I don't have a problem with anything Imagination Technologies has reportedly said or done. Of course they should explore options to protect themselves against possible IP theft. If Google or Samsung had hired people away from a supplier and then announced they no longer needed that supplier, this forum would be full of people ranting and raving about unethical those companies are. It is CONCEIVABLE that Apple stepped over some legal and ethical lines in its relationship with Imagination Technologies. I hope they didn't and expect they didn't, but it's reasonable for Imagination Technologies to use all means at its disposal to protect themselves.
The move away from Imagination may be part of an attempt by Apple to take more control over the design of its hardware. Apple was said to be in talks to acquire Imagination early last year, though ultimately no such deal was made.
Apple has also taken time to poach a number of Imagination's staff over the last two years, including GPU architects and designers. These employees could help Apple to produce its own graphics architecture, potentially saving it from having to pay royalty fees to Imagination for using its intellectual property.
According to Imagination's statement, Apple has asserted that it has been "working on a separate, independent graphics design in order to control its products."
Imagination is also seemingly suggesting there could be a legal fight in the future over the in-house graphics architecture move, declaring Apple has not presented any evidence to substantiate its assertion that it will no longer require Imagination's technology, without violating Imagination's patents, intellectual property, and confidential information. While evidence has been requested by Imagination, Apple has declined to provide any to the company.
Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, so in the statement about the matter, Imagination does not accept Apple's assertions. The company has also attempted to discuss potential alternative commercial arrangements with Apple for the current license and royalty agreement.
All this really says is that GPU tech has plateaued. Apple made their own ARM chips because CPU tech plateaued (yes they got faster, but that is a consequence of die shrinks, nothing else. A CPU you bought in 2007 is the same as one you bought in 2017, only faster due to die shrinks.) And we've reached the end of what can be accomplished with die shinks. Any further die shrinks will come with a much larger increase in per chip costs. So don't expect sub 10nm processes in anything for a while. You'll just see multiple refinements of the previous die process with a larger chip that takes more power.
And yes, pretty much GPU tech has plateaued for mobile designs. If you want more GPU power you need to move up to the iPad/Tablet platform and have a much larger battery. There's probably still some more innovation left in the GPU pipe, but like the CPU tech, they're going to be refinements, not leaps.
Hence, Apple will probably just go with their own IP core for the GPU of the mobile devices. Don't expect to see this in Laptops or Desktops where Apple can just buy CPU and GPU's that are suitable. Apple's end-game appears to be to eliminate the desktop/laptop space entirely by making the iphone/ipad your one-and-only computer, and you just drop the iphone into a docking station to get the full iMac/Mac Pro experience *shudder*
I just don't see how neglecting their professional users has done anything but push Mac Users away from the Apple Ecosystem.
So this suggests what a few of Apple's thousands and thousands of employees are working on: engineers to write a GPU architecture from scratch and lawyers to convince a judge and jury that it wrote a GPU architecture from scratch.
Er, what?
over the years, Apple bought at least three GPU design firms that I know of, maybe more. In addition, they've applied for well over a dozen GPU related patents themselves.
we can be sure that they've been working on their own designs for some time. Imagination seems to think, from their announcement, that they're the only company producing GPU designs. We can all assure them that it is not so. If Apple does come out with its own GPU, then they have to be pretty sure it's really theirs. But there is nothing stopping Apple from licensing patents from others.
in fact, the industry has had dozens of GPU companies over the decades. Most of these companies had their own patented IP. Many of these patents for basic routines have long expired, and are used by everyone. But an individual, or company is allowed to build on a present patent, and call it theirs. So if a patent comes out, and another company looks at it, and comes out with additional work that takes that original patent, and extends it in a way that adds new functions the original patent didn't accommodate, then they can patent the entire thing as their own. The original patent is still valid.
there could also be cross licensing across the industry.
i see no problems for what Apple is apparently doing. There might be some patent disputes, but that's normal.
The move away from Imagination may be part of an attempt by Apple to take more control over the design of its hardware. Apple was said to be in talks to acquire Imagination early last year, though ultimately no such deal was made.
Apple has also taken time to poach a number of Imagination's staff over the last two years, including GPU architects and designers. These employees could help Apple to produce its own graphics architecture, potentially saving it from having to pay royalty fees to Imagination for using its intellectual property.
