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.
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.
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
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.
>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.
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?
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.
.....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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
*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.
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.
.
How do you quantify "need". All public companies need to move forward and find new ways to generate revenue/profit. This is why the large companies are heavily into acquisitions. Apple is no different. They must continue to look for ways to entrench themselves into computing and beyond.
AMD would not be a good purchase. They have a minority position and the bulk of their sales go to Apple's Windows based competitors.
ARM has dominant share and the bulk of their sales go to other vertical markets that Apple doesn't play in. ARM's roadmap though puts them on a crash course with Intel for Netbook and Tablet class processors and, Apple being the first high volume Tablet maker, would be smart to ensure their spot in this next lucrative phase of computing.
The fabs are easy. Samsung fabs Apple's ARM based chips now. There's Fujitsu and TSMC and others that will do the fabbing. ARM is a beneficial acquisition because you DON'T have to buy expensive to maintain fab facilities.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
[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
.....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...
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.
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. :-)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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
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.
.
How do you quantify "need". All public companies need to move forward and find new ways to generate revenue/profit. This is why the large companies are heavily into acquisitions. Apple is no different. They must continue to look for ways to entrench themselves into computing and beyond.
AMD would not be a good purchase. They have a minority position and the bulk of their sales go to Apple's Windows based competitors.
ARM has dominant share and the bulk of their sales go to other vertical markets that Apple doesn't play in. ARM's roadmap though puts them on a crash course with Intel for Netbook and Tablet class processors and, Apple being the first high volume Tablet maker, would be smart to ensure their spot in this next lucrative phase of computing.
The fabs are easy. Samsung fabs Apple's ARM based chips now. There's Fujitsu and TSMC and others that will do the fabbing. ARM is a beneficial acquisition because you DON'T have to buy expensive to maintain fab facilities.