Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple in Talks to Buy Israeli Flash Storage Company Anobit for Over $400 Million

mijail said:
Looks like Apple uses memory from Hynix, which reportedly uses Anobit's tech. I Am Not A Lawyer or anything, but I'd guess it'd be Hynix who would have an IP relation with Anobit, not Apple.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In semi-conductors, it's quite common practice to sell the semi-conductors without a license to the IP in them and leave IP licensing to the purchaser of said semi conductors.

It's not because you're using a part that you're using all it's internal functionality, thus it might make sense to not have to pay for a license to all the IP in question.

mijail said:
Any reason to think Apple was licensing the IP themselves?
Click to expand...

This is a rumor and as such, discussion does not require we go all "evidence and fact". We're discussing to discuss. Any reason to think Apple was not licensing the IP themselves ? :rolleyes:

Looks, we're low on facts (I sense repeating here), so frankly, any possibility is open.
 
Leaking this info seems to benefit Anobit far more than Apple. Since it was leaked to an Israeli news source, it makes me think someone from Anobit is trying to create a bidding war where one doesn't exist or boost the perceived value of the company if someone else is interested in buying.
 
KnightWRX said:
It's not because you're using a part that you're using all it's internal functionality, thus it might make sense to not have to pay for a license to all the IP in question.
Click to expand...

That's a possibility. However I guess that's more typical for systems-on-a-chip, where you could have very different functionalities together. Like a chip which implements WiFi and Bluetooth, but you only want to use one of them.

Meanwhile, looks like Anobit makes memory controllers. Quite specific, I'd guess.

KnightWRX said:
This is a rumor and as such, discussion does not require we go all "evidence and fact". We're discussing to discuss.
Click to expand...

And supposing whatever one wants to suppose, huh?

You supposed Apple was licensing that IP. I asked why you'd suppose that. Is that not "discuss to discuss"?

KnightWRX said:
Any reason to think Apple was not licensing the IP themselves ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The simple fact that Apple doesn't seem to manufacture flash memory nor memory controllers. :rolleyes:
 
wikus said:
I'd rather have SLC over MLC.

Although, I have to wonder if Apple's recent lawsuits against the entire industry has forced them to find alternatives, I can't imagine Samsung being too happy providing any more services for Apple.
Click to expand...

why would Samsung turn down future profits?
 
Henriok said:
Or…*They are buying this company for its patent portfolio. It everyone in the industry is using their technology, there could be an opening for a lawsuit. Perhaps against Samsung?
Click to expand...

If you believe this is Apple's thinking, to buy companies so they can file lawsuits, wow.
 
MultiMediaWill said:
Flash storage is stupid. The cloud is the future.
Click to expand...

I disagree partially. While the cloud has a lot of benefits, so does flash. Examples:

-What happens if your network connection fails? No more access to your files.

-What about privacy? Do you want your health info or nation security secrets off in some random company's servers?

To be fair, the cloud offers some benefits:

-Additional backup

-Access your files from multiple devices easier

I think the cloud and flash go hand in hand, not be mutually exclusive.
 
Henriok said:
Or…*They are buying this company for its patent portfolio. It everyone in the industry is using their technology, there could be an opening for a lawsuit. Perhaps against Samsung?
Click to expand...

Where does it say that "everyone in the industry is using their technology"? I am asking because there seems to be rather little concrete information about licensees.

And if anyone was using it, they surely would be lincensees. How could they be sued?
 
mijail said:
The simple fact that Apple doesn't seem to manufacture flash memory nor memory controllers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They don't manufacture radio chipsets either yet they must license the IP from Nokia, Motorola and others and do not receive an automatic license from Qualcomm. ;)

Again, common in semi-conductors. Not because your memory controller supports all said IP that you're using and thus paying for a license from your vendor might not make as much sense.

So frankly, I think you're a bit out of line asking for so much evidence before we can freely discuss. Feel free to not subscribe to my rantings on the subjects, but you have no more evidence than I do and your anecdotes are worth as much as mine.
 
MultiMediaWill said:
Flash storage is stupid. The cloud is the future.
Click to expand...

Good Lord I hate that stupid buzzword so much. "In the cloud!" The "cloud" is just a damn server somewhere. Servers use HDDs/SSDs for storage.

Also, why would you want to have everything on a server somewhere? Why would you not want local storage on your laptop/phone/etc.?
 
Another example of Apple looking to boost product longevity, keeping customers by making them stay happy, instead of by letting their current purchase stop satisfying them quickly? (Compare to the rapid obsolescence of Android phones and bottom-end Windows laptops?)
 
Stridder44 said:
Good Lord I hate that stupid buzzword so much. "In the cloud!" The "cloud" is just a damn server somewhere. Servers use HDDs/SSDs for storage.

Also, why would you want to have everything on a server somewhere? Why would you not want local storage on your laptop/phone/etc.?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The whole point of cloud storage is that there isn't enough local storage for everything you want to have. So you move certain things to the cloud, to make room for other things on your local machine.

Local storage will always exist AND always be important. It can't be any other way. Even if 95% of your data goes into the cloud, the most important 5% is what will still be on your machine.
 
KnightWRX said:
So frankly, I think you're a bit out of line asking for so much evidence before we can freely discuss. Feel free to not subscribe to my rantings on the subjects, but you have no more evidence than I do and your anecdotes are worth as much as mine.
Click to expand...

