Apple, Intel In Talks Over Chip Manufacturing Deal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blarg44

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2012
71
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Cant Intel see that Apple is the foremost reason why traditional PC market has declined ?[/citation]

That is probably exactly what they see. Hence why they want to grow in the mobile processor market.
 

ssd_pro

Honorable
Oct 15, 2012
30
0
10,530
0
Just remember OS X is still rocking that 7.15 percent total market share of all desktop and notebook systems - systems people actually use to get things done. In the gadget segment they have 54% so I guess that is good business since they only last a year or two before obsolete or broken.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
Makes perfect sense. Intel would rake in billions of dollars every year just making Apples SoC processors for their iDevices. Apple recently bought Anobit (a fabless flash memory company) so they could also get Intel to build custom flash memory for everything from their mobile stuff to their Macbooks and desktops. More billions for Intel.

Apple has often given money to companies it deals with so they can upgrade facilities or buy equipment. With Apples huge cash reserves they could aid Intel in expanding their fab capacity. Building a fab or two would be a drop in the bucket for Apple. Or Apple could build the fabs (and own them) but have Intel manage and operate them (and allow Intel to use some capacity to build their own stuff).

There are so many possibilities it's a wonder they didn't hook up sooner.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]RazorBurn[/nom]Does that mean Intel will be making ARM SoC?[/citation]
It only means that Intel may be baking Apple's custom-ARM CPU wafers just like how Intel will be baking Altera's wafers. Intel does not design the chips, they just put their customers' designs through their foundry process.

I had been saying PCs were about to get hit hard by non-x86 smartphones, tablets and other devices for a while and Intel starting to look for external fab clients seems to indicate Intel expects things to get worse than I imagined earlier than I imagined.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
I cant see the benefit of helping the patent troll. Wouldnt it be better(for intel) to only baking Nvidia consumer GPU chips and run AMD into ground? I know it is kinda bad for consumer, but if u are in Intel's shoe, it completely make sense to run AMD into ground.

 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I cant see the benefit of helping the patent troll. Wouldnt it be better(for intel) to only baking Nvidia consumer GPU chips and run AMD into ground? I know it is kinda bad for consumer, but if u are in Intel's shoe, it completely make sense to run AMD into ground.[/citation]

That's an excellent point. Well, not really, it's pretty ridiculous.

Someone would buy AMD rather than let it die. Maybe Samsung? Maybe IBM? Both companies already produce products superior to anything Intel does in some markets. Samsung for phones, IBM for servers (Power 7+ rapes anything Intel makes). Imagine their design resources and manufacturing capability backing AMD. Ouch.

More than that, imagine the scrutiny Intel would be under if AMD did not exist.

Intel is not worried about AMD, they've been competing with them for nearly 50 years. They are far more worried about Samsung, which by the way has much higher profits than Intel, and can match them in development money if need be. Plus, they can offer a range of products to customers that Intel couldn't dream of. They have a lot of good technology to bundle. Intel? Not so.

Also never forget, AMD owns x86-64, not Intel. Whoever owns AMD gets that leverage.

Intel has no interest in destroying AMD, especially the castrated current version that has no fabs. There are much bigger fish to fry, and those fish have big teeth.
 

Bricktop

Honorable
Apr 22, 2012
32
0
10,530
0
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]I cant see the benefit of helping the patent troll. Wouldnt it be better(for intel) to only baking Nvidia consumer GPU chips and run AMD into ground? I know it is kinda bad for consumer, but if u are in Intel's shoe, it completely make sense to run AMD into ground.[/citation]

Intel can't run AMD into the ground. That would pretty much make Intel a monopoly in the desktop/server/laptop segments. I don't think Intel wants all the headaches that Microsoft experienced in the late 1990's with government lawsuits.

Intel has a conundrum here. Intel's greatest strength is their manufacturing process. This was proven back during the GHz war when AMD proved it could design a more efficient processor than the Pentium 3 & 4. Intel kept pace because it had a more advanced manufacturing process. If they opened up manufacture of ARM-based SOC's with an Intel process, they would improve ARM's reputation of designing power-efficient SOC's. This would create even more competition for Intel-based SOC's. While that may sound like a win-win situation financially, it could eventually force Intel to split into two companies like AMD did, a design company and a foundry.

I imagine if Intel opens its doors to the competition, they will deny access to the latest manufacturing processes. Giving Intel designs priority access to 14nm and 22nm processes. Then give any competing customers (Altera is not a competitor) access to the 32nm process. I imagine this has already been discussed and the reason no agreement has been made is because Apple is not accustomed to being denyed access to the latest and greatest tech.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
With all the talk about a fruity company and baking, I'm getting hungry.

Maybe I'll go get an Apple Pie, unless the damn thing has been patented and I have to pay royalties, or give them a 30% cut on it.
 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74
[citation][nom]Bricktop[/nom]Intel can't run AMD into the ground. That would pretty much make Intel a monopoly in the desktop/server/laptop segments. I don't think Intel wants all the headaches that Microsoft experienced in the late 1990's with government lawsuits. Intel has a conundrum here. Intel's greatest strength is their manufacturing process. This was proven back during the GHz war when AMD proved it could design a more efficient processor than the Pentium 3 & 4. Intel kept pace because it had a more advanced manufacturing process. If they opened up manufacture of ARM-based SOC's with an Intel process, they would improve ARM's reputation of designing power-efficient SOC's. This would create even more competition for Intel-based SOC's. While that may sound like a win-win situation financially, it could eventually force Intel to split into two companies like AMD did, a design company and a foundry. I imagine if Intel opens its doors to the competition, they will deny access to the latest manufacturing processes. Giving Intel designs priority access to 14nm and 22nm processes. Then give any competing customers (Altera is not a competitor) access to the 32nm process. I imagine this has already been discussed and the reason no agreement has been made is because Apple is not accustomed to being denyed access to the latest and greatest tech.[/citation]

Yay someone that makes sense.

