Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
Agreed. Plus the iPad fills the Macbook Air domain in a lot of ways.
Unless there is
a) some new technology we are not aware of
or
b) they make this thing an ultra-expensive (OLED, Silver battery technology, whatever) machine to differentiate it from the Macbook Pro 13".
Well, i just think that with the Macbook Air Apple would be able to experiment a bit more than they would be able to do with the standard Macbook or Macbook Pro, I think we might actually see the App Store appear on the Air as well.
It is not possible because ARM is an entirely different architecture that is only 32 bit at this time. Plus it would be a massive step backwards, performance wise, just when Intel is starting to deliver tech that could make the AIR even better.
In any event the question is silly as it dismisses the architecture differences, the need for compatibility and the entirely different markets the devices are focused on. Being a Mac implies certain things that the iPod line up can not compete with.
Well, i just think that with the Macbook Air Apple would be able to experiment a bit more than they would be able to do with the standard Macbook or Macbook Pro,
If it is marketed as a Mac it needs to perform like one. If it doesn't perform like a NacBook AIR then it isn't one. Get this concept straight and you will start to see the trouble with your reasoning.
Quote:
I think we might actually see the App Store appear on the Air as well.
Actually I'd love to see an app store for all Macs. Such a store would lead to an explosin in software. Of course they would have to maintain alternative install methods and leave the system open.
Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
I completely agree. I used to think a lot of compromises need to be made in the 13" range for laptops. Then I saw the specs for the new Vaio Z series. I mean holy freaking crap, all that hardware with just 3lbs and 1inch thick? How the hell did they do that, and why is no one else doing it? I seriously hope Apple would be able to match this engineering feat with their new MacBook Air/Macbook/13" Macbook Pro.
It is not possible because ARM is an entirely different architecture that is only 32 bit at this time. Plus it would be a massive step backwards, performance wise, just when Intel is starting to deliver tech that could make the AIR even better.
In any event the question is silly as it dismisses the architecture differences, the need for compatibility and the entirely different markets the devices are focused on. Being a Mac implies certain things that the iPod line up can not compete with.
Dave
x86 was a totally different architecture and Apple managed a smooth transition.
ARM makes sense for the MacBook Air. Qualcomm has interesting designs SoC based on ARM, and Apple, if they chose to design their own SoC, can come up with equally amazing designs.
We'll see ARM CPUs exceeding 2GHz before Summer 2011.
If you can get a 1GHz ARM on a smartphone (Nexus One and XPERIA X10), imagine what you can do with a larger thermal envelope and a larger battery.
Apple is an ARM licensee, they can make their own 64bit extension.
x86 was a totally different architecture and Apple managed a smooth transition.
Yes they did. It was also a big relief to the developer community as the performance of PPC was terrible where it mattered.
Quote:
ARM makes sense for the MacBook Air.
Saying so doesn't make it so. ARM processors are simply to slow. Remember ARM hardware is currently compared to Intels ATOM series not to Intels high performance mobile chips. What is even worst is that once you have an ARM in AIR you can no longer market it as a Mac. That due to the issue of binary compatibility.
Don't even mention emulation as that is a joke if you are trying to emulate a significantly faster processor. Emulation is only practical if the new processor is significantly faster than the old.
Quote:
Qualcomm has interesting designs SoC based on ARM, and Apple, if they chose to design their own SoC, can come up with equally amazing designs.
So! By the way Apple did come up with their own SoC. In any event you are missing a significant issue here which is binary compatibility. Right now the community assumes that all Macs are Intel based, producing one machine that isn't would be a marketing nightmare.
Outside of Apple it is notable that many of the new ARM based machines are running Linux. Beyound the fact that Windows sucks on low end hardware you have the issue of binary compatibility or lack of it. An ARM based device running Vista is worthless if you can't get binary apps for it. Linux on the otherhand comes with a whole suite of software that can be built to run on just about any hardware at the flip of a switch.