Defensive much?
I asked why you were supposing that; your answer tantamounts to "why not". OK, that's what I was expecting to hear. :rolleyes:

Because I of course have absolutely no idea of why things like company A buying company B do happen, so I always wonder where all the experts here did get their so precise knowledge.
 
Intarweb said:
If you believe this is Apple's thinking, to buy companies so they can file lawsuits, wow.
Click to expand...

Every company acquires IP for the purpose of extending their patent portfolio and to protect against IP lawsuits (or be able to launch them).

Everyone. Apple isn't different in this regard.

That said, it isn't likely they are spending this kind of money just to extend their IP portfolio. They have a need for this IP to make their products better. They have an absurd amount of cash in hand, so why not purchase them?

But if they could leverage this IP in some sort of court battle, you better believe they will.
 
mijail said:
Defensive much?
Click to expand...

Surprised much ? Read what you type :

mijail said:
so I always wonder where all the experts here did get their so precise knowledge.
Click to expand...

I never pretended to be an expert nor to be citing facts born of intimate knowledge. I clearly labeled my thoughts as a "possibility", not some factual "this is how it's going down" thing. :rolleyes:

Don't attack people and they won't be on the defensive.

Now do you have something noteworthy to provide to this discussion or can we stop this sub-thread ?
 
KnightWRX said:
I never pretended to be an expert nor to be citing facts born of intimate knowledge. I clearly labeled my thoughts as a "possibility", not some factual "this is how it's going down" thing. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, and another "possibility" is Apple being governed by an extraterrestrial race of lizards hellbent on enslaving us all.
Beware! I didn't say that is factual or whatever. Just a "possibility".

(in case it is not clear, the point is: "possibilities" with no reasoning or basis on reality can be pretty, well, funny. That's why I asked for your reasons. You haven't them; it's OK. I just try to filter who should I pay attention to. Feel free to continue with your rants, of course.)

KnightWRX said:
Don't attack people and they won't be on the defensive.
Click to expand...

I didn't attack, I asked why you were supposing that.
Did that make you feel attacked? So sorry.

KnightWRX said:
Now do you have something noteworthy to provide to this discussion or can we stop this sub-thread ?
Click to expand...

If I do, will you too?
 
Last edited:
wikus said:
I'd rather have SLC over MLC.

Although, I have to wonder if Apple's recent lawsuits against the entire industry has forced them to find alternatives, I can't imagine Samsung being too happy providing any more services for Apple.
Click to expand...

Many in the industry actually need TLC instead of lawsuits. Maybe that is the problem?
 
MultiMediaWill said:
Flash storage is stupid. The cloud is the future.
Click to expand...

That is only true given the following:

1) The network is 100% available - it isn't
2) The network is 100% reliable - it isn't
3) The network's cost don't prohibit use case - the costs are increasing and provide caps for use
4) The user desires to store all files outside of their control - they don't


The cloud and flash storage both need to exist in the future strategy. Anyone proposing an all or nothing strategy with EITHER is clueless.
 
Yep, THIS!

I, too, am really tired of the cloud this, cloud that....

Goes to show you can give something a new name and pretend it's an innovation, and suckers fall for it.

Back when computers were still a recent invention, the ONLY way you used them was via some type of "dumb terminal" which was little more than a keyboard and a display, wired up to the mainframe or minicomputer back in a server room someplace. We broke free of that "outdated/archaic/limited" design model when the personal computer revolution took hold, giving people their own fully functioning machine right on their desk.

Fast-forward to the last decade or so, and it become some "amazing new concept" to sell people "thin client" computers, which were simply the OLD computing model, revisited, except supporting modern day operating systems like Microsoft Windows, complete with a mouse and full color high-res display.

Imagine the BENEFITS ... lower cost of deployment and centralized control/administration! Yeah, JUST like computers always worked in the old days!

Now we're doing the same thing with our storage.... Don't manage it yourself! Put it in the "cloud" instead! (Again, go back to the earliest days of computing when terminals didn't have mass storage devices attached to them and everything was saved on the server, and backups handled by the systems administration people.)

Don't get me wrong... I think cloud computing has appropriate uses. My point is, if you strip away all the hype though, you realize it's just giving you an "option B" for handling your apps or data, besides doing it yourself on your own equipment. It means things have come full-circle, except now you can "mix and match" the cloud storage with local storage, and host your apps locally OR on the cloud, as you see fit.


Stridder44 said:
Good Lord I hate that stupid buzzword so much. "In the cloud!" The "cloud" is just a damn server somewhere. Servers use HDDs/SSDs for storage.

Also, why would you want to have everything on a server somewhere? Why would you not want local storage on your laptop/phone/etc.?
Click to expand...
 
Stridder44 said:
Good Lord I hate that stupid buzzword so much. "In the cloud!" The "cloud" is just a damn server somewhere. Servers use HDDs/SSDs for storage.
Click to expand...

Not 'entirely' true. THe cloud isn't just a server somewhere. The cloud is a highly available infrastructure where you can access your information wherever you have access to the network. While putting the world in the cloud is complete lunacy, the cloud from an architectural construct is a lot different that just "a server somewhere".
 
gregorypierce said:
Not 'entirely' true. THe cloud isn't just a server somewhere. The cloud is a highly available infrastructure where you can access your information wherever you have access to the network. While putting the world in the cloud is complete lunacy, the cloud from an architectural construct is a lot different that just "a server somewhere".
Click to expand...

Hum, what you described is just "a server somewhere". :rolleyes: That's what the cloud is, basically the good old Client/Server model.
 
Does Apple build anything in the United States?!?!

They should just move over seas somewhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back