or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ARM CEO downplays rumors of Apple acquisition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ARM CEO downplays rumors of Apple acquisition - Page 2

post #41 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

What if Adobe bought ARM and licensed it to everyone except Apple. Would that be anticompetitive? Not likely to happen of course, but that would be kind of funny.

They don't have the assets. Adobe has a Total Debts to Assets ratio of 18.80:1.
post #42 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

[snip]
You do understand that Apple spent untold millions of dollars to port it's OS to Intel, right? The benefit to Apple was it didn't have to play the which chip is faster game and worry about it's processor supplier being slower then Intel based chips. The move was expensive for both Apple and it's developers.
[/snip]

What millions?

OS X was originally NeXTStep, and the NeXT machines were X86...

Anything that was higher level code, like C, can just be recompiled.

Where they did spend money though, may just be routine maintenance.



On the other hand, the developer community as a whole did have to burn thru millions IF, and only IF they didn't keep Xcode at hand...developers that did, just recompiled their Cocoa code. It was reasonably seamless.



Dan
post #43 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

It has a lot to do with Intel. Apple isn't using Intel's Atom chipset in any of its products and those are used in many netbooks. ARM has focussed on mobile devices and Apple has created a new category that sits between a smart phone and a laptop with the iPad. They've bought a company that excellerates ARM processors. They definitely plan to use ARM and not Intel in future devices. ARM has multi-core proc designs and Apple apparently feels they are suitable for much larger devices - laptops includes.

Apple does not want to be dependant on any chip manufacturer anymore. Motorola, IBM, and Intel have all held-up Apple's progress (Atom failed for Apple's consumer device plans).

There are two lines. ARM is used for small mobile, and Intel for everything else.

You're talking about replacing Intel's chips with ARM. That's what you said in your post. How do you know what Apple "feels"?

x86 hardware and software are completely different from ARM hardware and software. When a couple of years from now ARM chips are 4 core and faster, x86 chips will be much faster as well.

You can't substitute an ARM device for an x86 one. Apple will make a more powerful device than the current iPad. That's a certainty. But it will be in addition. I need certain software. I can't use something else. But I'm buying an iPad for the something else to use in addition. It's for a different direction.

The iPad will be great for a lot of things, but not for others.

This is where it will be great, for example, and an area in which a Macbook won't serve (ignore the snotty remarks from posters):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPmc...mbedded&fmt=22

And her site:http://www.destroythesilence.com/
post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot View Post

What millions?

OS X was originally NeXTStep, and the NeXT machines were X86...

Anything that was higher level code, like C, can just be recompiled.

Where they did spend money though, may just be routine maintenance.



On the other hand, the developer community as a whole did have to burn thru millions IF, and only IF they didn't keep Xcode at hand...developers that did, just recompiled their Cocoa code. It was reasonably seamless.



Dan

The first Next machines were PPC. Later, when they exited the hardware business (they never sold more than 50,000 machines in toto), because Apple wouldn't give them the info they needed to move the OS to Apple's machines (Be had the same problem after a while), they ported over to x86.

But it cost Apple many millions after buying Next for $400 million to maintain both architectures over the years.
post #45 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

But that won't matter much in the coming years. The iPad does not have bootcamp yet will still sell 10s of millions a year. If Apple made a Macbook that ran iPhone OS (probably wouldn't be called a Macbook) then that would be geared to consumers that are less likely to dual boot.

The ipad doesn't boot Windows but it can sync to Windows via iTunes.
The macbook with the iphone Os is here already and its the ipad.
I am pretty sure that for the next couple of years that's as close as we will see the iphone os running on/as a computer.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #46 of 104
To quote 'All the President's Men', that's a non-denial denial.
post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first Next machines were PPC. Later, when they exited the hardware business (they never sold more than 50,000 machines in toto), because Apple wouldn't give them the info they needed to move the OS to Apple's machines (Be had the same problem after a while), they ported over to x86.

But it cost Apple many millions after buying Next for $400 million to maintain both architectures over the years.

Oops, sorry...

I checked, and yeah the magnesium NeXT cube was PPC.


But i had always thought that buying NeXT was a last resort move to save Apple, with among other things bringing back SJ, and buying whatever IP and talent that was there to be had.

So, i'd assumed OS X was sort of windfall, considering all the software already written for the old substandard MacOS, and not the main pursuit, and that it wasn't even useful on the PPC platform until it was ported.

This kind of sets things straight...

