Apple to Make an Offer to Acquire ARM?

[koobcamuk]

I have no clue on the regulatory feasibility of this, but seems like if it were allowed to happen, and apple were to prevent others from using arm chips. it could kill a huge portion of the mobile segment.

I am sure this would not be allowed in Europe... let's see what happens I suppose.

I guess other mobile will have to start using different chips, that's all.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

ARM processors got where they are today by being reasonably available, adaptable, and licensable. The competition to have the best ARM implementations has led to great innovation. If Apple takes the whole thing, the processor will stagnate. Meanwhile other, open solutions will arise for the rest of the market. They won't be left behind for long.

Except how many years would that take?

 

[miniConvert]

I don't see how Apple acquiring ARM could ever be a good thing. I suppose it might give them a leg up for a few years, but competitors will soon fill the gap.

The only way that this could be positive would be if Apple actually plans to invest in ARM and use its influence to define the future direction of the mobile industry. But it's hard to imagine, they'd be much more likely to be anti-competitive. I suppose they have WebKit in their corner...

 

[Lone Deranger]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the rumour that intel's also on the look-out for a similar technology company.

 

[ricke46]

Nah, you gotta think big picture.

Apple buys ARM = Apple gets a cut of every single Google Android set sold!

You buy an iPhone -- Apple profits.

You DON'T buy an iPhone -- Apple profits!

Good point.

 

[christian_k]

You'll have to jailbreak any phone to run an unsigned app. And btw just because every search engine does it, it doesn't make it ok.

This is not true. Allmost any phone that has J2ME can run unsigned Apps without any hacks.

Christian

 

[crees!]

Won't happen!!
I have zero understanding of such laws but I have loads of common sense though.
IT WON'T HAPPEN!!!!!

And that's the problem these days. Common sense almost always trumps law.

 

[mac ath]

Who said anything about not licensing? Why would apple pay $8B for a company and eliminate its revenue stream?

exactly!

 

[tobyw7]

By any stretch of imagination, this would be massive!

 

[Tower-Union]

And that's the problem these days. Common sense almost always trumps law.

Shouldn't laws conform to common sense?

 

[Glideslope]

Shouldn't laws conform to common sense?

No.Political Interests.

 

[bigwig]

The Register accurately points out that this would "send shockwaves" throughout the industry, as Apple would be able to withhold such chips from their competitors.

No they wouldn't. They'd still have to honor existing license agreements.

 

[bigwig]

This will stifle innovation... The FTC may have something to say about this

Stifle innovation? What about Intel? Aren't they big enough to compete?

 

[iBug2]

This is not true. Allmost any phone that has J2ME can run unsigned Apps without any hacks.

Christian

Then what's the point of the company signing certain apps if you can run any app without breaking warranty?

 

[Ca$hflow]

This is why Apple hasn't given dividends.

This is very wise for apple to do. Why kill the golden goose when it keeps laying golden eggs? By not giving dividends it gives apple the opportunity to become flush with cash and then have opportunities to make acquisitions later with cash and NOT DEBT! Debt is what is bringing the country down. There is a lesson here to be learned.

 

[Ca$hflow]

This is what goes through my head:

Apple buys ARM. Continues to make money off of licensing, keeping custom projects solely proprietary for Apple. Enables more complete control of product design from both hardware and software end.

Eventually, Apple incorporates ARM A4 derivatives into all of its devices. A new version of OSX (perhaps 11?) will be written to be platform native to ARM. This would allow essentially "full", unfettered OSXI to be running on all Apple devices. The only difference would be the "depth" of the user experience; those users wanting to to only iPad-like app stuff would boot up with the A4 only and enjoy ridiculously long battery life. Users wishing to do more heavy lifting or content-creation could boot up into a more OSX-looking version.

Of course eventually these devices would all be totally interoperable, as would all apps on them. Imagine having a version of "Pages" that you could purchase over the air through the App Store that, once installed, contained a version that looked and operated differently based on the product you use it with. For example, when using your iPad it would look iPad-ish. When you dock your iPad (maybe even inside a giant Apple monitor?) or connect it to your workstation iMac or Mac Pro, all the files immediately transfer and your Pages app can be used on the iMac etc in "full computer" mode.

Apple has all the tech and the framework already right there to do this. All they need is a massive server architecture (under construction) a robust MobileMe option to keep everything succinct (in progress, needs development), a portable netbook replacement thingy to push the envelope of portable device computing (iPad, in its infancy), and the design and technical capability to run different versions of its software on different chipsets and architectures without compromising usability. Buying ARM would enable more flowing software-hardware integration.

I can see the day when ARM stuff powers all Apple devices and works very well due to contiguous designing of both software and hardware for optimized performance. Imagine a Macbook with chained-together super powered A4 incarnations enabling something like a WEEK of battery life with the capability to boot into iPhone OS or OSX depending upon user wishes? In fact, go one step further and enable the iPad over time to achieve all the capabilities of the Macbook line.

It's going to happen. All the dominos are set up.

All we need now is for pinky to execute this master plan.

 

[fuziwuzi]

apple has been struggling with CPU availability for decades. i think they would want to manufacture and design their own, and offer products that no one else would.

but the idea of apple taking over a widely used cpu design is very very scary

 

[bigwig]

Apple do seem to be increasingly involved in creating customised chips for its svelte, low power devices. A good example was when Apple asked Intel to build a custom chip for the MBA. But reliance on a 3rd party company to produce custom kit for you can be troublesome

The lack of an MBA update fuels my speculation that Apple could produce a dual-core A9 MBA with ATI graphics. That thing would smoke the current Intel design, in both performance and battery life.

