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."

Comments

OFFTOPIC: Re:Answer without a question

[mp3phish]

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.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Answer without a question

[CrackedButter]

If somebody made a baseless statement I'd ask for more information, in this case I made a snide comment which should provoke that person, after all, what does this person mean by "lock in". What am I going to refute when that person has not said anything but be vague. I'm also not in the business of gaining karma when I'm already at maximum and have been for 2 years now. Nice assumption on the fan boy part as well, yes I use a mac, doesn't mean I'm a fan boy, am I supposed to be taking you seriously? Someone trolls on a subject, I prod for an explanation because I think its bullshit, but I have to explain myself? Then my motives behind this is purely for Karma, get real! The parent has a chance to respond, I need not do anything else until he has spoken. Plus he has been modded accordingly.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Answer without a question

[mp3phish]

"yes I use a mac, doesn't mean I'm a fan boy, am I supposed to be taking you seriously?"

The fact that you claim to not know about Apple's extensive history (and current practice) of lock-in, combined with this statement, is the very definition of an Apple Fanboy.

The history is there. It is extensive. It continues to be put in practice with both current and new products. If you can't admit that, then you are by the very definition of an Apple Fanboy, exactly that. Denying that this history exists is more evidence you are a fanboy and are intentionally leaving this information out of your post.

Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Answer without a question

[CrackedButter]

Quote me on the bit where I claimed to not know about Apple's extensive history and you've won the discussion. But I'll save you the task because I never said I didn't know about it, I simply wanted that person to explain himself. Are you retarded or something, if this was a real conversation you'd have shut the fuck up by now.

Do you know how stupid you sound? I know how Guantanamo Bay prisoners think when they are taken to court for the first time to hear the charges brought against them and haven't yet heard the evidence, but are asked to explain themselves.

This conversation doesn't make sense and neither do you, you make stereotypical assumptions about me and then try to further prove I am what you think I am because you're telling me I've denied something which I haven't even denied. On top of all that, you're riding me for calling somebody out who hasn't explained themselves and I have to refute what they haven't even said yet?

Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Answer without a question

[mp3phish]

"Quote me on the bit where I claimed to not know about Apple's extensive history"

It is not hard to cut and paste your claims. here goes....

"If somebody made a baseless statement[about apple's history and practice] I'd ask for more information, in this case I made a snide comment which should provoke that person" This is a claim of your ignorance on Apple's extensive history due to the fact that you imply his statement is baseless. If you knew apple's history, you would not be making that implication. His statement was specifically about Apple's practice of lock-in, which is of course part of Apple's history.

"but again, what are these lock ins of which you speak?" Yet another admission of your ignorance of Apple's extensive history of lock-in. If you can't admit apple has a history of lock-in, then you are in denial or are ignorant of that part of their history.