Thanks



Dan
post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am still not convinced it makes sense for Apple, and have not seen any good arguments so far.

Here's one:
Quote:
...the company that licenses a majority of the world's mobile chip designs.

Hmm, if Apple owns ARM that means other companies can't license their technology. Right?
post #49 of 104
It will be a long time, if ever, before Apple abandons X86 architecture. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that PC to Mac switching really only gained momentum when they dropped PowerPC in favor of Intel. Abandon Intel and the Mac business will shrivel up in about 13.5 seconds.
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Here's one:

Hmm, if Apple owns ARM that means other companies can't license their technology. Right?

Very true, also means getting anal probed by the Eu at the first whiff of anti competitive behavior. I
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #51 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

I would think it would be a pretty big antitrust issue for Apple to acquire ARM and potentially cut off (or make prohibitively expensive) licensing to all others. If Google did the same, people would be screaming bloody murder.

Although I don't agree this is going to happen (you don't see Apple running around buying up all of their hardware manufacturers do you?), I don't see anti-trust playing a part if this were to happen. There are plenty of alternatives to ARM processors.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 104
This entire thread has been devoted almost exclusively to Apple's perspective. Almost no one except Warren East at ARM has expressed ARM's perspective - and even then no one here seems to be listening.

ARM is a gold mine and its people no doubt are very good and happy at what they're doing. Why would they want to work for an overlord like Apple who would only limit and confine their maneuvering room? ARM enjoys providing its IP to numerous customers. What's to gain from selling out? A lot of money and early retirement? Money certainly isn't an issue and early retirement doesn't exactly stimulate the creative intellect.

And even if money were relevant, why would you want to sell your gold mine when you may be on the verge of striking the mother lode?

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #53 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

This entire thread has been devoted almost exclusively to Apple's perspective. Almost no one except Warren East at ARM has expressed ARM's perspective - and even then no one here seems to be listening.

ARM is a gold mine and its people no doubt are very good and happy at what they're doing. Why would they want to work for an overlord like Apple who would only limit and confine their maneuvering room? ARM enjoys providing its IP to numerous customers. What's to gain from selling out? A lot of money and early retirement? Money certainly isn't an issue and early retirement doesn't exactly stimulate the creative intellect.

And even if money were relevant, why would you want to sell your gold mine when you may be on the verge of striking the mother lode?

Quite simple. Intel is aiming at the bullseye on ARM's back and as crappy as Intel is at deliver mobile class processors I wouldn't rule them out as far as having a solid entry in a few years.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #54 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

This entire thread has been devoted almost exclusively to Apple's perspective. Almost no one except Warren East at ARM has expressed ARM's perspective - and even then no one here seems to be listening.......

A seemingly good point.

However, at the end of the day, a target company's blah blah is irrelevant, to some extent. There is a price at which Mr. East -- or anyone, for the matter -- will fold. That is the nature of the beast in the Anglo-American system of governance.
post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post


In today's market, a takeover is useful when one is looking to acquire market share or IP.
In Apple's case, I don't see them looking to acquire ARM's market because they are a consumer electronics company not a chip design company.

They do design chips. Apple did the northbridge and controller on the G5, they influenced all of the PowerPC designs, they designed the A4 as well. I'm sure there are others.

I was thinking maybe that server farm isn't a server farm after all. Perhaps they have something else in mind?
post #56 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

They do design chips. Apple did the northbridge and controller on the G5, they influenced all of the PowerPC designs, they designed the A4 as well. I'm sure there are others.

I was thinking maybe that server farm isn't a server farm after all. Perhaps they have something else in mind?

Yeah, Apple had their own desktop chips in the PPC (with help from Motorola and IBM I think) and look were they were in terms of market share. They are in a much better position today with Intel inside.
post #57 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

It has a lot to do with Intel. Apple isn't using Intel's Atom chipset in any of its products and those are used in many netbooks. ARM has focussed on mobile devices and Apple has created a new category that sits between a smart phone and a laptop with the iPad. They've bought a company that excellerates ARM processors. They definitely plan to use ARM and not Intel in future devices. ARM has multi-core proc designs and Apple apparently feels they are suitable for much larger devices - laptops includes.

Apple does not want to be dependant on any chip manufacturer anymore. Motorola, IBM, and Intel have all held-up Apple's progress (Atom failed for Apple's consumer device plans).