According to Imagination's statement, Apple has asserted that it has been "working on a separate, independent graphics design in order to control its products."
Imagination is also seemingly suggesting there could be a legal fight in the future over the in-house graphics architecture move, declaring Apple has not presented any evidence to substantiate its assertion that it will no longer require Imagination's technology, without violating Imagination's patents, intellectual property, and confidential information. While evidence has been requested by Imagination, Apple has declined to provide any to the company.
Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, so in the statement about the matter, Imagination does not accept Apple's assertions. The company has also attempted to discuss potential alternative commercial arrangements with Apple for the current license and royalty agreement.
All this really says is that GPU tech has plateaued. Apple made their own ARM chips because CPU tech plateaued (yes they got faster, but that is a consequence of die shrinks, nothing else. A CPU you bought in 2007 is the same as one you bought in 2017, only faster due to die shrinks.) And we've reached the end of what can be accomplished with die shinks. Any further die shrinks will come with a much larger increase in per chip costs. So don't expect sub 10nm processes in anything for a while. You'll just see multiple refinements of the previous die process with a larger chip that takes more power.
And yes, pretty much GPU tech has plateaued for mobile designs. If you want more GPU power you need to move up to the iPad/Tablet platform and have a much larger battery. There's probably still some more innovation left in the GPU pipe, but like the CPU tech, they're going to be refinements, not leaps.
Hence, Apple will probably just go with their own IP core for the GPU of the mobile devices. Don't expect to see this in Laptops or Desktops where Apple can just buy CPU and GPU's that are suitable. Apple's end-game appears to be to eliminate the desktop/laptop space entirely by making the iphone/ipad your one-and-only computer, and you just drop the iphone into a docking station to get the full iMac/Mac Pro experience *shudder*
I just don't see how neglecting their professional users has done anything but push Mac Users away from the Apple Ecosystem.
Wouldn't the docking station cost as much and have similar hardware & I/O as the iMac/Mac Pro?
This story is jumping around everywhere. I first thought it was an April Fool's joke, but then I checked the date.
this brings up all sorts of questions.
Yes, I think there is a lot more to this story than anything we will ever hear about: -- Apple poaches employees from a partner -- Apple tries to buy the partner but fails -- Apple walks away from a long term partner and, by doing so, may cause that partner to fail...
I think what we are seeing & reading may be the tip of the iceberg....
Apple didn't "fail" in its attempted purchase. They declined the price offer. That's very different.
as I wrote elsewhere, Imagination has projects and products that Apple has no use for. Their purchase of the assets of MIPS, which they're developing, is just one of those. Then there is the other 50% of the sales, which Apple would likely close down. So what value is Imagination to them? I don't remember the offer Imagination made to Apple, but let's just use an easy number of $1 billion. If half of Imagination's sales aren't Apple, and Apple would close that down, then is the company worth $1 billion, or half that to Apple?
and then, what about the other projects? Apple would either need to close them down too, or try to sell them off. What is MIPS worth?
Apple is not like Google was when it paid far too much for Motorola. Moto was worth $6.5 billion the day Google announced it had bid $12 billion for it. No one knows exactly why Google wanted Moto so badly, but they overpaid by a lot. Normally, if a company is doing well, there's about a 30% premium to the current price, assuming it's a public company.
but if a company isn't doing well, and Imagination wasn't doing well, the the offer may be about the same as the public valuation. If it's private, then anything goes. Companies often think they're more valuable than they are.
an example is Good Technologies. They were one of the first MDM companies. They did well for years, but as others entered the business, they began to decline. About two years ago, they put themselves on the market, and received an offer of almost $1.2 billion. They claimed they were worth more. But, last year, I believe it was, Blackberry bought them for a bit over $600 million.
the value of small companies is ticklish. If Apple is really trying to obtain them for a lower price, then fine. But as far as I know, Imagination is the one that made this public. Apple's purchasing them or not, or disuse of their IP would have no material value to the Apple in financial terms, but it would have a massive effect on Imagination, so they would need to report it.
Imagine should have accepted Apple's very generous buy out offer.....