Now we have iPad from Apple. The minute the rumors about an ARM based device firmed up it also became obvious that iPhone OS was the only OS that would be on that device. The number one reason being marketing where trying to sell a split product line would be unacceptable. Being stuck currently in the 32 bit world is also a serious issue, especially when Mac OS is quickly transitioning to a 64 bit platform. These and a bunch of other issues dictated iPhone OS on iPad.
Quote:
We'll see ARM CPUs exceeding 2GHz before Summer 2011.
Sure but that 2GHz number means nothing other than it indicates the internal clock rate. GHz is not a sign of performance.
Quote:
If you can get a 1GHz ARM on a smartphone (Nexus One and XPERIA X10), imagine what you can do with a larger thermal envelope and a larger battery.
Imagine? Isn't that what iPad is.
Look I'm not discounting that a device with ARM tailored apps isn't viable. What I'm saying is that such devices can not be a Mac running Mac OS. Like it or not it would be confusing and frustrating for Apples customers. AIR on ARM would imply that you now have one special case for Mac developers to consider if they bother at all. The whole concept blows from a management and marketing perspective. Not to mention that any Mac developer with any sense would be targetting 64 bit Intel only at this point. You may not like this thought but ARM is simply in a different leaque.
Quote:
Apple is an ARM licensee, they can make their own 64bit extension.
True that is possible but they might also want to work with ARM to extend the architecture cleanly. The reason being that infrastructure is what makes ARM so compelling beyound it's low power nature.
Quote:
Don't underestimate ARM
Don't paint a yellow horse gray.
ARM has impressive but limited technology. Even the A9 is device of limited capacity and performance realtively to an Intel mobile processor. But that really isn't where the problem is, as I've said before it isn't tecnical but rather a management and marketing issue. ARM on a AIR, marketed as a Mac, would lead to dissatisfied customers.
By the way Apple could easily stick an ARM into a clamshell and slap iPhone OS on it. As long as it is clear to the consummer what they are getting there won't be a problem.
No that being said, I could see a situation where Apple uses the PA semi crowd to build custom system on a chip designs for Macs based on intel cores and fabbed by intel.
No that being said, I could see a situation where Apple uses the PA semi crowd to build custom system on a chip designs for Macs based on intel cores and fabbed by intel.
That would be pretty weird. Intel would have to license x86 and QPI/DMI to Apple for PA Semi to design the SoC chip package, and Apple would then license it back to Intel for Intel to make it (I don't see Intel opening up its fabs to make chips for someone else, so Apple would have to license the SoC to Intel). Or Apple and Intel could make a cross-licensing deal, but that may have other PC manufacturers up in arms. And it's unlikely Intel will do cross-licensing with an ARM licensee, since Intel has their rival Atom platform.
That would be pretty weird. Intel would have to license x86 and QPI/DMI to Apple for PA Semi to design the SoC chip package, and Apple would then license it back to Intel for Intel to make it (I don't see Intel opening up its fabs to make chips for someone else, so Apple would have to license the SoC to Intel).
You seem obsessed with licensing. Intel simply needs to offer up cores for licensing and let vendors like Apple add their own IP. Intel then becomes a foundry that manufactures under contract. This is some what like the ARM world except that ARM doesn't have foundries, fabrication is a third party deal.
In other words what I'm saying is that licensing is not a problem. It is a practice that has been on going since ARM has been in business.
Quote:
Or Apple and Intel could make a cross-licensing deal, but that may have other PC manufacturers up in arms.
To which Apple would rightfully say screw them. Frankly the other hardware manufactures are likely already up in arms over Apples A4. Though luck because you as a company have to invest in your future.
What is notable here is that the ability to build SoC is as important today as was clever PC board design in the days of the Apple2. In effect the SoC is the systems PC board.
Quote:
And it's unlikely Intel will do cross-licensing with an ARM licensee, since Intel has their rival Atom platform.