Exactly. And if intel purchased ARM and let it stagnate, what are the alternatives? It is ARM or Intel in that space. If Apple buys them, it's a smart play. Even if they do not run the company and keep everything as it is today. Not letting others control your future is smart. Even if I am sick of Apple and copying Microsoft's playbook. Personally hope it doesn't happen. I like ARM and do not want them apart of Apple, Intel, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, or the works. But, that stock has been undervalued for about 15 years. eMate?
post #58 of 104
Oh yeah, and one more thing. Remember that Apple's precious chip designers have government contracts. So, it might be in their best interest to keep that government contract. After all, they have to help the governments spy on people in more ways than just iphones.

Lol, maybe they are looking for global warming and need to design it into the chipset for Al.

Maybe they are looking for a way to mess with google and screw up a few instruction set timings.

or maybe they figure the dang company is undervalued and it's just a good dang investment. Better than leaving it in Federal Reserve Notes. Given Steve's government connections, I'm sure he knows it's time to play ball and spend $40 billion, or at least convert it to bullion.
post #59 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ah.... the Sony, Comcast, AOL, etc logic.

Well obviously Sony is not the shining example
Bundling Spiderman with the PSP is a smart move but forcing a new and proprietary disc format?

Content is king. Apple has a tremendous distribution platform in iTunes that seamlessly integrates with their mobile devices. At the moment, no other company can boast of this. If all the labels and the networks pull out of iTunes tomorrow, it's over. Of course this is unlikely but who knows? TV networks fear giving Apple too much control after what happened with the music industry and they will definitely do whatever they can to mitigate this risk.

This sounds more plausible than spending a few billions on a chip company that is in the business of licensing its technology...
post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot View Post

Oops, sorry...

I checked, and yeah the magnesium NeXT cube was PPC.


But i had always thought that buying NeXT was a last resort move to save Apple, with among other things bringing back SJ, and buying whatever IP and talent that was there to be had.

So, i'd assumed OS X was sort of windfall, considering all the software already written for the old substandard MacOS, and not the main pursuit, and that it wasn't even useful on the PPC platform until it was ported.

This kind of sets things straight...

Thanks



Dan

They really needed the OS. Copeland had failed, and they had nothing "modern" to replace it with. You know, pre-emptive multitasking, protected memory and so forth.
post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Here's one:

Hmm, if Apple owns ARM that means other companies can't license their technology. Right?

We've rehashed that argument into the ground. Not happening.
post #62 of 104
It would be ironic if Apple acquired ARM in the 21st century, because in the early 90's Apple invested deeply into a new startup named ARM (can you say Newton?)

ARM's value kept climbing and during the worst of multiple fiscal quarters @ Apple circa 1997, Uncle Gil (Amelio) sold off incremental chunks of ARM, keeping net income (barely) in the black as share price sunk to single $ digits.

But I seriously doubt that Apple will assimilate ARM. SJ is too smart to allow his army to get distracted by a new, profitable, fully operating company joining in the current finished product fun 'n games.
post #63 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Although I don't agree this is going to happen (you don't see Apple running around buying up all of their hardware manufacturers do you?), I don't see anti-trust playing a part if this were to happen. There are plenty of alternatives to ARM processors.

Not easily, and not quickly. This could constitute a strangling of the market if Apple refused sale of current IP.
post #64 of 104
As an aside to the main topic,

Originally Posted by melgross
>The first Next machines were PPC. ...
>
>But it cost Apple many millions after buying Next for $400 million to maintain both architectures over the years.

On paper, Apple bought NeXT. But is all the important ways, NeXT bought Apple - and not just because SJ returned. Never forget that.
post #65 of 104
Some of your points here are good, but you're missing the bigger picture. I don't honestly believe Apple would try to leverage ownership of ARM to be a competitive advantage. It would certainly raise legal issues.

The point is that it's about controlling your own destiny. In fact your point about development of the PPC platform is actually supporting my point, not arguing against it. ARM is so well accepted, so ubiquitous, that Apple wouldn't have to worry about who manufactures their designs. It's the economy of scale; look at the latest earnings report. How many millions of iPhones? iPads already selling so well they can't keep up with demand? It would allow increased production to meet demand while simultaneously reducing overhead by eliminating the license fees. They can ramp up production as much as they need, and never have to worry about any increase in cost from paying licensing on a per unit basis.

In fact Apple wouldn't have to do JACK once they've made the acquisition; just let things keep going as they are. The only thing that would change is how much they had to pay to increase production. Minimal effort for a lot of gain. To top it all off, they'd get their investment back in a relatively short time, and end up with another cash cow afterward.