Well with the stock dropping 70% maybe should have. Or is this a play by Apple to do just that?
Nah, Apple ain't cold hearted like that.
They really wanted to buy them at a fair price. But they were greedy or stubborn.
Imagination just over estimated their value to Apple.
I think it's a bit of both, really. When we look at Apple negotiation tactics, we can see that they are very resistant to what others want. It's cited as one major reason why Apple isn't getting anywhere in their work to offer TV packages. While much smaller firms than Apple are willing to pay the price, and are making the deals, Apple remains on the sidelines, because they have a price they want to offer the package to the public for, and they won't budge.
Kinda makes being an Apple supplier a crapshoot doesn’t it.
What's a bit surprising is that they gave them 15-24 months lead time. Actually, a pretty stand-up move that could possibly allow Imagination spend the next year or so getting new customers before the revenue dries up.
Or, more likely, they won't be ready before that. I doubt that Apple is being kind. This is business. I don't see Apple losing out in performance against their competitors just to be nice. And then, there are older devices Apple still sells that would be using Imagination's IP until their time is up. That could be in two years, as Apple discontinues them. It's possible that the A11 might see Apple's new design, or possibly even the A10X, to the A11X, and surely, the A12.
So in the future... Apple designed CPU and Apple designed GPU. Next? Apple designed LTE modem? Any doubts there are Macs running on the A10 right now in the lab?
Apple certainly wants to design & contract fab their own LTE modem (integrated right into the A-Series SOC if that is possible). And yes, I would expect macOS is running on an A-series somewhere.
However, I am starting to have my doubts that Apple will introduce a Mac with an A-Series SoC. While I believe that it would help Apple to grow the Mac into the "lower end of premium" where a vast number of profitable buyers could be had - and allow them to get to that ~15% share (which is all of the profit) they have in smart phones and tablets - I am not certain they are interested.
Kinda makes being an Apple supplier a crapshoot doesn’t it.
What's a bit surprising is that they gave them 15-24 months lead time. Actually, a pretty stand-up move that could possibly allow Imagination spend the next year or so getting new customers before the revenue dries up.
Or, more likely, they won't be ready before that. I doubt that Apple is being kind. This is business. I don't see Apple losing out in performance against their competitors just to be nice. And then, there are older devices Apple still sells that would be using Imagination's IP until their time is up. That could be in two years, as Apple discontinues them. It's possible that the A11 might see Apple's new design, or possibly even the A10X, to the A11X, and surely, the A12.
Agreed, but they will still be buying chips for current or next-gen products for up to two years. So that revenue stream will still exist for a short time. Also, If Apple won't have a solution ready until then, it is possible they could have held on to the news until it came time to source those components.
Apple should simply buy AMD as I told Tim and Phil to.
AMD likely comes with a ton of baggage that Apple does not want.
If possible (and it probably is possible), it's better to make long term deals with AMD.
Heck, for all we know, such deals may have already been made. It's pretty amazing to me that AMD did not go out of business. Perhaps Apple made a strategic investment there that kept AMD afloat and will have long term benefits to Apple (that's total speculation, of coursE).
I doubt that Apple invested in AMD. That would be public knowledge. I also don't see the point. Even now, with AMD's new CPU IP they're behind Intel, though not by as much.
The move away from Imagination may be part of an attempt by Apple to take more control over the design of its hardware. Apple was said to be in talks to acquire Imagination early last year, though ultimately no such deal was made.
Apple has also taken time to poach a number of Imagination's staff over the last two years, including GPU architects and designers. These employees could help Apple to produce its own graphics architecture, potentially saving it from having to pay royalty fees to Imagination for using its intellectual property.
According to Imagination's statement, Apple has asserted that it has been "working on a separate, independent graphics design in order to control its products."
Imagination is also seemingly suggesting there could be a legal fight in the future over the in-house graphics architecture move, declaring Apple has not presented any evidence to substantiate its assertion that it will no longer require Imagination's technology, without violating Imagination's patents, intellectual property, and confidential information. While evidence has been requested by Imagination, Apple has declined to provide any to the company.
Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, so in the statement about the matter, Imagination does not accept Apple's assertions. The company has also attempted to discuss potential alternative commercial arrangements with Apple for the current license and royalty agreement.