 

[peterdevries]

Speak for yourself. I believe there is a growing number of Mac users who are not pleased with Apple's actions regarding media distribution and now it seems their intentions of controlling the availability of hardware.

Take it easy. It's a rumor and all speculation about Apple's intention regarding ARM is just that: speculation.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Apple WILL acquire ARM AND even more so there is no evidence towards Apple strategy regarding current ARM customers even if they DO acquire them.

 

[Fraaaa]

The lack of an MBA update fuels my speculation that Apple could produce a dual-core A9 MBA with ATI graphics. That thing would smoke the current Intel design, in both performance and battery life.

 

[Winni]

If Apple bought ARM, nothing would change for the first couple of years. There are contracts in place with their licensees, and Apple cannot invalidate them directly after a takeover.

In other words, the rest of the industry would have a couple of years time to develop an alternative, probably engineered and owned by Intel. In the end, Apple would once again just own an incompatible niche technology and the rest of the world would be using something completely different. Apple wouldn't win anything by this move, they would just have some higher walls around their already walled in garden.

The smartest move that Apple could make to thwart their competition would be to license iPhone OS to every interested party and to allow competing AppStores. Just imagine they could talk business partners into giving them 10% (instead of the 30% that Apple currently gets) on each sale without having to provide any infrastructure for that. Such a success would be Microsoft's wet dream.

But... Steve Jobs does not want to share. He will rather stand by and watch Android's rise and see the iPhone OS platforms sink into insignificance.

Apple once owned the personal computer market with the Apple II. Instead of licensing that platform to others, he watched how Microsoft took ownership of the desktop computer market. Now he's doing the same with the iPhone (and iPad).

In a year from now, Android will have a higher market share than the iPhone. In two years from now, Android powered gadgets will be the dominating technology and Apple will be playing the role of the pissed niche player again, whining about how everybody stole their ideas and technologies. Well. After all, that marketing concept has worked quite well for the Macintosh and its user base for decades now.

 

[Winni]

apple has been struggling with CPU availability for decades. i think they would want to manufacture and design their own, and offer products that no one else would.

They have already done that. It was called PowerPC and did not work out very well for them. Otherwise they wouldn't have had an incentive to switch to Intel processors.

Besides, Apple is already offering products that nobody else offers. They are called Mac OS X and iPhone OS. But the truth is that more than 90% of the customers out there don't want those products. They rather use competing products.

My guess is that it has something to do with the total vendor lock-in. In the PC world, you have millions of choices. In Apple land, you just have a fistful. True innovation only happens in the PC world exactly because of that - people can use an industry standard software platform and do with it whatever they want. In Apple land, you are not even allowed to program the damn BlueTooth interface of the iPhone. (Which was the reason why a German university had to move a research project to a different platform. Apple's ridiculous SDK EULA effectively killed innovation on the iPhone platform.)

 

[MikeDTyke]

If Apple bought ARM, nothing would change for the first couple of years. There are contracts in place with their licensees, and Apple cannot invalidate them directly after a takeover.

In other words, the rest of the industry would have a couple of years time to develop an alternative, probably engineered and owned by Intel. In the end, Apple would once again just own an incompatible niche technology and the rest of the world would be using something completely different. Apple wouldn't win anything by this move, they would just have some higher walls around their already walled in garden.

The smartest move that Apple could make to thwart their competition would be to license iPhone OS to every interested party and to allow competing AppStores. Just imagine they could talk business partners into giving them 10% (instead of the 30% that Apple currently gets) on each sale without having to provide any infrastructure for that. Such a success would be Microsoft's wet dream.

But... Steve Jobs does not want to share. He will rather stand by and watch Android's rise and see the iPhone OS platforms sink into insignificance.

Apple once owned the personal computer market with the Apple II. Instead of licensing that platform to others, he watched how Microsoft took ownership of the desktop computer market. Now he's doing the same with the iPhone (and iPad).

In a year from now, Android will have a higher market share than the iPhone. In two years from now, Android powered gadgets will be the dominating technology and Apple will be playing the role of the pissed niche player again, whining about how everybody stole their ideas and technologies. Well. After all, that marketing concept has worked quite well for the Macintosh and its user base for decades now.

And the licencing of Mac OS to all those cloners like Power Computing, that went so very well for them too. (For those that don't remember, they ate Apple's lunch and nearly killed Apple off)

As vertical integrator it makes zero sense to licence iPhone OS unless you want to get out of the hardware business. Doing that reduces your take from ~$200 per handset to about ~$20 a handset. As Apple already owns between 20 & 30% of the smartphone marketplace, that would be a moronic move.

If Microsoft couldn't make a profit out of licencing windows mobile, how in hell do you think Apple could do it, especially with Android licencing at $0?

As long as Android remains a desparate collection of incompatible versions/screen sizes/hardware features, it has no chance of being the Windows of the handset market.

History in this case will NOT repeat itself.

 

[kamiboy]

Well.... Apple really needs a processor of their own if they want to be in control of every aspect of their hardware. And mobile computing devices like the iPhone/iPad are the future and they will eventually supersede clunky legacies of computing past like the laptops and desktops.

So in doing this Apple is taking the final steps to making themselves a completely self contained computing company of the future.

So, in short, I for one welcome our new Apple overlords.

 

[blackcrayon]

. True innovation only happens in the PC world

If by "PC world" you mean "companies other than Apple", then that's pretty ridiculous. Unless you have some other definition of "innovation".

I'd also guess that fairly few people care about this "vendor lockin" you're describing, at with least mainstream customers. They probably care mostly about price. I have yet to hear anyone talk about this "lockin" outside of computer forums, and usually then it's seriously overblown. I can see how developers of some types of apps are limited by Apple's mobile device policies though.