Also, the days of the desktop are numbered, and Jobs is setting Apple up to be on the crest of that wave. ARM is indeed so ubiquitous, so widely accessible, and successful, why wouldn't they want to be in the driver's seat when the road the industry is on is going to eventually see the end of the desktop as we know it? Eventually even laptops will be obsolete. It will all be iPad and iPhone type devices.

Again, it's about controlling your own destiny; the licensing issues are just icing on the cake, both in terms of reducing cost and increasing income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't see what those arguments have to do with this at all. PPC chips had so little sales that neither IBM or Motorola could afford to put much R&D into them. It costs billions.

ARM licenses out reference designs that other processor company modify in whatever ways they think required.

Using an ARM chip is like using an x86 chip in that it's got the majority of the relevant market sewed up. Apple can buy this from any of the ARM licensees it wants to. It now has two chip design companies to do that modding. Buying ARM won't improve that.

If Apple did do it, and companies felt, even wrongly, that Apple was holding back, over time, they would find a way to move on to non ARM chips. That would destroy all the value of ARM, and damage Apple's stock price as well.

If that happened, without all those license sales, ARM wouldn't be able to spend the R&D money it need to on its own. Then Apple wouldn't be ahead of the game.

It would be better if they don't even try.
post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by primemover View Post

As an aside to the main topic,

Originally Posted by melgross
>The first Next machines were PPC. ...
>
>But it cost Apple many millions after buying Next for $400 million to maintain both architectures over the years.

On paper, Apple bought NeXT. But is all the important ways, NeXT bought Apple - and not just because SJ returned. Never forget that.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. Apple surely did buy Next. Next guys weren't able to force many things they wanted onto the Mac buying public. They had to retreat in various areas with the Finder, for example.
post #67 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

Some of your points here are good, but you're missing the bigger picture. I don't honestly believe Apple would try to leverage ownership of ARM to be a competitive advantage. It would certainly raise legal issues.

The point is that it's about controlling your own destiny. In fact your point about development of the PPC platform is actually supporting my point, not arguing against it. ARM is so well accepted, so ubiquitous, that Apple wouldn't have to worry about who manufactures their designs. It's the economy of scale; look at the latest earnings report. How many millions of iPhones? iPads already selling so well they can't keep up with demand? It would allow increased production to meet demand while simultaneously reducing overhead by eliminating the license fees. They can ramp up production as much as they need, and never have to worry about any increase in cost from paying licensing on a per unit basis.

In fact Apple wouldn't have to do JACK once they've made the acquisition; just let things keep going as they are. The only thing that would change is how much they had to pay to increase production. Minimal effort for a lot of gain. To top it all off, they'd get their investment back in a relatively short time, and end up with another cash cow afterward.

Also, the days of the desktop are numbered, and Jobs is setting Apple up to be on the crest of that wave. ARM is indeed so ubiquitous, so widely accessible, and successful, why wouldn't they want to be in the driver's seat when the road the industry is on is going to eventually see the end of the desktop as we know it? Eventually even laptops will be obsolete. It will all be iPad and iPhone type devices.

Again, it's about controlling your own destiny; the licensing issues are just icing on the cake, both in terms of reducing cost and increasing income.

I haven't said that Apple would do it. Others are saying that Apple SHOULD do it. I'm pointing out what would happen if they did, or if their new customers thought they did.

About this license fee thing. Just how much do you think Apple pays for a license for whatever work they may be doing? Then remember that Apple has been buying their chips from Samsung who pays those licenses, not Apple. So how much do you think Apple would save on each $20 chip? Then think about how much interest and investment profit they would be losing from that $8 billion, or from whatever deal they may have to construct, in addition to the firms involved in it.

How long would the deal pay back whatever extra Apple is paying per chip? 100 years? 200 years?
post #68 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

[snip]
Eventually even laptops will be obsolete. It will all be iPad and iPhone type devices.
[/snip]

*sigh* \

Everyone lives in their own world...

Some even live in worlds where there are no newspaper columnists, no engineers and no businessmen, and software builds itself. Films record themselves, and everything else is done on an iPad

...

While Apple has done a great job of bringing touchscreen devices to mass market at a decent price, touchscreens are not the end of everything else. I personally can't stand typing on a keyboard that i can't feel.

Apple has created new demand in markets that were previously stagnant and without a decent product. They've brought new uses to existing device categories. Part marketing, part product design. All good. And thus, they are able to charge premium for the "cool new thing". But the bottom feeders will be there in no time, making $8 off of every unit. Bottom feeders are what ruins an overfilled market though, not lack of "wow" factor.