All this really says is that GPU tech has plateaued. Apple made their own ARM chips because CPU tech plateaued (yes they got faster, but that is a consequence of die shrinks, nothing else. A CPU you bought in 2007 is the same as one you bought in 2017, only faster due to die shrinks.) And we've reached the end of what can be accomplished with die shinks. Any further die shrinks will come with a much larger increase in per chip costs. So don't expect sub 10nm processes in anything for a while. You'll just see multiple refinements of the previous die process with a larger chip that takes more power.
And yes, pretty much GPU tech has plateaued for mobile designs. If you want more GPU power you need to move up to the iPad/Tablet platform and have a much larger battery. There's probably still some more innovation left in the GPU pipe, but like the CPU tech, they're going to be refinements, not leaps.
Hence, Apple will probably just go with their own IP core for the GPU of the mobile devices. Don't expect to see this in Laptops or Desktops where Apple can just buy CPU and GPU's that are suitable. Apple's end-game appears to be to eliminate the desktop/laptop space entirely by making the iphone/ipad your one-and-only computer, and you just drop the iphone into a docking station to get the full iMac/Mac Pro experience *shudder*
I just don't see how neglecting their professional users has done anything but push Mac Users away from the Apple Ecosystem.
Whoa there! You really think that CPUs are the same now as back then, just differing in process technology? That couldn't be more wrong. You really need to read about CPU design. The only thing I can agree with here is the last sentence.
This is a logical and expected move from Apple. It is not for saving a few millions in fees, it is just to have direct and exclusive control of a central part of the platform, the GPU, just like the made with the CPU. In fact it would be logical to negotiate an ARM-like architectural license, that would allow to maintain compatibility with previous parts but also to have an exclusive and tailored inner design (like they did with CPU).
Maintaining the Imagination front-end (for compatibily) is quite important, because it allows to continue using same source code, same SDKs, also same binaries of previous models. It's quite unlikely to provide such a compatibility without a license, think just as an example at the Imagination proprietary format for compressed texture. Else if Apple decides to develop a new design from scratch, different also from an interface and formats point of view (in order not to be sued), then such a major architectural change will need a new SDK, changes to graphic API, change-recompile-test all app using those APIs.
In the end, my guess is that Apple is pushing very hard to negotiate an architectural license.
Apple should simply buy AMD as I told Tim and Phil to.
AMD likely comes with a ton of baggage that Apple does not want.
If possible (and it probably is possible), it's better to make long term deals with AMD.
Heck, for all we know, such deals may have already been made. It's pretty amazing to me that AMD did not go out of business. Perhaps Apple made a strategic investment there that kept AMD afloat and will have long term benefits to Apple (that's total speculation, of coursE).
I doubt that Apple invested in AMD. That would be public knowledge. I also don't see the point. Even now, with AMD's new CPU IP they're behind Intel, though not by as much.
I agree that they wouldn't make an investment in the legal/accounting sense that would require disclosure. But they could do it in the economic sense of the word. From a legal/accounting perspective, it might be a pre-payment for future products. The return on the investment would be discounted price on those future products.
Note that Jim Keller was involved in designing Ryzen. Keller worked at Apple on the A# chips (he also worked previously at AMD; also on the Alpha way back when). So Apple had good reason to believe Ryzen would be a good design and worth the pre-payment.
This is a logical and expected move from Apple. It is not for saving a few millions in fees, it is just to have direct and exclusive control of a central part of the platform, the GPU, just like the made with the CPU. In fact it would be logical to negotiate an ARM-like architectural license, that would allow to maintain compatibility with previous parts but also to have an exclusive and tailored inner design (like they did with CPU).
Maintaining the Imagination front-end (for compatibily) is quite important, because it allows to continue using same source code, same SDKs, also same binaries of previous models. It's quite unlikely to provide such a compatibility without a license, think just as an example at the Imagination proprietary format for compressed texture. Else if Apple decides to develop a new design from scratch, different also from an interface and formats point of view (in order not to be sued), then such a major architectural change will need a new SDK, changes to graphic API, change-recompile-test all app using those APIs.
In the end, my guess is that Apple is pushing very hard to negotiate an architectural license.
