Intel CEO says relationship with Apple remains positive, companies are growing 'closer'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    foadfoad Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    And?

     

    How about just one? They’ve done it for all their other component companies.

     

    Again, wishful thinking, but come on.


     

    I think Apple shutting down manufacturing for the a large portion of the computing industry would raise anti-trust flags.

  • Reply 22 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    2016: Custom Intel graphics chip puts Macs on the forefront of integrated computing. (happening)

     

    2018: Apple buys Intel; all chips designed and manufactured in-house. All deals with other companies terminated. (wishful thinking)


     

    There is nothing custom with Intel Graphics.

  • Reply 23 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

     

    A legacy of Tim Cook, who eliminated Apple's owned factories by early 2000s.  Other providers were better at it and it gives Apple more flexibility to adjust for product/market shifts.  Even the new Sapphire plant in the US is owned by someone else (same for the Mac Pro plant).


     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Not to mention that Apple has already made it very clear that they don't want to own ANY factories.


     

    Both facilities are fully subsidized by Apple. In essence, they own them and all the staff and equipment inside, minus the business legal obligation of managing them for Tax purposes.

  • Reply 24 of 51
    Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

    Let's just play your game that Intel just disappeared tomorrow.

     

    Except that’s not what I said, but you’re clearly incapable of postulating from a single point of divergence.

     

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Not to mention that Apple has already made it very clear that they don't want to own ANY factories.

     

    What makes you think that?

     

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

    There is nothing custom with Intel Graphics.


     

    Yet, which is why I said 2016.

  • Reply 25 of 51
    fracfrac Posts: 480member
    sevenfeet wrote: »
     

    And?

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">How about just one? They</span>
    ’ve done it for all their other component companies.
     Second, products with Intel chips have a tremendous amount of dollars that go straight into the country's trade deficit due to exports....

    This.
    Now, Apple and Intel, for effing heck's sake...do the deal and bring the money home, by another route.
  • Reply 26 of 51
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

     

    Both facilities are fully subsidized by Apple. In essence, they own them and all the staff and equipment inside, minus the business legal obligation of managing them for Tax purposes.


     I'm not sure about it, but I would expect it is very similar to the arrangement they have with Foxconn.

  • Reply 27 of 51
    foadfoad Posts: 697member

    I've read some recent analysis into the potential of Apple and Intel extending their relationship and it looks promising. Intel has more capacity than they can use and I am hoping Apple and Intel collaborate to bring those fabs online. The less Apple is dependent on Samsung, the better.

  • Reply 28 of 51
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,147member

    I wouldn't be surprised if Tim Cook talks to Intel frequently telling them that he'd love to use Intel chips in the iPads and iPhones if they were as good as ARM.  Intel is certainly kicking itself for missing this boat.  Apple probably sends them specs and says "match this power level, performance, price", etc. and Intel fails to do so year after year.  

     

    Apple doesn't buy big companies like Intel or ARM.  They buy little companies and roll out their tech years later after maturing it in house.  Apple doesn't pay billions, they pay millions for other companies and their IP.  

  • Reply 29 of 51
    Hopefully they will stay together for the children.
  • Reply 30 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Except that’s not what I said, but you’re clearly incapable of postulating from a single point of divergence.

     

     

    What makes you think that?

     

     

    Yet, which is why I said 2016.


     

    There never will be. Intel isn't gaining on AMD or Nvidia in terms of GPGPU and more, especially AMD. AMD is augmenting their entire line of traditional CPUs and GPUs for HSA.



    We just got Kaveri APU and it's just for show. The first beast is Excavator APU for both Opteron and desktop. Think of the replacement to the Nov '13 released AMD Radeon R-290X merged with the next generation Excavator CPU core architecture set running at 20nm/14nm FinFET by the end of 2014 whose performance per watt mirrors Intel, whose Parallel performance dwarfs Intel and whose Integer performance is a wash.

     

    AMD will be several billion dollars more financially secure by the end of 2014, and having secured the gaming world for the next 7 years will be introducing a wide variety of solutions that forces Intel to deal with both AMD and ARM.



    Sorry, but Intel is still playing 2D chess. AMD has reinvented itself with 3D chess going forward. It doesn't have to defeat Intel. It's got options with other parties owning the most lucrative space of all: Embedded lifestyle devices.



    Intel will never break into it as all the big players make their own designs and use other fabs to stamp them out.

    Then absorb the notion that

  • Reply 31 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Except that’s not what I said, but you’re clearly incapable of postulating from a single point of divergence.

     

     

    What makes you think that?

     

     

    Yet, which is why I said 2016.


     

    Uh, that is what you said.  You speculated on a future where Apple buys Intel and then shuts down production of everything except what Apple needs.  That is practically saying that Intel ceases to exist for the rest of the world that uses their products.  Did I miss something?

     

    And yes, its still crazytalk.

  • Reply 32 of 51
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,678member
    Quote:


    Intel Chief Executive Brian Krzanich, who has served as head of the chipmaker for less than one year, was asked on Wednesday about his company's relationship with Apple, and responded that the two parties continue to "grow closer" as time progresses.


    Only in his dreams, someone needs to wake him up.

  • Reply 33 of 51
    Quote:

     
    Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

    Let's just play your game that Intel just disappeared tomorrow.

     

    Except that’s not what I said, but you’re clearly incapable of postulating from a single point of divergence.

     

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    Not to mention that Apple has already made it very clear that they don't want to own ANY factories.

     

    What makes you think that?

     

    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

    There is nothing custom with Intel Graphics.


     

    Yet, which is why I said 2016.