Why would Intel care? Business is business if you can take work away from a competitor you do it. The problem Intel has is that they have never really been in a position to have to deal with ARMs business model. ATOM in fact demonstrates that Intel still doesn't get it, as ATOM still has the architecture and limitations of intels desktop products. In some ways ATOM is a joke if thought of as an embedded computer.
When I say I would like a reason, I mean the reason why you want an ARM chip in a Mac?
I think the problem here is that some have heard all the hype about ARM and Apples A4 and think that means intel is no longer competitive. The problem is people don't understand what they are hearing. For example good performance relative to ATOM doesn't mean much when discussing Mac which are way more powerful even in the AIR.
They also don't seem to understand what architecture is and the vast difference between ARM and Intel. It is more than just the 32 bit or 64 bit question, the differences are vast. Further ARM can not effectively emulate an intel processor. Each time in the past when Apple has switched architectures they have done so when the new architecture was significantly faster so that emulation was viable.
The big hurdle though is the inability to grasp the huge marketing issue Apple would have trying to market an ARM based device as a Mac. All the technical issues aside this should be the redest red flag of them all.
I look at it this way Apple could in the future introduce a Mac tablet. Hey it is possible! In order for that tablet to be a Mac it has to have an Intel i86 type processor in it. That simply to be compatible with other Macs. What many don't realize about iPad is that iPhone OS allows Apple to market this device with an ARM processor, thus gaing all the benefits of that architecture. By not being a Mac people have no expectation of running Mac software on it.
Now many rightfully complain about issues with iPhone OS. It is a far from perfect OS (as is Mac OS/X), but it is nothing more than software. That is Apple is free to take iPhone OS in different directions. All they really need to do is to keep it distinct from Mac OS so as to minimize consummer confusion.
You seem obsessed with licensing. Intel simply needs to offer up cores for licensing and let vendors like Apple add their own IP. Intel then becomes a foundry that manufactures under contract. This is some what like the ARM world except that ARM doesn't have foundries, fabrication is a third party deal.
In other words what I'm saying is that licensing is not a problem. It is a practice that has been on going since ARM has been in business.
To which Apple would rightfully say screw them. Frankly the other hardware manufactures are likely already up in arms over Apples A4. Though luck because you as a company have to invest in your future.
What is notable here is that the ability to build SoC is as important today as was clever PC board design in the days of the Apple2. In effect the SoC is the systems PC board.
Why would Intel care? Business is business if you can take work away from a competitor you do it. The problem Intel has is that they have never really been in a position to have to deal with ARMs business model. ATOM in fact demonstrates that Intel still doesn't get it, as ATOM still has the architecture and limitations of intels desktop products. In some ways ATOM is a joke if thought of as an embedded computer.
Dave
You seem to say that because licensing out chip designs works for ARM, Intel would have no problem doing it. What you are ignoring is that Intel operates with an entirely different business model. They don't license out their chip related designs to just anyone, and they are not a foundry. As far as I know they've never manufactured anyone else's chips with their fabs. And just look at the history of Intel's licensing terms with their CPU-related designs. The x86 licensing terms with AMD went through several court battles, and Intel has threatened to withdraw its cross-licensing deal with AMD should AMD split up into a chip designer and a foundry. And Intel has refused to license DMI, another technology that's important for their chip designs, to nvidia. There have been no indications that Intel will dramatically change their business model and start licensing out their designs or start becoming a foundry for other chip designers, so it's only rational to expect the status quo to continue. It's far more likely that Intel will attempt to make their own SoC design than work out some kind of deal that they've never done before with someone else.
Comments
Do you think it's a possibility?
No.
Apple could compile Mac OS X to run on the Arm chipset. That would be expensive but possible.
But all the MacOS apps would need to be recompiled, or would need to run inside an emulator.
And then there's the drivers.
I think this is very very unlikely.
C.
Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
Do you think it's a possibility?
Yes. OS X already runs on ARM, and OS X is portable by design.
I don't see why a transition to ARM wont happen.
A future Macbook will replace the MBA.
Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
Agreed. Plus the iPad fills the Macbook Air domain in a lot of ways.
Unless there is
a) some new technology we are not aware of
or
b) they make this thing an ultra-expensive (OLED, Silver battery technology, whatever) machine to differentiate it from the Macbook Pro 13".
Do you think it's a possibility?
Give me a reason why you would say that? I want your reason, I don't want anyone else to think I'm addressing them.
Do you think it's a possibility?
It is not possible because ARM is an entirely different architecture that is only 32 bit at this time. Plus it would be a massive step backwards, performance wise, just when Intel is starting to deliver tech that could make the AIR even better.
In any event the question is silly as it dismisses the architecture differences, the need for compatibility and the entirely different markets the devices are focused on. Being a Mac implies certain things that the iPod line up can not compete with.
Dave
Well, i just think that with the Macbook Air Apple would be able to experiment a bit more than they would be able to do with the standard Macbook or Macbook Pro,
If it is marketed as a Mac it needs to perform like one. If it doesn't perform like a NacBook AIR then it isn't one. Get this concept straight and you will start to see the trouble with your reasoning.
I think we might actually see the App Store appear on the Air as well.
Actually I'd love to see an app store for all Macs. Such a store would lead to an explosin in software. Of course they would have to maintain alternative install methods and leave the system open.
Dave
A future Macbook will replace the MBA.
I'd be happy if they took out the optical drive. I have hardly used an optical disk since 2006.
C.
A future Macbook will replace the MBA.
Sony can fit a Core i5, Blu-Ray, 2xSSD, 4GB RAM, An Nvidia GT 330M, 3xUSB, ethernet, ExpressCard, SD card, 6 hour battery into a 13" 3lb ultra-portable.
There's an announced tech for shrinking SSDs by 90% and with opticals on the way out, it's a matter of time before the MBA gives no real benefit over the Mb. Even now, the MB is only 50% heavier.
ARM is not an option though - those are meant for ipods only (big and small).
I completely agree. I used to think a lot of compromises need to be made in the 13" range for laptops. Then I saw the specs for the new Vaio Z series. I mean holy freaking crap, all that hardware with just 3lbs and 1inch thick? How the hell did they do that, and why is no one else doing it? I seriously hope Apple would be able to match this engineering feat with their new MacBook Air/Macbook/13" Macbook Pro.
It is not possible because ARM is an entirely different architecture that is only 32 bit at this time. Plus it would be a massive step backwards, performance wise, just when Intel is starting to deliver tech that could make the AIR even better.
In any event the question is silly as it dismisses the architecture differences, the need for compatibility and the entirely different markets the devices are focused on. Being a Mac implies certain things that the iPod line up can not compete with.
Dave
x86 was a totally different architecture and Apple managed a smooth transition.
ARM makes sense for the MacBook Air. Qualcomm has interesting designs SoC based on ARM, and Apple, if they chose to design their own SoC, can come up with equally amazing designs.
We'll see ARM CPUs exceeding 2GHz before Summer 2011.
If you can get a 1GHz ARM on a smartphone (Nexus One and XPERIA X10), imagine what you can do with a larger thermal envelope and a larger battery.
Apple is an ARM licensee, they can make their own 64bit extension.
Don't underestimate ARM
x86 was a totally different architecture and Apple managed a smooth transition.
True.
But Apple made that transition for its entire range of desktop and notebook computers.
It would not make sense for just one line of notebooks?
C.
x86 was a totally different architecture and Apple managed a smooth transition.
Yes they did. It was also a big relief to the developer community as the performance of PPC was terrible where it mattered.
ARM makes sense for the MacBook Air.
Saying so doesn't make it so. ARM processors are simply to slow. Remember ARM hardware is currently compared to Intels ATOM series not to Intels high performance mobile chips. What is even worst is that once you have an ARM in AIR you can no longer market it as a Mac. That due to the issue of binary compatibility.
Don't even mention emulation as that is a joke if you are trying to emulate a significantly faster processor. Emulation is only practical if the new processor is significantly faster than the old.
Qualcomm has interesting designs SoC based on ARM, and Apple, if they chose to design their own SoC, can come up with equally amazing designs.
So! By the way Apple did come up with their own SoC. In any event you are missing a significant issue here which is binary compatibility. Right now the community assumes that all Macs are Intel based, producing one machine that isn't would be a marketing nightmare.
Outside of Apple it is notable that many of the new ARM based machines are running Linux. Beyound the fact that Windows sucks on low end hardware you have the issue of binary compatibility or lack of it. An ARM based device running Vista is worthless if you can't get binary apps for it. Linux on the otherhand comes with a whole suite of software that can be built to run on just about any hardware at the flip of a switch.
Now we have iPad from Apple. The minute the rumors about an ARM based device firmed up it also became obvious that iPhone OS was the only OS that would be on that device. The number one reason being marketing where trying to sell a split product line would be unacceptable. Being stuck currently in the 32 bit world is also a serious issue, especially when Mac OS is quickly transitioning to a 64 bit platform. These and a bunch of other issues dictated iPhone OS on iPad.
We'll see ARM CPUs exceeding 2GHz before Summer 2011.
Sure but that 2GHz number means nothing other than it indicates the internal clock rate. GHz is not a sign of performance.
If you can get a 1GHz ARM on a smartphone (Nexus One and XPERIA X10), imagine what you can do with a larger thermal envelope and a larger battery.
Imagine? Isn't that what iPad is.
Look I'm not discounting that a device with ARM tailored apps isn't viable. What I'm saying is that such devices can not be a Mac running Mac OS. Like it or not it would be confusing and frustrating for Apples customers. AIR on ARM would imply that you now have one special case for Mac developers to consider if they bother at all. The whole concept blows from a management and marketing perspective. Not to mention that any Mac developer with any sense would be targetting 64 bit Intel only at this point. You may not like this thought but ARM is simply in a different leaque.
Apple is an ARM licensee, they can make their own 64bit extension.
True that is possible but they might also want to work with ARM to extend the architecture cleanly. The reason being that infrastructure is what makes ARM so compelling beyound it's low power nature.
Don't underestimate ARM
Don't paint a yellow horse gray.
ARM has impressive but limited technology. Even the A9 is device of limited capacity and performance realtively to an Intel mobile processor. But that really isn't where the problem is, as I've said before it isn't tecnical but rather a management and marketing issue. ARM on a AIR, marketed as a Mac, would lead to dissatisfied customers.
By the way Apple could easily stick an ARM into a clamshell and slap iPhone OS on it. As long as it is clear to the consummer what they are getting there won't be a problem.
No that being said, I could see a situation where Apple uses the PA semi crowd to build custom system on a chip designs for Macs based on intel cores and fabbed by intel.
That would be pretty weird. Intel would have to license x86 and QPI/DMI to Apple for PA Semi to design the SoC chip package, and Apple would then license it back to Intel for Intel to make it (I don't see Intel opening up its fabs to make chips for someone else, so Apple would have to license the SoC to Intel). Or Apple and Intel could make a cross-licensing deal, but that may have other PC manufacturers up in arms. And it's unlikely Intel will do cross-licensing with an ARM licensee, since Intel has their rival Atom platform.
That would be pretty weird. Intel would have to license x86 and QPI/DMI to Apple for PA Semi to design the SoC chip package, and Apple would then license it back to Intel for Intel to make it (I don't see Intel opening up its fabs to make chips for someone else, so Apple would have to license the SoC to Intel).
You seem obsessed with licensing. Intel simply needs to offer up cores for licensing and let vendors like Apple add their own IP. Intel then becomes a foundry that manufactures under contract. This is some what like the ARM world except that ARM doesn't have foundries, fabrication is a third party deal.
In other words what I'm saying is that licensing is not a problem. It is a practice that has been on going since ARM has been in business.
Or Apple and Intel could make a cross-licensing deal, but that may have other PC manufacturers up in arms.
To which Apple would rightfully say screw them. Frankly the other hardware manufactures are likely already up in arms over Apples A4. Though luck because you as a company have to invest in your future.
What is notable here is that the ability to build SoC is as important today as was clever PC board design in the days of the Apple2. In effect the SoC is the systems PC board.
And it's unlikely Intel will do cross-licensing with an ARM licensee, since Intel has their rival Atom platform.
Why would Intel care? Business is business if you can take work away from a competitor you do it. The problem Intel has is that they have never really been in a position to have to deal with ARMs business model. ATOM in fact demonstrates that Intel still doesn't get it, as ATOM still has the architecture and limitations of intels desktop products. In some ways ATOM is a joke if thought of as an embedded computer.
Dave
When I say I would like a reason, I mean the reason why you want an ARM chip in a Mac?
I think the problem here is that some have heard all the hype about ARM and Apples A4 and think that means intel is no longer competitive. The problem is people don't understand what they are hearing. For example good performance relative to ATOM doesn't mean much when discussing Mac which are way more powerful even in the AIR.
They also don't seem to understand what architecture is and the vast difference between ARM and Intel. It is more than just the 32 bit or 64 bit question, the differences are vast. Further ARM can not effectively emulate an intel processor. Each time in the past when Apple has switched architectures they have done so when the new architecture was significantly faster so that emulation was viable.
The big hurdle though is the inability to grasp the huge marketing issue Apple would have trying to market an ARM based device as a Mac. All the technical issues aside this should be the redest red flag of them all.
I look at it this way Apple could in the future introduce a Mac tablet. Hey it is possible! In order for that tablet to be a Mac it has to have an Intel i86 type processor in it. That simply to be compatible with other Macs. What many don't realize about iPad is that iPhone OS allows Apple to market this device with an ARM processor, thus gaing all the benefits of that architecture. By not being a Mac people have no expectation of running Mac software on it.
Now many rightfully complain about issues with iPhone OS. It is a far from perfect OS (as is Mac OS/X), but it is nothing more than software. That is Apple is free to take iPhone OS in different directions. All they really need to do is to keep it distinct from Mac OS so as to minimize consummer confusion.
Dave
You seem obsessed with licensing. Intel simply needs to offer up cores for licensing and let vendors like Apple add their own IP. Intel then becomes a foundry that manufactures under contract. This is some what like the ARM world except that ARM doesn't have foundries, fabrication is a third party deal.
In other words what I'm saying is that licensing is not a problem. It is a practice that has been on going since ARM has been in business.
To which Apple would rightfully say screw them. Frankly the other hardware manufactures are likely already up in arms over Apples A4. Though luck because you as a company have to invest in your future.
What is notable here is that the ability to build SoC is as important today as was clever PC board design in the days of the Apple2. In effect the SoC is the systems PC board.
Why would Intel care? Business is business if you can take work away from a competitor you do it. The problem Intel has is that they have never really been in a position to have to deal with ARMs business model. ATOM in fact demonstrates that Intel still doesn't get it, as ATOM still has the architecture and limitations of intels desktop products. In some ways ATOM is a joke if thought of as an embedded computer.
Dave
You seem to say that because licensing out chip designs works for ARM, Intel would have no problem doing it. What you are ignoring is that Intel operates with an entirely different business model. They don't license out their chip related designs to just anyone, and they are not a foundry. As far as I know they've never manufactured anyone else's chips with their fabs. And just look at the history of Intel's licensing terms with their CPU-related designs. The x86 licensing terms with AMD went through several court battles, and Intel has threatened to withdraw its cross-licensing deal with AMD should AMD split up into a chip designer and a foundry. And Intel has refused to license DMI, another technology that's important for their chip designs, to nvidia. There have been no indications that Intel will dramatically change their business model and start licensing out their designs or start becoming a foundry for other chip designers, so it's only rational to expect the status quo to continue. It's far more likely that Intel will attempt to make their own SoC design than work out some kind of deal that they've never done before with someone else.