It's believed that Apple already has an architectural license.
Apple already has a working GPU. I'd put money on it. The 15-24 months listed isn't how long Apple will take to design a new GPU from scratch. It's how long they'll sell older iOS devices that currently use Imagination GPUs.
Apple should simply buy AMD as I told Tim and Phil to.
AMD likely comes with a ton of baggage that Apple does not want.
If possible (and it probably is possible), it's better to make long term deals with AMD.
Heck, for all we know, such deals may have already been made. It's pretty amazing to me that AMD did not go out of business. Perhaps Apple made a strategic investment there that kept AMD afloat and will have long term benefits to Apple (that's total speculation, of coursE).
I doubt that Apple invested in AMD. That would be public knowledge. I also don't see the point. Even now, with AMD's new CPU IP they're behind Intel, though not by as much.
I agree that they wouldn't make an investment in the legal/accounting sense that would require disclosure. But they could do it in the economic sense of the word. From a legal/accounting perspective, it might be a pre-payment for future products. The return on the investment would be discounted price on those future products.
Note that Jim Keller was involved in designing Ryzen. Keller worked at Apple on the A# chips (he also worked previously at AMD; also on the Alpha way back when). So Apple had good reason to believe Ryzen would be a good design and worth the pre-payment.
If the number was material to AMD's financial position, they would need to announce it. They wouldn't need to say where it came from, but they would need to state that it did come. And then there would be speculation as to where it came from. That's never happened. Remember that AMD's yearly sales are small. If Apple paid even $100 million up front, that would matter.
Apple should simply buy AMD as I told Tim and Phil to.
AMD can not be sold without losing the x86 license...( that's why when the dubai company bought AMD they only own the global foundries and ATI (not sure if an exception would be to an american company)
Apple could buy ATI, but Who knows if I do buy company wants to relinquish ownership of the graphics division...
BTW, Is how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong...
This story is jumping around everywhere. I first thought it was an April Fool's joke, but then I checked the date.
this brings up all sorts of questions.
Yes, I think there is a lot more to this story than anything we will ever hear about: -- Apple poaches employees from a partner -- Apple tries to buy the partner but fails -- Apple walks away from a long term partner and, by doing so, may cause that partner to fail...
I think what we are seeing & reading may be the tip of the iceberg....
the value of small companies is ticklish. If Apple is really trying to obtain them for a lower price, then fine. But as far as I know, Imagination is the one that made this public. Apple's purchasing them or not, or disuse of their IP would have no material value to the Apple in financial terms, but it would have a massive effect on Imagination, so they would need to report it.
Mel, I think it was Apple who made this public which a a bit on an unusual step for them isn't it?
EDIT: Nope it was Imagination who announced it, tho I suppose they would have an obligation to under disclosure rules? Dunno.
Comments
When you make love to an 800 lb gorilla -- you stop when the gorilla gets tired.
Not going to agree/disagree with your statements, but rumors about Apple going with its own GPU are going on for more than 1 year. For example, please read the link http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_might_be_developing_an_inhouse_gpu_for_several_years-news-15452.php which came on Dec-10-2015. So it could mostly be a case of Imagination not getting their future plan sorted out on-time.
And yes, pretty much GPU tech has plateaued for mobile designs. If you want more GPU power you need to move up to the iPad/Tablet platform and have a much larger battery. There's probably still some more innovation left in the GPU pipe, but like the CPU tech, they're going to be refinements, not leaps.
Hence, Apple will probably just go with their own IP core for the GPU of the mobile devices. Don't expect to see this in Laptops or Desktops where Apple can just buy CPU and GPU's that are suitable. Apple's end-game appears to be to eliminate the desktop/laptop space entirely by making the iphone/ipad your one-and-only computer, and you just drop the iphone into a docking station to get the full iMac/Mac Pro experience *shudder*
I just don't see how neglecting their professional users has done anything but push Mac Users away from the Apple Ecosystem.
over the years, Apple bought at least three GPU design firms that I know of, maybe more. In addition, they've applied for well over a dozen GPU related patents themselves.