The iPhone and iPad market exploded with demand, but sooner or later demand will level out and bottom feeders will take their positions. Then smart tablet devices will be on par with laptops, as an overfilled market. We'll see what dies first.

I've not cared much for laptops for many years. Awful screens. Hot as a frying pan. And heavy as a brick.... Overpriced and underpowered.

All that's changed though. It's just a matter of newer technology. SSD's - check! LED screens - check! Decent keyboards - check, even on 10" machine! ... everything evolves, and stuff is bound to go in and out of fashion.

Desktops market may be in worse shape though. I assume it will split up into very high end, and very low end.



Dan
post #69 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

.....I am still not convinced it makes sense for Apple, and have not seen any good arguments so far.

I don't know either.. the only arguments I can come up with are either cruel, "monopolistic" or sentimental...:

1 - Apple wants to cut off everyone's access to ARM, and be the only one to use ARM technology. This would set other handset makers back significantly, since virtually everyone is using ARM. Bad karma!

2 - Steve Jobs is personally proud of what his company has become, regrets that Apple sold its shares and just wants it back, for sentimental reasons.

3 - Apple thinks ARM working closely with Intrinsity to produce next generation chips could be revolutionary, rather than just Intrinsity making hot versions of existing ARM architecture.

4 - Apple thinks ARM is the new INTEL and wanna be there before it booms.

blablabla...
post #70 of 104
Wow, the mere mention of Apple's name today sends the shivers through the pants of the Windoze and Android camps. They tremble, curse, holler, supplicate and call out to heaven for cover; and to prevent the march of the Apple juggernaut. Incredible how the phoenix has arisen from the ashes of defeat 10 years ago.
post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first Next machines were PPC. Later, when they exited the hardware business (they never sold more than 50,000 machines in toto), because Apple wouldn't give them the info they needed to move the OS to Apple's machines (Be had the same problem after a while), they ported over to x86.

But it cost Apple many millions after buying Next for $400 million to maintain both architectures over the years.

the first Next machines were Motorola 68030s.
post #72 of 104
Now that Apple has some deep pockets, I would love to see Apple buy AMD and Sun.
I hear AMD has some great things coming up and with processing going off and onto the gpu in time, I bet Apple could do some amazing things with AMD. Then purchase the Samsung television division. Lol.

Oh just FYI, today is my birthday. :-)
post #73 of 104
Good points across the board.

I would consider buying AMD a much better option.

But ultimately they don't NEED to buy any major cpu designer at the moment.

More so when chip design is not so much an issue right now, as much as chip manufacturing is. You can have the best design in the world if you don't have the scale of factories to manufacture it, you are better off buying from someone else with an inferior chip but well oiled fabs in place, see intel, see samsung making those arm chips for apple.

Let's also not forget the PA SEMI acquisition, that hasn't been put to (visible) use by all accounts? I am always wondering what these guys are up to inside of Apple. They had some really great chips a few years ago, I can only imagine that they have some super great chip designs at the moment. But what will they be used for and where?

As someone said, this is most likely a garbage rumour to have a few people make a few extra bucks from their arm shares. I too would let such a rumour out if a company (apple) had gone up in stock price 25% in less than a couple or so months. I 'd tell everyone they were buying my company for sure...
post #74 of 104
Thinking about this some more, maybe a better scenario would be for Apple to buy some kind of 20 year uber-license from ARM in exchange for a multi-billion dollar investment in the company. That would give Apple access to everything that ARM ever does. That way, Apple is completely protected in case somebody else were to buy ARM.

And if such a mega-investment were in the works, it could easily be misconstrued as a take-over by the types of people who hang out in London bars listening to other people's conversations.
post #75 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post

Hell, ARM was started by Apple anyway. Why NOT bring them back into the fold?

Probably that's not true. Apple was one of the shareholder of ARM Holdings back in 1990. They sold the shares and moved away. Now when ARM is so huge, they want to get it back.
post #76 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

It has a lot to do with Intel. Apple isn't using Intel's Atom chipset in any of its products and those are used in many netbooks. ARM has focussed on mobile devices and Apple has created a new category that sits between a smart phone and a laptop with the iPad. They've bought a company that excellerates ARM processors. They definitely plan to use ARM and not Intel in future devices. ARM has multi-core proc designs and Apple apparently feels they are suitable for much larger devices - laptops includes.