     

    I don't think the issue is with Sevenfeet being incapable of "postulating from a single point of divergence.". You asked him for just one reason it wouldn't happen and Sevenfeet has given you several rational reasons that you refuse to accept. His point was that if the deal you proposed (Apple buying Intel and canceling production for everyone else) actually happened Apple would 1) not need the capacity of the previous entity. 2) retain only the portions of the previous entity that provide a benefit to Apple. This would lead to roughly 80% of the current Intel being sold off or liquidated. Apple would likely retain Intel's IP, one or two of Intel's fabs, and a portion of it's best engineers and leadership. The rest would as Sevenfeet put it, vanish. That roughly 80% would "vanish" into newly made competitors like AMD, Samsung, TSMC, etc. Let me position this in a somewhat different reason.

     

    Apple buying Intel just doesn't make good business sense. The reasons Apple would want to buy Intel (Adequate Production Capacity, Intellectual Properties, and Experience) would cost less to simply build their own facility and use the design experience they obtained from PAsemi or license IA from Intel. It doesn't make sense to buy an entire company to obtain 20% of it. This also is ignoring another factor they also gave which is economies of scale. The fact that Intel has that level of volume allows it to produce chips cheaper than the subsequent division of Apple. There are better ways to accomplish what Apple would seek to gain from such a deal. For example Apple could simply invest in a large portion of Intel allowing it to gain some seats on Intel's board of directors. They could also buy a majority share effectively giving them control of the company without needing to purchase the entire entity. Also Apple doesn't need to buy Intel to have Intel continue to make chips for their Mac's and so far there has been no compelling reason to switch to an IA based mobile chip for iPhone and iPad. Apple's own ARM based designs are solid performance in a very good power envelope. 

     

    Lastly I'd like to add what I see as "Wishful Thinking". I wish that Intel would recognize their need to adapt their strategy to mobile where they do not have a dominant position. I believe they are finally seeing the potential of opening their fabs to select partners for non-IA chips. Should Intel decide to be a fab for Apple's own chip designs I think we could see a very big benefit for both companies (and us as consumers).

     

    Intel's expertise in R&D for process technology is second to none. Simply putting Apple's current chip designs on a leading edge Intel process would yield a performance gain and power reduction. However give Apple's chip designers the freedom to build for such a process and I believe it would give Apple a competitive advantage. This would obviously benefit Intel as they would quickly gain a large share of the mobile space. This is the "Wishful Thinking" that I believe is both possible as well as making business sense for both parties.

     

    I'm hoping they jointly announce this in the fall at the iPhone event because I need to upgrade from my iPhone 4S.   :)

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 34 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    How about just one? They’ve done it for all their other component companies.


     

    When did Apple buy Qualcomm and cease production for all other companies? Did Apple also buy Sharp and stop producing LCD's for all other companies? Did they also buy Hynix, Toshiba, and Sandisk and cease production of nand for all other companies? Did they buy Broadcom and Texas Instruments and cease production of touch controllers for all other companies? Did they buy Sony and stop producing camera modules for all other companies? I don't think they have actually "done it for all their other component companies."

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 35 of 51
    Originally Posted by Sevenfeet View Post

    Uh, that is what you said.


     

    No, try reading what was said.

     
    Did I miss something?

     

    Where the two scenarios aren’t the same.

     

    And yes, its still crazytalk.


     

    That’d be why I didn’t say it was serious.

     

    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

    I don't think they have actually "done it for all their other component companies."


     

    Please tell me you understand that none of what you have written is relevant in any capacity. You need to read posts before replying.

  • Reply 36 of 51

    Quote:

     
     
    (and ceasing production is stupid for a zillion reasons)

     

    How about just one? They’ve done it for all their other component companies.

     

    Again, wishful thinking, but come on.




     

    you wrote: They have done IT (purchasing a component company and ceasing production for others) for all their other component companies.

     

    Quote:

     
    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

    I don't think they have actually "done it for all their other component companies."


     

    Please tell me you understand that none of what you have written is relevant in any capacity. You need to read posts before replying.



     

    I listed several of their major component companies that they have not purchased and ceased production for others. I'm pretty sure that is directly relevant to and in direct contradiction to what you said. You need to get a grasp on reality before replying.

     

    -PopinFRESH

  • Reply 37 of 51
    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

    I listed several of their major component companies that they have not purchased


     

    Which means that they’re completely irrelevant to what we’re discussing.

     

    Read. The. Post.

  • Reply 38 of 51
    rel·e·vant



    ?rel?v?nt/



    adjective


     



    1. 1.



      closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.


      "the candidate's experience is relevant to the job"









      synonyms:

      pertinentapplicableappositematerialapropos, to the point,germaneMore






     

    Just because something contradicts you doesn't make it irrelevant. You said they did they did X, I gave examples they did not do X.

     

    Reality. Grasp. It.

     

    -PopinFRESH 

  • Reply 39 of 51
    Originally Posted by PopinFRESH View Post

    You said they did they did X, I gave examples they did not do X.

     

    I said they do X. You said they don’t do Y because Z.

     

    Just shut up. Anyone stupid enough to pretend they’re illiterate doesn’t deserve the time of day. Had you read the post, you wouldn’t be posting this nonsense.

  • Reply 40 of 51
    sockrolid wrote: »
    Interesting.  
    Even more interesting: change the years and (roughly) substitute "ARM" for "Intel."
    You get this (which for various reasons is likely impossible, but whatever):

    2015: Apple buys ARM; all chips designed and manufactured in-house.  All deals with other companies terminated.

    2017: Custom ARM chips put Macs on the forefront of integrated computing.

    Or how about: Apple buys Intel and ARM. All other deals terminated.
Sign In or Register to comment.