Why hasn't Apple acquired Intel?

[bunnspecial]

This is something I need to research, as I was told it a while back but haven't actually validated. I'll try to do so sometime today and post if it's actually true.

In any case, as most of you know, Intel and AMD are sort of mutually dependent on each other now and probably for a long time to come.

Intel owns and developed the x86 architecture, while the AMD-64 architecture is-obviously-an AMD product. Intel has an AMD-64 license, and AMD has an x86 license. Again, at this point, neither really exists as a viable company without using the others' technology, since all the mainstream CPUs from AMD and Intel use the x86-64 architecture.

What I have been told, and again I'd like to research and confirm this, is that the license exists in perpetuity as long as both companies retain their current ownership status. If one company gets sold, the license goes away, and that company is effectively up a creek.

I'd really like to find out the truth about that, because if it is indeed the case, it ain't happening no way no how regardless of the money involved.

 

[phrehdd]

Frankly, it would make much more sense for Apple to acquire Nvidia or AMD.

I would tend to agree this would (if there must be) a smarter buy for Apple for various reasons.

 

[Michael Goff]

Please, Geekbench is utterly meaningless for cross-platform comparisons. Look at real applications. In browser tests, iPad Air is always around two (or more) times slower than a Core M with a comparable TDP. Apple and ARM have a long way to go until they can match Intel's performance. Intel is just so far ahead when it comes to research on superscalar architectures. To get there, ARM needs to give up what originally defined ARM (which already started happening btw). I mean, look at AMD — they used to have much faster CPUs, but now they are struggling. Why? Because Intel had more luck, they have developed an architecture around a decade ago (Pentium Pro) which has proven itself to be surprisingly scalable. Does Apple have an architecture with this much potential? Maybe. But until they can unlock that potential, it is very likely that Intel will move ahead again.

How much of that is because of every other part of the computers?

 

[mcfrazieriv]

Disclaimer: I am not a corporate guru. I am also not an idiot.

Apple frequently acquires other companies, primarily for future innovation possibilities, and to control their production stream.

So, that being said, why hasn't Apple acquired Intel to better control the chip delays, which seems to be Apple's albatross as far as production delays go. At least an investment sufficient to obtain 51% control?

Because Intel isn't the future of low powered mobility.

 

[Eldiablojoe]

My year-ago self thanks you for your timely reply.

 

[Kaspersky]

In the post PC era Intel is irrelevant to Apple.