Its not an issue of intel sinking AMD as a matter that they cannot.
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40
Apple probably wants Intel to pay them to manufacture their chips.

The problem is when you have 2 companies who only care about money and could care less about each other, all that will happen is the iConsumer will be paying more in the end, as if the iCrap isn't expensive enough already.
 

kartu

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
959
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Cant Intel see that Apple is the foremost reason why traditional PC market has declined ?[/citation]
Oh yeah, we wouldn't have mp3 players, or PDAs wouldn't become phones, or tablets won't stop costing 2k $, if not Apple...
 

kartu

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
959
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]Bricktop[/nom]This was proven back during the GHz war when AMD proved it could design a more efficient processor than the Pentium 3 & 4. Intel kept pace because it had a more advanced manufacturing process. [/citation]

What on earth are you talking about???
Prescott was:
1) SLOWER than Athlon 64
2) CONSUMED MORE POWER than Athlon 64
3) Required more expensive (and effectively unupgradeable) motherboard, than Athlon 64
4) AND WAS MORE EXPENSIVE than Athlon 64

Yet Prescott sold times better than Athlon 64.

Where is a "superior process" in this, PRETTY PLEASE? Is it an euphemism for "abusing monopolistic powers"? (oh, and you don't need to have 100% of the market to be a monopolist, 80-90% Intel has is more than enough)
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Cant Intel see that Apple is the foremost reason why traditional PC market has declined ?[/citation]
The traditional PC market has declined only in the first world. Everywhere else smartphones and tablets are usually complementary devices.
 

billgatez

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2012
225
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom] AMD owns x86-64, not Intel. Whoever owns AMD gets that leverage.
The 64 licence is nontransferable so who ever gets AMD would not get it. so intel could continue to make 64 bit chips.
 

john_e

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2010
49
0
18,530
0
Whats the reason Apples wants Intel again? They burned their bridges with Samsung and other manufactures?
The only good thing about Intel making CPU for Apple's PC's was that you could make the IOS work on normals PC's. Guess we won't be seeing those days again.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
[citation][nom]john_e[/nom]Whats the reason Apples wants Intel again? They burned their bridges with Samsung and other manufactures?The only good thing about Intel making CPU for Apple's PC's was that you could make the IOS work on normals PC's. Guess we won't be seeing those days again.[/citation]
You mean Mac OS X.

And boot linux and windows on the Apple PCs.
 

iNerd

Honorable
Mar 8, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
Another site indeed said that Intel is in talks with Apple about making next generation i-products for mobile devices. They'll start out as foundry but try to work in x86 based products by 2015. Intel is no doubt busy showing off their 22nm ATOM CPUs and probably what they'll be doing with 14nm ATOM as well to Apple. It will be interesting to see if Apple does include x86 products in their future i-mobile stuff.
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
2,175
0
19,860
37
if fab 42 is up and running soon which it is usppossed to be this year 1st half then if they are going to do chips at 14nm that could be good news for apple and and android users if it is a ARm processor that they plan to bering to the market /drool i want 14nm goodness for a super efficient phone chip
 

sundragon

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
534
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]Apple probably wants Intel to pay them to manufacture their chips.The problem is when you have 2 companies who only care about money and could care less about each other, all that will happen is the iConsumer will be paying more in the end, as if the iCrap isn't expensive enough already.[/citation]

“iCrap” and “iConsumer” make you sound like an Android tool. How about respecting everyone’s right to choose something other than your choice.

Back to the point - If Intel can make money and Apple leverage their 22/14nm tri-gate technology - both companies win...
Apple's looking for ways not to have to use Samsung and this is one. By not using Samsung, there will be less possibility for patent suits – added benefit.

[citation][nom]john_e[/nom]Whats the reason Apples wants Intel again? They burned their bridges with Samsung and other manufactures?The only good thing about Intel making CPU for Apple's PC's was that you could make the IOS work on normals PC's. Guess we won't be seeing those days again.[/citation]

LOL, Samsung doesn't want Apple to leave, they are a cash cow. Samsung makes more money from Apple than any other manufacturer – All the screens, SOCs, memory – The ~$1 Billion (more or less) lawsuit does not make a dent in the profits they are getting, aside from access to Apple’s industrial design and insight into their future products.

[citation][nom]john_e[/nom]Whats the reason Apples wants Intel again? They burned their bridges with Samsung and other manufactures?The only good thing about Intel making CPU for Apple's PC's was that you could make the IOS work on normals PC's. Guess we won't be seeing those days again.[/citation]

Do you realize iOS is a mobile OS, there's no reason to run it on PCs?

You also realize Mac OS X used to be a PowerPC OS until Apple ported it to Intel chips. Almost any OS can be ported. Windows 8 was ported to ARM chips.

RE - Apple burning bridges, read above...

Sent from my Nexus 7
 

sundragon

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2008
534
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]What on earth are you talking about???Prescott was:1) SLOWER than Athlon 642) CONSUMED MORE POWER than Athlon 643) Required more expensive (and effectively unupgradeable) motherboard, than Athlon 64 4) AND WAS MORE EXPENSIVE than Athlon 64Yet Prescott sold times better than Athlon 64.Where is a "superior process" in this, PRETTY PLEASE? Is it an euphemism for "abusing monopolistic powers"? (oh, and you don't need to have 100% of the market to be a monopolist, 80-90% Intel has is more than enough)[/citation]

I think when he means "process" he's referring to the method that chips are produced = 22nm/14nm Intel tick/tock. Add Tri-Gate vs 2D transistors and their process to produce chips are a little ahead of AMD and ARM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS