If Apple buys Adobe they have to deal with cross platform tools for deploying on windows. They don't have that to worry about with ARM to the same extent.
You mean like how they kept developing Logic for Windows after they bought Emagic?
You mean like how they kept developing Logic for Windows after they bought Emagic?
Made me happy. A majority of Logic users were Mac based even prior to the acquisition and the majority of Logic cracks were on the PC version. Emagic was losing money supporting Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winst
Apple founded ARM way back. If Apple did not sell all its share since 1999, then Apple still owns about 15% of ARM
The AI report says: "After noting that shares in ARM had "shot up 8.1p to 251.1p...... [and] ....traders reckon a bid would come in at around 400p a share, valuing ARM at more than £5.2 billion [$8 billion US]."
That was April of 1999. I believe Apple continued to sell off ARM stock (dropping their percentage to ~9% in Sept of that same year) until the sold their remaining stock in Jan 2000. They may have since been buying up ARM stock, but at one point they had divested themselves of all of the ARM holdings. I think at the beginning the held 43%.
It would have been nice if they had been able to hold their original position with ARM, but they needed the cash at the time and the profited hugely from the sales.
The only reason that Apple might buy ARM is so that someone else does not!
ARM has some very desirable tech right now and if someone else buys ARM and says... "too bad Apple!" Apple will be SOL once their current license expires! Right now ARM is the best tech out there for small mobile devices and if someone (Google?, Nokia?) buys ARM, Apple could find itself in a world of hurt!
Highly unlikely. Apple's modus operandi is just to move to another technology. Power PC is a perfect example. Even while they were using the Power architecture on their mobile and desktop computers they had Intel powered machines running OS X from its inception. When the Power architecture was deemed unsatisfactory buy Apple they pulled the trigger and switched to Intel since they had already planned for that contingency.
Ironic you say that as some speculate that the A4 is a Power Architecture chip running ARM in emulation and that they are preparing to move all the mobile hardware back to Power because of efficiencies in power use (fitting nicely with their purchase of PA Semi.)
Yeah because nobody uses Adobe's products. When was the last time someone actually used photoshop or acrobat.
Fair enough but are you REALLY trying to equate the desktop publishing and photo imaging / graphics arts markets in the same breath as the mobile electronics market?
One market is expanding faster than the speed of light ...
I'm not sure if Apple could play that nice consider that they were drove to near extinction and they almost "liquidated the company and paid back the shareholders"
Apple has always tried to play nice with others it's the others that have been screwing it up for them.
Think about how much work Apple has done in open source communities to see what I mean:
KHTML
WebKit
SproutCore
Darwin
CUPS
Open Streaming Server
They're trying to further great technologies but are hindered by freaks who keep trying to sue them or refuse to accept Apple's solutions which are generally well thought out.
If Apple bought ARM and setup their own printing business they could force new technologies onto existing customers without really impacting the other customer's business.
Highly unlikely. Apple's modus operandi is just to move to another technology. Power PC is a perfect example. Even while they were using the Power architecture on their mobile and desktop computers they had Intel powered machines running OS X from its inception. When the Power architecture was deemed unsatisfactory buy Apple they pulled the trigger and switched to Intel since they had already planned for that contingency.
To many people are focused Apple kneecapping competitors with this acquisition. When did
paranoia rule the day in Tech land?
Apple is far more methodical. If they purchased ARM they'd license the cores out business as usual. Apple knows they are not beating companies on hardware they're beating companies on integration.
There's no harm in licensing the cores as freely as possible because what makes Apple special isn't hardware but a keen eye for product aesthetic and differentiation couple with savvy marketing. You can't buy that in a core folks. That's company DNA.
Apple makes home computers, mobile phones and digital music players. They've just created a new category of mobile computing with the iPad. Of the four categories three of them use ARM technology, home computers being the only one that does not. Apple is apparently the largest customer in the world for ARM processors. It also has a licence to produce ARM processors. If it bought ARM holdings Apple would no longer need to pay for its ARM licence to produce and use ARM processors. That could benefit Apple at the very least as a simple cost savings in the long run since it relies on that technology so much and will rely on it more and more in the future. The profit that ARM sees form its largest customer, Apple, would now remain with Apple along with all of the ARM IP. Plus it would give Apple the leverage in how that technology is used with third parties. If that isn't synergy then I don't know what is.
Apple has NEVER been a customer of ARM after they discontinued the Newton.
Some of you guys are really messing this up. Apple buys their chips from Samsung. Samsung is a customer of ARM. Apple is a customer of Samsung.
So far, we have no idea whether Apple has licenses from ARM or not. It's all speculation And Apple is far from being the largest customer forARM chips. They are only a customer of Samsung, which produces ARM chips for a number of other customers. Samsung is also one of the largest cell phone manufacturers, far larger than Apple. They use ARM's in their own phones as well.
If you're going to argue this, at least understand what you are arguing about.
Well, ARM at least has some worthwhile IP. It's hard to see what of value Adobe offers Apple.
If Apple controlled the development of CS5 and other Adobe software, they could do what Adobe refuses to do, which is to customize it to perform as well as possible on Apple's hardware, and to include features of the OS that Adobe won't support.
I've been using and beta testing Photoshop since the beginning, and I've seen the developmental cycles move around from all Apple, to Apple/Microsoft, to Microsoft and ported to Apple, back to Apple/Microsoft.
But ever since Adobe moved to Windows, their mantra was, that as much as possible, their programs should work equally well on all platforms supported. That works well for them, and I can't argue the point They want to be platform neutral.
But that means that they don't support Mac only features to any great extent. They take little advantage of OS and hardware features.
One case in point. Photoshop is uni-threaded in open and saves. Only one core is used. So when we have truly fast RAIDs, most of the speed is wasted. Why is that? Because Windows doesn't support multiple cores in open and save properly. So we're stuck with it as well. I asked John Nack the other say about that question. He said that CS5 still has that limitation, and *hopefully* it will be solved on CS6. Gee, I wonder why?
This is why Apple won't allow the new Flash conversion tools Adobe created. It will homogenize all the mobile OS's to the same feature sets. No good.
So if Apple did buy Adobe, they could fix all of this, and programs would perform better on OS X, and Apple's hardware, giving them an advantage.
But the problems of buying what is mostly a Windows software shop still remain.
I supposed Mac Pro users would continue to run apps from companies like Avid, Apple, Autodesk and more. Adobe doesn't define the Macintosh Professional arena.
Adobe's products are used in professional settings far more than all of those other products put together.
You guys are really funny. Don't any of you understand that the Snapdragon is also an ARM derived chip?
I'm reading this thread with people pointing it out as something separate from ARM when it isn't.
If Apple bought ARM, and killed external sales, Qualcomm would be one of the first affected.
Melgross
I think RichL is well aware that Snapdragon is ARM based. He was responding to my incorrect assumption that all Cortex A8 other than the Hummingbird run at 650Mhz or less. I misread an article which basically stated that extra tweaks are needed to go above the 650Mhz A8 as designed by ARM.
Comments
Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform goes up to 1Ghz too.
But I'm guessing it was cheaper to buy Intrinsity than Qualcomm.
By golly it does. I thought it topped out at 650Mhz.
If Apple buys Adobe they have to deal with cross platform tools for deploying on windows. They don't have that to worry about with ARM to the same extent.
You mean like how they kept developing Logic for Windows after they bought Emagic?
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-tries-to-..._3-224373.html
You mean like how they kept developing Logic for Windows after they bought Emagic?
Made me happy. A majority of Logic users were Mac based even prior to the acquisition and the majority of Logic cracks were on the PC version. Emagic was losing money supporting Windows.
Apple founded ARM way back. If Apple did not sell all its share since 1999, then Apple still owns about 15% of ARM
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-tries-to-..._3-224373.html
Apple did have to sell a lot of their ARM stock when they were under financial duress in the late 90's.
That implies the current valuation must be $8B*(251/400) = US$5B. Yet, Google Finance shows the company's market cap (it is traded as an ADR on NASDAQ: http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:ARMH), including todays price runup, to be slightly less than US$2B. (Reuters data confirms this: http://www.reuters.com/finance/stock...?symbol=ARMH.O).
What gives? The numbers reported by AI seem really badly off!?
Apple founded ARM way back. If Apple did not sell all its share since 1999, then Apple still owns about 15% of ARM
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-tries-to-..._3-224373.html
That was April of 1999. I believe Apple continued to sell off ARM stock (dropping their percentage to ~9% in Sept of that same year) until the sold their remaining stock in Jan 2000. They may have since been buying up ARM stock, but at one point they had divested themselves of all of the ARM holdings. I think at the beginning the held 43%.
It would have been nice if they had been able to hold their original position with ARM, but they needed the cash at the time and the profited hugely from the sales.
ARM has some very desirable tech right now and if someone else buys ARM and says... "too bad Apple!" Apple will be SOL once their current license expires! Right now ARM is the best tech out there for small mobile devices and if someone (Google?, Nokia?) buys ARM, Apple could find itself in a world of hurt!
My $0.02 worth
KRR
Disclosure: I own both AAPL and ARMH stock.
Highly unlikely. Apple's modus operandi is just to move to another technology. Power PC is a perfect example. Even while they were using the Power architecture on their mobile and desktop computers they had Intel powered machines running OS X from its inception. When the Power architecture was deemed unsatisfactory buy Apple they pulled the trigger and switched to Intel since they had already planned for that contingency.
Ironic you say that as some speculate that the A4 is a Power Architecture chip running ARM in emulation and that they are preparing to move all the mobile hardware back to Power because of efficiencies in power use (fitting nicely with their purchase of PA Semi.)
Here's an interesting article:
http://www.technomicon.com/iPad_Saga_-_Week_11.html
Yeah because nobody uses Adobe's products. When was the last time someone actually used photoshop or acrobat.
Fair enough but are you REALLY trying to equate the desktop publishing and photo imaging / graphics arts markets in the same breath as the mobile electronics market?
One market is expanding faster than the speed of light ...
You tell me which one.
I'm not sure if Apple could play that nice consider that they were drove to near extinction and they almost "liquidated the company and paid back the shareholders"
Apple has always tried to play nice with others it's the others that have been screwing it up for them.
Think about how much work Apple has done in open source communities to see what I mean:
KHTML
WebKit
SproutCore
Darwin
CUPS
Open Streaming Server
They're trying to further great technologies but are hindered by freaks who keep trying to sue them or refuse to accept Apple's solutions which are generally well thought out.
If Apple bought ARM and setup their own printing business they could force new technologies onto existing customers without really impacting the other customer's business.
Apple buys ARM, continues licensing existing stuff.
Develops the new designs, uses them in its products, but licences them to the rest a year or two later.
Nice business model.
Impossible business model.
Highly unlikely. Apple's modus operandi is just to move to another technology. Power PC is a perfect example. Even while they were using the Power architecture on their mobile and desktop computers they had Intel powered machines running OS X from its inception. When the Power architecture was deemed unsatisfactory buy Apple they pulled the trigger and switched to Intel since they had already planned for that contingency.
You missed the point of my response to him.
Impossible business model.
Exactly.
To many people are focused Apple kneecapping competitors with this acquisition. When did
paranoia rule the day in Tech land?
Apple is far more methodical. If they purchased ARM they'd license the cores out business as usual. Apple knows they are not beating companies on hardware they're beating companies on integration.
There's no harm in licensing the cores as freely as possible because what makes Apple special isn't hardware but a keen eye for product aesthetic and differentiation couple with savvy marketing. You can't buy that in a core folks. That's company DNA.