we can be sure that they've been working on their own designs for some time. Imagination seems to think, from their announcement, that they're the only company producing GPU designs. We can all assure them that it is not so. If Apple does come out with its own GPU, then they have to be pretty sure it's really theirs. But there is nothing stopping Apple from licensing patents from others.
in fact, the industry has had dozens of GPU companies over the decades. Most of these companies had their own patented IP. Many of these patents for basic routines have long expired, and are used by everyone. But an individual, or company is allowed to build on a present patent, and call it theirs. So if a patent comes out, and another company looks at it, and comes out with additional work that takes that original patent, and extends it in a way that adds new functions the original patent didn't accommodate, then they can patent the entire thing as their own. The original patent is still valid.
there could also be cross licensing across the industry.
i see no problems for what Apple is apparently doing. There might be some patent disputes, but that's normal.
as I wrote elsewhere, Imagination has projects and products that Apple has no use for. Their purchase of the assets of MIPS, which they're developing, is just one of those. Then there is the other 50% of the sales, which Apple would likely close down. So what value is Imagination to them? I don't remember the offer Imagination made to Apple, but let's just use an easy number of $1 billion. If half of Imagination's sales aren't Apple, and Apple would close that down, then is the company worth $1 billion, or half that to Apple?
and then, what about the other projects? Apple would either need to close them down too, or try to sell them off. What is MIPS worth?
Apple is not like Google was when it paid far too much for Motorola. Moto was worth $6.5 billion the day Google announced it had bid $12 billion for it. No one knows exactly why Google wanted Moto so badly, but they overpaid by a lot. Normally, if a company is doing well, there's about a 30% premium to the current price, assuming it's a public company.
but if a company isn't doing well, and Imagination wasn't doing well, the the offer may be about the same as the public valuation. If it's private, then anything goes. Companies often think they're more valuable than they are.
an example is Good Technologies. They were one of the first MDM companies. They did well for years, but as others entered the business, they began to decline. About two years ago, they put themselves on the market, and received an offer of almost $1.2 billion. They claimed they were worth more. But, last year, I believe it was, Blackberry bought them for a bit over $600 million.
the value of small companies is ticklish. If Apple is really trying to obtain them for a lower price, then fine. But as far as I know, Imagination is the one that made this public. Apple's purchasing them or not, or disuse of their IP would have no material value to the Apple in financial terms, but it would have a massive effect on Imagination, so they would need to report it.
However, I am starting to have my doubts that Apple will introduce a Mac with an A-Series SoC. While I believe that it would help Apple to grow the Mac into the "lower end of premium" where a vast number of profitable buyers could be had - and allow them to get to that ~15% share (which is all of the profit) they have in smart phones and tablets - I am not certain they are interested.
Whoa there! You really think that CPUs are the same now as back then, just differing in process technology? That couldn't be more wrong. You really need to read about CPU design. The only thing I can agree with here is the last sentence.
Maintaining the Imagination front-end (for compatibily) is quite important, because it allows to continue using same source code, same SDKs, also same binaries of previous models. It's quite unlikely to provide such a compatibility without a license, think just as an example at the Imagination proprietary format for compressed texture. Else if Apple decides to develop a new design from scratch, different also from an interface and formats point of view (in order not to be sued), then such a major architectural change will need a new SDK, changes to graphic API, change-recompile-test all app using those APIs.
In the end, my guess is that Apple is pushing very hard to negotiate an architectural license.
Note that Jim Keller was involved in designing Ryzen. Keller worked at Apple on the A# chips (he also worked previously at AMD; also on the Alpha way back when). So Apple had good reason to believe Ryzen would be a good design and worth the pre-payment.
If the number was material to AMD's financial position, they would need to announce it. They wouldn't need to say where it came from, but they would need to state that it did come. And then there would be speculation as to where it came from. That's never happened. Remember that AMD's yearly sales are small. If Apple paid even $100 million up front, that would matter.
AMD can not be sold without losing the x86 license...( that's why when the dubai company bought AMD they only own the global foundries and ATI (not sure if an exception would be to an american company)
Apple could buy ATI, but Who knows if I do buy company wants to relinquish ownership of the graphics division...
BTW, Is how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong...
EDIT: Nope it was Imagination who announced it, tho I suppose they would have an obligation to under disclosure rules? Dunno.