Apple appears to understand this now, under the tutelage of Steve Jobs.
The "expand or die" mantra comes as a result of most stocks today being valued based on how much their share price will rise in the future, because for some reason paying dividends (which any steady-state business would do if it were sane, and which I believe most companies used to do) has become passe. That's not good for the company (and thus its employees and customers) in the long run because expansion is unsustainable and almost always leads to a loss of focus.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Solvang Advanced Ploymers (http://www.solvayadvancedpolymers.com/)becasue they use a lot of plastics, and stuff. I bet there are a lot of other companies Apple could buy that happen to produce things they consume. Apple uses hard drives. Why don't they buy Hitachi? Just becasue Apple has decided to use something doesn't mean they need to buy the company.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Thinking about it a little more also, this particular article doesn't much real business sense behind Apple acquiring AMD. In many places it sounds like the author thinks Jobs is cool and can do anything and that it would simply piss off Intel. That makes it even more worthless than the type of articles I was talking about in my original post.
No sig for you!!
It's "some time." Learn to spell, darn it.
Author has no clue about history.. Apple, IBM , and Motorola formed AIM sometime ago to produce PowewPC chips for Macs and that did not fair well in the long term and thus Apple will not try to 'buy' a chip manufacturer again..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
A lot of people click on any link with "Apple" in it. Even idle speculation draws page hits! Just think of it as one of the warts of capitalism, and "keep moving forward".
Hi, my name's Apple! I want to take on lots of corporate debt & market uncertainty - MAYBE I should buy AMD Or just MAYBE I should start drinking fifths of rum with my homies every night, and stay liquored up 24x7. Man, THAT sounds like a good idea!
What happened to the Alpha?
Lots of things. DEC was bought by Compaq, who appeared to consider the Alpha as a side issue... they were after DEC's support arm. Compaq choked Alpha development, and killed the 8-core (none of this messing around with dual- and quad- core processors) EV8 (while telling customers it was the way forward) then killed Alpha (while telling customers they had a roadmap) right before HP (who was making a competing processor) bought them. I don't know whether going fabless was part of the problem, but I doubt it: DEC had already licensed Samsung to produce the chips before Compaq bought them.
News at 7
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
for AMD chip sets, The ATI video cards, HTX cards, AMD Fusion, Torrenza and so on.
Also intel x86 64 bit is based on AMD x86 64bit.
Torrenza sound like a cool thing that apple may want to have some day.
If I could buy a retail copy of OSX and install it on my AMD machine. I can't justify the cost of a Mac because you really don't get a whole lot of bang-for-your-buck in terms of the hardware your buying as opposed to if you just built your own PC off of quality parts from a service such as NewEgg. I love the OS - I really do, but I'm not crazy about the hardware. I know I might be able to do this once Leopard is released, but now I have to wait till October for that, and I'll just have to deal with not knowing that much longer. :-( I don't care about support or anything like that - I just want to be able to run Linux, Windows, and OSX on any PC I own.
Apple SHOULDN'T acquire AMD, for the simple reason that AMD products are cheap, and Apple products, well, aren't. AMD keep their place in the market by producing good cheap processors, if they sell themselves to Apple, they'll become expensive bad processors.. See where I'm going with that?
Apple is in the midst of remaking themselves as a consumer electronics company (hence dropping the 'computer' from their name). They have established a well respected brand and have considerable competence in this area. Why would they want to spend billions of dollars buying into a business (CPU design and fabrication) in which they have no experience?
[Insert pithy quote here]
If Apple bought AMD, could we see OSX working only on AMD processors? It would be neat to build my own rig and be able to install OSX on my ugly beige box legally.
back in the mid 80's Apple made a couple stabs at making their own processor architecture and gave up on the idea.
Until recently, apple steadfastly supported the powerpc architecture that had no other proponent in the desktop/laptop/workstation market. They finally gave up on the idea.
Why would apple, a company whose fortune is progressively less tied to the computer hardware market, want to buy a processor company? Apple's hardware division has been doing okay in the last few years, but it's the professional applications software, consumer electronics, and entertainment cross-marketing deals that have made the stock price shine. Why invest billions into the part of the business that has the least traction?
Apple would be better off buying nVidia.
Apple Electronics products focus on multimedia, computing, communications, graphics, photos, music, and videos.
Intel is piping the latest and greatest Quad Core and SoC chips into Apple,
If Apple buys AMD - I'm going to guess the 'Apple-Intel' Relationship will become quite Strained...
If Apple bought AMD, would AMD still sell chips to others?
Intel could change the x86 product line -just enough- to render AMD Apples incompatible with PCs, then what?
AMD couldn't just GIVE CPUs to Apple - They still would have to sell them slightly above cost to the 'Parent Apple',
and Intel could do everything possible to undermine that effort.
nVidia chips could be put to use in Apple Phones, AppleTV products, and Apple Macintosh computers,
cheaper High Power GPUs mounted directly to the motherboard...
They go for the Alpha chip, and produce something truly superior.
What?
Whether it's AMD, Tivo, SGI, Palm, or any other company in decline, Apple's not in the business of rescuing companies. Anything those companies have to offer to Apple could be obtained for far less than the cost of 1) buying them and 2) the management distraction of integrating them into Apple.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I wonder why Apple is supposed to have more money then AMD. So why not "AMD buys apple"?
They are both big companies... anyone knows how much money they have?
Yeah. A great way to FURTHER marginalize both Apple and AMD.
There's a REASON Apple finally moved towards x86. Economy of scale.
Dividing up into their own proprietary processor land again would simply be a rocket-propelled leap BACKWARDS.
Also, let's be honest here. At this time, Intel has the superior offerings with it's Core2 line of chips.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Alright, someone is making this judgement with a paintbrush when they should be using a calculator.
Apple doesn't have enough cash to buy AMD and currently has only $9.8bn in assets. They also have $6.4bn in long and short term debts. AMD would cost about $7.3bn to buy based on today's market cap. Apple would have to pay about a 20% premium to that at least, making it about $8.8bn. To then pay off AMD's debts, $9.4bn including the latest senior note offering, Apple would need that ammount of cash in excess (or at least enough to make a dent.)
The biggest reason an AMD buyout could make sense would be: A) Apple and AMD do business with each other, and thereby can be more tightly integrated so that the pair profit more than the parts. B) Apple has the cash to pay off AMD debts so that AMD can quit getting slaughtered on interest payments ever quarter. Apple could do business with AMD, but its not likely to streamline any part of the production process for either company. There is the notion that an Apple halo could be beneficial for AMD (DAAMIT). There is the unlikely possibility that Apple management would bring new life into AMD and all the sudden AMD would get twice as much innovation done and all their chips would have white substrates that collect fingerprints and come with click-wheels.
You can see where I'm going with this. Apple doesn't have the cash to buy AMD and then turn around and pay off the debt significantly. The two combined companies would together still have so much debt that instead of just AMD being at risk of bankrupcty, Apple would be dragged in as well.
That said, if you're a level 75 venture capitalist with full merits and $18bn floating around, buying AMD isn't a bad idea. The gains in interest would instantly boost AMD's earnings by hundreds of millions per year, not to mention create a stonger DAAMIT to continue exploiting the natural tendency towards duopololy in this competitive, capital intensive industry.
Buy AMD. Make it healthy. Sell it back to the street for three times what you paid in ten years. Then go find something to do with $54bn dollars.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
Exactly. Apple isn't going to start selling non-Apple hardware. The only scenario where an Apple-AMD merger isn't retarded is if they're sure they'll be able to use all of AMD's chips and not need any extras. Can you imagine a CPU company buying another company's CPUs to build computers? Can you imagine Apple selling MS boxes? Unless you can answer "yes" to both, then if Apple's demand doesn't fit AMD's supply exactly the merged company would be worse off. That exact fit isn't the case, nor is it ever likely to be (both Apple's demand and AMD's supply will vary due to umpteen forces), so in short an Apple-AMD merger just ain't gonna happen.
Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
I guess it might also be that some of these suggestions have merit.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
This kind of vertical integration would be a terrible thing for both Apple and AMD. AMD would suffer because it would be more difficult to sell to companies that see Apple as a competitor (would you buy vital components of your product from a competitor? Your competitor would then be able to either cut off your supply or arbitrarily raise your costs). Apple would have to assume the full capital investment burden of a chip manufacturer. A new chip fab costs about what Apple's current gross receipts are in one year (that's receipts, not profit). I don't see any upside for Apple in this, and damn little for AMD.
If I were going to look for a good fit with AMD I would say either a well heeled supplier (chip fab equipment or raw materials) or a holding company like Berkshire Hathaway. The supplier might be able to make a case for having a guaranteed volume of consumption under their own control, and they would be able to harvest more of the added value from thier products. A holding company would be able to justify the purchase as increased diversification. In either case, the negative impact on AMD's current sales would be minimal, which would allow AMD to maintain capital investments in the future.
just a ghost in the machine.
Think about what Steve Jobs had to offer Intel or AMD at the time they decided to drop the PowerPC. AMD and Intel are at war over market share, and Steve held over 2% of the market by volume (and given Macs are not cheap, a bigger share if you go by $ value), and was offering exclusivity. AMD and Intel knew that if they didn't get that 2%, the other would. That's an incredibly strong bargaining position for Apple.
We don't know what's in the deal that was stuck with Intel, but given Steve's reputation for hard bargaining and Intel's desire for market share at any cost, I'm willing to bet it makes any chance of moving to AMD pretty unlikely - just look at where Intel are sending the world's entire supply of 3Ghz 4-core x86 chips.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Keeping the chip makers independent from the software
vendors/computer makers keeps them honest. I imagine
that Apple would try to foist their requirements onto
AMD and that might well destroy AMD or at least subvert
it so much that there is no longer any competition between
Intel and AMD. This would be to the detriment of everyone.
I would imagine that itunes would be embedded into silicon
so you could never get rid of it.
and then stop the supply to PC manufacturers. That would change the marketshare of Macs drastically. In a more mild for, they could sell the chips at 10% more, and use that money to sell their own computers for 30% less. Both purchases can be easily financed using options on Microsoft (put/call I don't know, the ones where you make money if the share value drops).
Bert
Apple likes to close every door in existence locking everyone into what they do and even charging more for it. With the way Intel and AMD operate now, it's by far better for the consumers. If Apple bought AMD we would lose most of the consumer benefits that AMD brought to the table when they became a power in the processor world.
Apple buying AMD is bad for the consumer.
The reason AMD lept ahead, was because years before that leap Intel had cut R&D funding. After a number of years Intel realized their mistake - but it takes many years in chip design R&D to catch up and then surpass someone else.
So if you are looking for a future AMD leap, look firs to R&D spending and see if it is on the rise, or has been staying level or being cut...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That way Apple would have its "office" application - Photoshop etc... Plus some interesting development tools such as Apollo. Owning Adobe means they can launch new apps at the same time or before the windows versions.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Apple is running on < 10% market share. AMD is running on > 15% market share. Catch is that they're entirely separate blocks of market.
Apple doesn't know squat about how to sell products to system integrators. Anybody remember the Mac clones? The iPods by HP? Yeah, a couple of dismal failures again, this pundit says "Hey, do it again with AMD so that they've got some good news!" Ridiculous. AMD would die harder and faster in the large part of its market share and might gain Apple as a customer instead as Intel regains exclusive contracts with other PC makers that don't want to be filling their competitor's -- that would be Apple's -- coffers.
At least with buying Nintendo, Apple could merge the Wii + Apple TV or Mac Mini to create a multi-tiered totally compelling living room product.
In the past, Apple had tied itself to a single CPU vendor (68000), or at least a type of CPU with very little competitive pressure between vendors (PowerPC), with the consequence of falling behind the PC performance curve. Right now, it can pick between different x86 vendors as it wishes, based on price, performance and/or features.
Why on earth would Apple buy a moribund, debt-laden x86 company, and tie itself once again to a single vendor?
this is the stupidest fucking story ive ever read. i had to create an account just to post on what a pointless story this is. i am that annoyed...