Apple makes home computers, mobile phones and digital music players. They've just created a new category of mobile computing with the iPad. Of the four categories three of them use ARM technology, home computers being the only one that does not. Apple is apparently the largest customer in the world for ARM processors. It also has a licence to produce ARM processors. If it bought ARM holdings Apple would no longer need to pay for its ARM licence to produce and use ARM processors. That could benefit Apple at the very least as a simple cost savings in the long run since it relies on that technology so much and will rely on it more and more in the future. The profit that ARM sees form its largest customer, Apple, would now remain with Apple along with all of the ARM IP. Plus it would give Apple the leverage in how that technology is used with third parties. If that isn't synergy then I don't know what is.
Apple has NEVER been a customer of ARM after they discontinued the Newton.
Some of you guys are really messing this up. Apple buys their chips from Samsung. Samsung is a customer of ARM. Apple is a customer of Samsung.
So far, we have no idea whether Apple has licenses from ARM or not. It's all speculation And Apple is far from being the largest customer forARM chips. They are only a customer of Samsung, which produces ARM chips for a number of other customers. Samsung is also one of the largest cell phone manufacturers, far larger than Apple. They use ARM's in their own phones as well.
If you're going to argue this, at least understand what you are arguing about.
Well, ARM at least has some worthwhile IP. It's hard to see what of value Adobe offers Apple.
If Apple controlled the development of CS5 and other Adobe software, they could do what Adobe refuses to do, which is to customize it to perform as well as possible on Apple's hardware, and to include features of the OS that Adobe won't support.
I've been using and beta testing Photoshop since the beginning, and I've seen the developmental cycles move around from all Apple, to Apple/Microsoft, to Microsoft and ported to Apple, back to Apple/Microsoft.
But ever since Adobe moved to Windows, their mantra was, that as much as possible, their programs should work equally well on all platforms supported. That works well for them, and I can't argue the point They want to be platform neutral.
But that means that they don't support Mac only features to any great extent. They take little advantage of OS and hardware features.
One case in point. Photoshop is uni-threaded in open and saves. Only one core is used. So when we have truly fast RAIDs, most of the speed is wasted. Why is that? Because Windows doesn't support multiple cores in open and save properly. So we're stuck with it as well. I asked John Nack the other say about that question. He said that CS5 still has that limitation, and *hopefully* it will be solved on CS6. Gee, I wonder why?
This is why Apple won't allow the new Flash conversion tools Adobe created. It will homogenize all the mobile OS's to the same feature sets. No good.
So if Apple did buy Adobe, they could fix all of this, and programs would perform better on OS X, and Apple's hardware, giving them an advantage.
But the problems of buying what is mostly a Windows software shop still remain.
I supposed Mac Pro users would continue to run apps from companies like Avid, Apple, Autodesk and more. Adobe doesn't define the Macintosh Professional arena.
Adobe's products are used in professional settings far more than all of those other products put together.
Qualcomm's Snapdragon platform goes up to 1Ghz too.
But I'm guessing it was cheaper to buy Intrinsity than Qualcomm.
You guys are really funny. Don't any of you understand that the Snapdragon is also an ARM derived chip?
I'm reading this thread with people pointing it out as something separate from ARM when it isn't.
If Apple bought ARM, and killed external sales, Qualcomm would be one of the first affected.
Adobe's products are used in professional settings far more than all of those other products put together.
Yes but Adobe isn't the sole reason why people buy Mac Pro. I'm sure there are plenty of iMacs running Creative Suite.
You guys are really funny. Don't any of you understand that the Snapdragon is also an ARM derived chip?
I'm reading this thread with people pointing it out as something separate from ARM when it isn't.
If Apple bought ARM, and killed external sales, Qualcomm would be one of the first affected.
Melgross
I think RichL is well aware that Snapdragon is ARM based. He was responding to my incorrect assumption that all Cortex A8 other than the Hummingbird run at 650Mhz or less. I misread an article which basically stated that extra tweaks are needed to go above the 650Mhz A8 as designed by ARM.