Apple does not want to be dependant on any chip manufacturer anymore. Motorola, IBM, and Intel have all held-up Apple's progress (Atom failed for Apple's consumer device plans).

Yeah, maybe for consumer devices, but those suggesting that Apple is going to move away from Intel for desktops and laptops are talking crazy. Apple loves using Intel in their desktops and laptops as it puts them on a level (if not higher) playing field with the PCs and even better Intel seems to love to cater to Apple by giving them dibbs on chips. And why not, Apple is the most innovative and creative computer company. Who better to show off what Intel's chips can do.
post #77 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

the first Next machines were Motorola 68030s.

Yes, they were. I was thinking in reference to the fact that we were talking about Apple buying Next, or rather, as the post I responded to, Next buying Apple.
post #78 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by man1sh View Post

Probably that's not true. Apple was one of the shareholder of ARM Holdings back in 1990. They sold the shares and moved away. Now when ARM is so huge, they want to get it back.

Whoa! We don't know if any of this is even true.
post #79 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I haven't said that Apple would do it. Others are saying that Apple SHOULD do it. I'm pointing out what would happen if they did, or if their new customers thought they did.

About this license fee thing. Just how much do you think Apple pays for a license for whatever work they may be doing? Then remember that Apple has been buying their chips from Samsung who pays those licenses, not Apple. So how much do you think Apple would save on each $20 chip? Then think about how much interest and investment profit they would be losing from that $8 billion, or from whatever deal they may have to construct, in addition to the firms involved in it.

How long would the deal pay back whatever extra Apple is paying per chip? 100 years? 200 years?

Again, you're missing the point. Your question here is only about the per chip cost. Even on that level, let's say that Apple only saved $.08 per chip. Last quarter they sold
8 million iPhones, well, that's a savings of $1M. But I guess that's not enough of a savings in your opinion?

You're also missing the point about the additional income Apple would get from holding ARM and receiving the royalties from the licensing to other companies. As I mentioned before, ARM earns what, $8B/yr? All they have to do is buy them, and just let business go on as usual. They'll get their investment back in a handful of years. Trying to say it would take them 100 yrs to get the investment back is again based only on the per chip savings, and doesn't look at the bigger picture.

And again, you've conveniently overlooked my point about how holding ARM would let Apple control it's own destiny with respect to hardware.

You keep saying the same things over and over in response to me, but you have yet refute the logic of my claims. If I said the earth was flat over and over and over and over again wouldn't make it true. Please actually address the logic of my points or don't bother.
post #80 of 104
My, how conveniently you drop into the ad-hominem argument.

Think what you might, but look at the facts. Desktops have been steadily loosing ground to laptops for several years now. Apple's own sales demonstrate that MacBooks and MacBook Pros outsell all other models combined.

And of course tactile feedback is important in typing, it always will be. But eventually they won't be necessary because other technology will come along and supplant them.

And please stop with the red herrings about 'movies filming themselves' and so on. Those examples are different circumstance and situations, and don't apply to this topic.

And as for you not prefering laptops? Oh well, that's your opinion. That makes my points wrong? If you really think so, you need to take a class in critical thinking and/or logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DayRobot View Post

*sigh* \

Everyone lives in their own world...

Some even live in worlds where there are no newspaper columnists, no engineers and no businessmen, and software builds itself. Films record themselves, and everything else is done on an iPad

...

While Apple has done a great job of bringing touchscreen devices to mass market at a decent price, touchscreens are not the end of everything else. I personally can't stand typing on a keyboard that i can't feel.

Apple has created new demand in markets that were previously stagnant and without a decent product. They've brought new uses to existing device categories. Part marketing, part product design. All good. And thus, they are able to charge premium for the "cool new thing". But the bottom feeders will be there in no time, making $8 off of every unit. Bottom feeders are what ruins an overfilled market though, not lack of "wow" factor.

The iPhone and iPad market exploded with demand, but sooner or later demand will level out and bottom feeders will take their positions. Then smart tablet devices will be on par with laptops, as an overfilled market. We'll see what dies first.

I've not cared much for laptops for many years. Awful screens. Hot as a frying pan. And heavy as a brick.... Overpriced and underpowered.

All that's changed though. It's just a matter of newer technology. SSD's - check! LED screens - check! Decent keyboards - check, even on 10" machine! ... everything evolves, and stuff is bound to go in and out of fashion.

Desktops market may be in worse shape though. I assume it will split up into very high end, and very low end.



Dan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › ARM CEO downplays rumors of Apple acquisition