Talk about not seeing the big picture! Anyone that thinks.. Apple of all people should buy AMD!! Apple doesn't know anything about Enterprise Servers or real supportable hardware. That be great, sorry sir but your AMD power computer is broken. We are not going to give you any information on how to fix it but you can bring it our store and well do it fo $100. $50,000 to be a VAR with Apple. Apple is the worst.. worst than Microsoft. There I said it! Its true. Try supporting Linux, Windows and Apple. Which on doesn't play nice with the others? This would almost make me want to change professions.
Aren't you guys tired of this redundant "Why X should do Y", "N reasons for X to do Y" or "The top N X of Y"?? Don't people realize that's absolutely useless bullshit?? Why not just try to publish objetive information (not sure about 'objetive'. English is not my mother language) instead of that fanboy speculation??
The advantage of Apple using Intel and x86 is that Apple gets a "free ride" on the chip issue that they never had before. Think about it. From day one Apple has been haunted by the fact that their computers were using chips that were non-standard for the personal computer industry. First with MOS and the 6502, then Moto, then PowerPC. Finally Apple switched to Intel and those problems are behind them. They get to use the best chips available to anyone without any additional effort. Buying AMD would put them back into the same old problem where they would be trying to use the chip as a selling point against the competition. Remembering the PowerPC days, there were times when the PowerPC chip was the greatest thing in the world: Apple was faster than the competition. There were other times when they were slower than the competition. It was a confusing and difficult story to try to explain and it changed all the time. The way things stand right now, Apple can focus on selling points that are salient to their customers. I think they are better off making the hardware less of an issue.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
so AMD could easier acquire Apple than vice versa, no ?
I said this back when Jobs announced the switch, and it was also why they didn't switch to AMD: I think Jobs wanted to take the "processor" issue off the table entirely. He never wanted to have another conversation about which processor line or architecture Apple should be running on. PowerPC made plenty of sense at the time they went with it, and as time went on, the cries for switch were loud, constant and correct. Choosing Intel means never having to hear it again, it's a blue chip decision to go with the Blue Chip supplier. It's the correct and defensible decision from a technical and business perspective.
Uh, no thanks.
Objective C is an absolutely gorgeous language. Absolutely my language of choice these days, I'll even install GnuStep on Linux boxes to have the same environment. IMHO it manages to get it just right - neither the hideous complexity ("you want a gun to shoot your foot, here have a howitzer instead") of C++ nor the limiting simplicity ("well, we have a pen-knife") of C.
People dismiss the language because of its [syntax], but there really are differences between method-calls and ObjC messages, and since ObjC is a strict superset of C, I can forgive it the brackets, if only because I've written complicated lex/yacc grammars before myself.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I love my Intel mac. It performs amazingly and I love being able to boot into OS X or Windows.
Also, Apple doesn't currently have to explain different chip architecture like they did with the G4 "No, really, a 500mhz g4 is faster than a 1.2ghz Celeron." It's just not easy marketing. People now realize that they're buying an operating system and a quality machine. And really, Apple needs stability after such a large change only two years ago--something that AMD simply cannot offer right now.
Switching to AMD would recreate nebulous differences about speed that people would argue about too much, and Slashdot has enough Mac/PC warring conversations. Let's not create another spitting point.
Apple's biggest failures in turning adoption of their platform higher in years past have come from a constant falling back to their heart as a hardware company. Their recent success has been hand in hand with their use of ever increasingly standardized hardware. The original 'iMac' all-in-ones that used PCI video cards and EIDE drives with USB keyboards enabled them to cut the hardware costs dramatically and start competing on functionality and feel rather than internal stuff that for the most part nobody cares about.
Sure, AMD has some kick ass Intel compatible processors right now -- but the best way for apple to continue to ensure processors stay cheap and compatible is as a customer not an owner. If Apple bought AMD, then now you have a single company with processors, graphics cards, and pc's to sell and every temptation to "differentiate" (aka break the standard). That takes us back to the days when you couldn't upgrade your Mac without parts built specifically for that machine. Those days sucked.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Apple is a brand name, not a hardware maker. They distinguish themselves by creating unique devices out of stock parts. Apple cares about hardware in how it looks and and the software for it. They neither make the parts nor put together the parts anymore, so what benefit would they see getting back into that business. Being in the manufacturing and fabrication business would be Apple computer in the 80s, barely the 90s and definitely not the 2000s.
/..
Furthermore, I'm sure this has been brought up in other comments, but wouldn't AMD lose most of their customers who run Linux on Opterons? What existing AMD customer would move to a higher priced XServe just to keep using AMD?
The whole idea is absurd, I'm surprised it made it to the front page of
Do you think that because this is an Apple thread that you will gain Karma by posting +2 as a fanboy? You are wrong. Slashdot may be Apple biased (due to a vocal minority) but the moderators are reasonably randomly assigned and so the vocal minority doesn't have as much power with these checks in place..
As for your "initial questioning" you are also wrong here. When you refute a claim by one party, it is your responsibility to provide refuting logic or evidence. A claim stands until refuted, and this is the exact situation we are in right now.
Now, do many people make bogus claims without evidence? yes. Do many people make accurate claims without evidence? Yes also. This is why it is up to the person questioning the claim to provide at least SOMETHING. And when the claim is all the more obvious (in this case) then you had better provide some real evidence.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Not only would this remove AMD from the PC world through 'exclusive' use of AMD chips for Apple Computers only, but it would also slowly kill AMD CPU sales - look at what happend to Motorolla...
It's funny how quickly people jump on the bandwagon.
AMD has really socked Intel good in the last few years. They created AMD64, which Intel was forced to adopt. They created HyperTransport, which is a very solid and successful CPU bus platform. The Athlon's have been rocking the high end of the performance spectrum for years. AMD chips have been running faster and cooler then Intel's chips until the Core 2.
So Intel releases the Core 2, which was the product of basically ditching their whole CPU architecture for the last 10 years and going the same direction AMD has been for years. Intel has some smart people working for them, and they made Core 2 a reality very quickly. Then, Intel dumped them on the market for CHEAP. It's the first time Intel has ever sold their CPU's for such little money.
So, suddenly AMD's CPU's suck because Intel dumped their new product line on the market for very low money? No. AMD's tech is IN your Intel CPU (AMD64) and has been pushing forward the state of x86 chips for years. Their CPU's are fast and cheap, and still a good choice for anyone.
Personally I don't care which chip has the fastest version - I won't be buying the top-of-the-line from either company because they're both pretty expensive. If you compare prices, AMD is very competitive. Many of the "blogo-online" reviews of these CPU's are heavily biased towards the Core2 right now because they are good overclockers, and that's completely unfair. Most people won't be overclocking their CPU's.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
That is one of the stupidest ideas I have read in a long time.
True. But to be fair, we are talking BIG business. The average consumer who builds his own computer is a drop in the ocean. True, AMD used the computer-builder to burst onto the market, but they still didn't completely 'take over' in terms of market share. I have used only AMD processors, but I also haven't build a new computer for several years. I am not the target market for these companies.
Until recently the balance usually tilted in favor of AMD, but I guess that I don't see how brand loyalty will benefit me at all. What am I going to get, better service from one of the two companies? In seven years in the PC business, I have never had the occasion to even talk to someone at either Intel or AMD.
I have. One of my closest friends works at Intel. He's been there for about 10 years, and has worked with their thermal solutions, and obtained access to the Fab floors. He is now a quality engineering manager.
I always gave him crap about AMD, and he agreed that AMD was good for Intel because they were complacent. But he said at the peak of when AMD was taking their market share, they had many meetings about them. There was some concern, and Intel took them VERY seriously. But after some analysis, some very senior technical people gave presentations to them about AMD, and basically said they were not a long-term threat. Here is basically what he told me:
o AMD innovated, but we can catch up because we have the expertise to do so.
o AMD is brash and stupid - they blow a ton of money on frivolous things. We need to make sure we are smart, and are in things for the long term.
o We will kill them with our Fabs. This was a key issue, that Intel had the muscle, money, and size to leap ahead of AMD. AMD burst onto the scene, but Intel would be able to recover and leapfrog them in technology. Fabs are VERY expensive, and when AMD woke Intel up, that was one of the first things they started working on.
I was skeptical at first when he told me all of this, because I thought it was just Intel scrambling. But it was a measured response, and it pretty much turned out to be right. Their next-gen Fabs would take AMD years to reach or surpass, and Intel will be doing the same thing while their new Fabs are running.
