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."
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
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.
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!
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!
They just switched to Intel chips less than two years ago! There are still a few apps here and there that are still dependent on Rosetta. And Apple is supposed to just pick up a new microchip like a teenager picks up a new favorite song every other week? Intel's not the only one that would be pissed (and rightly so!), but we customers, as well. I don't want to deal with another switch, and neither does anyone else. Plus, I don't think Apple wants to throw its years of work away after only two very successful years.
No shit. In fact, they're not quite done with the transition to Intel just yet. Apple was lucky in that it had the foresight--or fortune--to maintain a secret Intel-native OS X build for years. I highly doubt they have another one for AMD. So, however long it's taken for the Intel switch, it's going to take much longer for AMD. That won't go over well with anyone involved.
I think our time is better spent arguing whether Apple should buy out Nintendo. Or vice versa. Whichever one incites the more amusing flamewar.
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)
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. ]
If they coded Rosetta properly it shouldn't really take much of a transition to go to AMD except the change in hardware. However, if they had PowerPC, intel, and AMD Apples on the market it would make it more like a PC. Something Apple doesn't want and something that other Apple users don't want. There was a lot of fuss over switching to Intel. I can just imagine it would be even worse if they switched again so soon.
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.
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
They just switched to Intel chips less than two years ago! There are still a few apps here and there that are still dependent on Rosetta. And Apple is supposed to just pick up a new microchip like a teenager picks up a new favorite song every other week? Intel's not the only one that would be pissed (and rightly so!), but we customers, as well. I don't want to deal with another switch, and neither does anyone else. Plus, I don't think Apple wants to throw its years of work away after only two very successful years.
The switch from PPC to intel was a far greater feat than going from Intel to AMD would be. In fact, I doubt there'd be a single software issue... apart from the lack of EFI (which I'm sure Apple could wrestle away from Intel at some outrageous price).
The problem is, AMD doesn't make anything Apple really wants. Apple needs good laptop processors, of which Intel make the best. Intel's doing better in the quad-core arena which is obviously where Apple wants to go.
This isn't just about buying AMD, it's also about switching processor suppliers--to processors which are currently not as good as Intel. They may be cheaper, but most macs require fast and cool processors due to their form-factor, or require the fastest available processors. AMD dominates in neither category.
I'm a huge AMD fan, my last PC (before I dumped it and my G5 to get a Mac Pro) was an AMD as were all my PCs before that. I fully admit, however, that currently Intel is winning the war.
Latewire
because both companies produce more fanboys than actual products.
;-)
How many fanboys are there with no PC? How many fanboys have more than one PC?
I fail to see the same ratio of fanboys/products that you see..
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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.
They just switched to Intel chips less than two years ago!
And before that they switched to the G4/5, before that PowerPC, before that 6800.
This proposal is one of the dumbest ideas that I've heard. Apple is an integrator. Their software integrates the hardware, so they make that. The hardware is disposable. Buying AMD would severely limit Apple to innovate in the future.
No electronics integrating company that I know of ties themselves to such a specific piece of hardware. None.
This is absolutely silly.
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.
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?
That's one for why to stay Intel. I think the larger question is, why on earth would Apple do this silly idea? Ask yourself if it would have made sense for Microsoft to buy Intel. The simple answer is, if it diverts attention from your core business - it's a bad idea.
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]
Also there's the fact that Apple just went through a big transition to move to Intel so they could be "just like everyone else". For a company in Apple's position, it makes much more sense to stay neutral in these things, and pick the best processor available instead of tying themselves to anyone in particular.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Keep in mind that Apple bought from both Motorola and IBM at the same time for a long time. Buying from both Intel and AMD at the same time would not be so bad. I'm sure the software will work. Some people have made AMD systems work with the hackintosh software. The drivers and such might not be optimized for the chips that's in a typical AMD system, but it does work.
Apple might be getting a generous exclusive deal to get better chip prices. For a while, AMD had some serious production constraints, and Intel doesn't have that problem as often.
Have you tried one? Because they do, in fact, make some very good products.
Now, are they as good as steve says? Well, I'm sure to him they are. It's a matter of opinion, really. Are they frequently better than alternatives? Yes, they do make some very good hardware, and software. Is it better than some linux distros? Yeah. Better than all? No. Better than windows? By a long shot.
Just because people like apple doesn't make it bad.
Of course, this will never happen, because Steve's ego won't let him talk to Sun after the OpenStep debacle.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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. -
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Ohwell, I had moderated the guy above with +5 insightful for saying it would be sooo hard to switch to AMD as overrated but I have to answer on this one.
OS X is compiled for SSE3 but the reason it "doesn't work" is because Apple doesn't want it to work, what makes it not work is because they uses power saving features only available on the Intel cpus (easily fixed) and that they have encrypted various files with a key in.. uhm.. whatever that drm-shit is called. Anyway you can get a hacked version and install that one, see osx86 wiki or so, so no, there are no problem with running OS X on amd hardware.
Right. As long has Apple has the option to buy chips from Intel or AMD, Apple is free to choose based on price/performance. What happens if Apple owns AMD, and Intel takes a decisive lead in chip design? PowerPC all over again. For that matter, if IBM or someone else makes a quantum leap over Intel and AMD, Apple is free to switch or negotiate better pricing only if it doesn't own AMD.
Chips are commodities, where you need high volumes to make money because the margins are small. That is the opposite of what Apple does.
Umm yeah they are and have, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization . Honestly, what the hell is with /. today, people are comparing switching from Intel to AMD like going from PowerPC to x86? IT'S THE SAME DAMN ARCHITECTURE, in fact AMD came up with x86-64. Just dumbfounding...is it advertise for Intel day or what?
"x86 virtualization is the method by which x86-based "guest" operating systems are run under another "host" x86 operating system, with little or no modification of the guest OS. The x86 processor architecture did not originally meet the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements. As a result, it was very difficult to implement a general virtual machine on an x86 processor. In 2005 and 2006, extensions to their respective x86 architectures by Intel and AMD resolved this and other virtualization difficulties."