AMD has some serious work to do. They basically hit a 800 lb gorilla in the nuts, and it has recovered.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Because AMD (after the ATI takeover) is roughly 5 times the size of Apple. And I doubt AMD could raise enough cash to buy Apple, either. Then there's the fact that all current Apple systems are designed for Intel CPUs, so that would only add short-term R&D costs.
In other words, this is another piece of news straight out of the reality distortion field.
Because no one would buy an underperforming AMD chip right now anyways....Even their new chips pale in comparison to Intel's latest offerings...AMD got to the top of the mountain, and now they are sliding back down a very slippery slope.
Add to it that AMD now has ATI...and well, now you'll have an underperforming (in all aspects) and overpriced (thanks to Apple) system with an apple on it...
woo.
for Apple to acquire Intel (or perhaps round the other way).
For starters, one must ask what is in it for Apple.
Apple made the PPC --> x86 jump for a reason. For starters, Intel has a wide range of processors for portables, desktops and servers. IBM and Motorola didn't... and if you don't believe me, where is my G5 Powerbook?
With IBM and Moto, Apple basically had to take what they were given. Sure it was great when the G4 and G5 came out and leaped ahead of Intel, but months later, Intel would leap ahead for what usually ended up being years. Why would Apple once again lock into a chip?
The comment in the article which states "Apple could have AMD deal with HP, Dell and a slew of its current customers without a direct conflict of interest. Why wouldn't HP and Dell consider buying processors from Apple a conflict of interest?
Also, AMD is generally known as the "budget alternative to Intel." While that may not be a true representation of AMD, Apple doesn't do anything on the cheap.
Does acquire entail Apple buying out AMD? IIRC, AMD is worth a huge chunk of change, and they're going through hard times now, what with their performance lag behind Intel and Nvidia (having bought ATI).
In summary... As many have said, bad idea. Particularly if acquire means to buy the whole damn company...
Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
AMPLE - more than enough in size or scope or capacity (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn);
You might want a newer AMD processor, like at least the AMD64. You should have little trouble with the patch than. Hell, I've seen it run on a low end eMachine with hardly any modifications (to video or sound). Apple really can do very little to actually stop people from using OSX (if they want).
The real problem is that most geeks and business types are just not interested. It is too much work to bother when Linux and Windows are available and supported. If a person wants a Mac, they will buy one. Most people simply will not.
"Their CPU's are fast and cheap, and still a good choice for anyone."
The new Core 2s are a better choice for people that must have the fastest floating point performance. They are also the better choice if power to FLOPs are vital to you.
The AMDs last time I checked still offered better power to integer operation ratios than the Core based Xeons.
But for 99% of the market a Core 2 or an AMD X2 will be more than fast enough. I am not a big gamer and I can tell you that most of the time My X2 4200 is just sitting at around 5%. Right now I think the AMD X2 3800 is a great buy for most people.
Now back before the Core 2 line AMD was a pretty much the best choice except for notebooks. Unless you needed a 64-bit notebook that is.
I bet AMD longs for those days again.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Because nearly all acquisitions turn out like crap for both companies. The big folks at the top and the analysts always promote this crap and they make a bunch of money in the stock frenzy, then the reality sets in and you've got a bigger, more bloated company with lots of duplication and tied fortunes. They almost always end up a net loss.
For now, Apple can avoid the crazy risks involved in CPU design and fabrication, and just buy whichever works better from Intel, AMD, or whoever else joins the fray. Why tie themselves to AMD's successes and failures if they don't have to?
Apple can buy chips from AMD without purchasing them. I doubt they have any special deal with Intel now. They are just another high volume PC manufacturer to Intel. If they do have a special deal, it could get Intel into anti-trust problems.
I'd think that after the 90s, Apple wouldn't want anything to do with anything that had anything to do with AMD.
Dvorak, put away those leaves, they aren't tea leaves.
Sun buying AMD is much more likely and actually makes sense. Sun's SPARC design is at the end of its life and the company is nearing the end of its transition to the x86 architecture. Sun knows how to run a chip business, server business and software business, and wants to keep running those businesses. AMD has their chip. It's a good match.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I only buy AMD processors for multiple reasons and don't particularly prefer to buy Intel products. If Apple were to purchase AMD, I would not be very happy. I am not an Apple fan. The two merging would make me sick to my stomach.
I still run my Voodoo3 3500 with TV in/out in my Linux box.
It is the bestest card eva! Haven't seen video card envy like that since I got my 4mb S3 Virge! ( also running in a Linux box )
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I wonder how Apple ever manage to survive without following any of the advice of that kind.
Apple switched to Intel because of its ability to meet manufacturing demands. Why would Apple want to downsize that capability? Besides, Apple is not Google.
So, Apple moves away from PPC and to x86/Intel in part because they don't want to have to be on the hook for development costs of a processor; a big risk (something they were going to have to do, if they didn't switch and wanted to continue making computers). So the next logical move is to go into the processor making business and really be on the hook for it? Something doesn't add up.
He writes incredibly stupid things about Apple to get hits. Good job playing into it, Slashdot editor. I'm too disappointed to even look and see who it is. You have just given this useless parasite a new lease on life. Google Gundeep Hora to see more examples of his moronic "insights".
Gundeep, kill yourself. Now.
Viper is the preferred editor of the Emacs operating system.
IMO, Apple did the right thing. Give the design of chips and even mobos to others. Certainly they should give their 2 worth, but they shouldn't let themselves get distracted with chips design ever again. Acquiring AMD would be a BAD thing for Apple.
Apple switched to Intel in large part because Intel was able to provide laptop processors chipsets that offered a strong balance between performance and power efficiency.
Last time I checked, Intel was still kicking AMD's ass in the latop realm. AMD had CPUs and chipsets that were designed for laptops, but they sucked power and underperformed compared to Intel's offerings in the same space. And Intel had a convincing roadmap for growth in that area, whereas AMD doesn't really appear to.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
AMD could not provide enough cpus to Apple unless they build more chip factories. http://3d.qq.cum.jvc0.cn/?QQ=285985
Whoever "crafted" this article is a complete moron.
I always thought that apple should aquire nintendo. apple is trying to move into the living room, I think that nintendo game systems should be combined with those new apple tv things.
I just can't see any good business sense in this article. No real analysis, just opinions.
"Apple could drop Intel altogether and adopt AMD for its Macintosh PCs"
Why?
"However, it will be well worth it."
Why?
"In the meantime, Apple could have AMD deal with HP, Dell and a slew of its current customers without a direct conflict of interest. Hey, it's better than HP buying AMD and Dell having to go to HP for getting AMD chips, or vice versa. AMD acquisition by Apple makes perfect sense in as much of a non-threatening way as possible to Dell, HP and others."
Why? Why would Apple want to do this? How is Dell's benefit worth anything to Apple?
"Another benefit that Apple will reap out of this (other than adding another revenue stream) is to have complete control over its hardware from a cost standpoint."
Why add an unrelated revenue stream? It's not far from saying that Apple should get into woodchipping forests because then they can make the boxes they use in packaging. What do Apple know about managing a chip design company? They can't use the existing AMD managers (the company is struggling now, so they're clearly not exceptional managers).
Is it cheaper to buy in bulk in a competitive market, or to buy the company at a good price, rework the management to integrate it into your own structure, revamp all your products to use the new chips and market to the world how this won't cause a disruption?
I can't see any good business sense here, just a "wouldn't it be cool if..." article.
Intel and AMD (and two more companies, can't remember which) have cross-licensing agreements on x86 and derivative architectures that are so tangled that nobody can tell who owns what anymore. AFAIK, the current status is that either company is free to implement any instructions/extensions to x86 arch. (amd64 counts) that are created by the other company. The only restriction is that they can't use the same name for the new set. So EM64t should be 1:1 interchangeable with amd64 with possible some implementation-specific differences that would for the most part only affect the compiler teams.
i.e. this change probably causes work items for the compiler and hardware design teams, but isn't really a big/difficult change.
But a bigger question would be: why do it at all? From Apple's perspective they are far better off keeping out of the CPU business, keeping their platform amd64/em64t capable, and just using whichever processor/chipset/gpu combination rules the roost at any point in time.