answer to question: not take, but start a partnership to make a highly customized chip for a new Mac line (perhaps the netbook segment?)
would YOU buy a $500 apple netbook? I would...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Make an Offer to Acquire ARM?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
answer to question: not take, but start a partnership to make a highly customized chip for a new Mac line (perhaps the netbook segment?)
would YOU buy a $500 apple netbook? I would...
Apple is already the third largest market cap company in the world. I can only imagine what would happen to the industry if this deal actually goes through.
So is Google on the phone making a counteroffer? Or do they reckon Agnilux is going to be enough?
So is Google on the phone making a counteroffer? Or do they reckon Agnilux is going to be enough?
At some point a close Google-Apple alliance would have come under serious scrutiny, not just the rumblings so far. Apple and Google playing at competing with each other diffuses this criticism. The two CEOs seem to be on good terms or they wouldn't have bothered with the 'coffee on the street' publicity stunt.
There's a definite rivalry there, but it's as friendly as two companies could be. For example, Apple definitely let the AdMob deal lapse before Google moved in. Steve's rallying speech to the troops about 'Apple didn't go after the search market' sounded more like politics than genuine Google hatred. Enemies in public, friends behind closed doors.
If it comes down to it, I'd rather see Apple owning ARM than Google, whether it's a good idea for Apple to buy ARM or not.
Companies don't need to clear regulatory hurdles or even investigate legal feasibility of an acquisition if they are just talking so that point is invalid.
It's a clear conflict of interest and anyone absoultly is insane for thinking that the FTC would allow it. Do you think that the FTC goes by a company's 'word'? Or that anyone trusts a corporation's 'word'? Business does not work like that.
It makes complete business sense to cut off licensing once you look at the numbers. The smartphone market is the fastest growing sector of electronics. The iPhone brought in $5.5 Billion in revenue just in Quarter 4 (best estimate http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10004900/apples-revenue-per-iphone-revealed-and-its-really-big/). ARM brought in less than $500 Million in revenue last year (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLR33215120091027) and is relatively cheap at a valuation of $8 Billion. Now even if you take this $200 Million licensing fee that is being thrown around here which Apple pays ARM yearly(which I have yet to see evidence for but lets just say its true), it would take 40 years (!) to make back Apple's investment (for just saving licensing fees). Um does anyone here think that makes sense?
Look it's not worth getting angry at something like the lack of HDMI ports on the Macbook Pro. This is worth the anger and the fear. It would kill innovation, present a total monopoly, and upheave the tech market in a negative way. Not good.
That's not the correct comparison... We are talking in buying the raw material manufacture and supply products only to my restaurants and my car dealerships... Apple is not buying ARM because Apple wants to compete with Intel or AMD but because Apple wants the technology to be independent from them...
And this would be very bad. Competition breeds innovation. If Apple completely dominates the market, they will become a Microsoft style monopoly.
I don't want Apple to dominate any market. They are able to innovate as well as they do because they have to compete. Look how little the iPhone has changed since 2007; now the Evo and other more advanced phones are on the way and LOOK! The iPhone is improving massively.
Competition is good for all of us.
No, it's an apt comparison. Because the price they will have to pay for ARM is the value of ARM as an ongoing licensing concern. They don't get a discount just because ARM wouldn't be generating future income from licensing. Paying that amount for the company and not continuing to license would be like throwing away 7 billion dollars.
But the point remains. If ARM costs roughly 8 Billion to acquire then Apple certainly isn't going to take steps to turn them into a cost center. They would be responsible for turning a profit. The payoff for Apple is in being at the forefront of mobile computing from the baremetal all the way up through the OS.
In fact, that very concern you mentioned will likely stop Apple from acquiring ARM Holdings completely because of the fear that Apple could make the ARM instruction code highly proprietary, especially given that most of the world's "smart" cellphones use CPU's based on ARM technology.
Because no one is withholding ARM cores. Intel wants to play in this arena but they can't get down to the low power levels required by phones.
Nah, it seems pretty obvious to me why they would do this. Apple got screwed when Motorola/IBM couldn't keep up with their needs, so they jumped ship to Intel. Now they're getting screwed by Intel on several fronts. They've been unable to keep up with adequate low power embedded CPUs, Atom is a joke. They're always been unable to make embedded graphics that doesn't suck, despite their promises. That by itself isn't a huge problem because Apple could just use Nvidia's chipsets. But now after the dispute and lawsuits between Intel and Nvidia over the Core i3/5/7 lines, Nvidia can't make chipsets for them anymore either. This leaves Apple with a problem they can't solve in their 13" MacBook line. They can't stay with the Core 2 line forever... Since they've already been using ARM chips in their mobile products, and now they have the talent and skills to customize them (iPad). Why not just buy up ARM, become your chip manufacturer and move your entire product line over. Now you'll never be beholden to anyone ever again.
They're trying. MIPS, SuperH, etc. Problem is, they aren't gaining (or have lost) traction against ARM. Presumably if the marketplace got nervous about using an Apple-controlled ARM, these alternatives would become more popular. Frankly, from a technical perspective, the MIPS architecture is quite suited to low power, high performance, applications.
Facts:
Apple Market Cap: 235.06B
1st Quarter (2010) Results: revenue of 10.17B
2nd Quarter (2010) Results: revenue of 13.50B
8B means nothing (or so) to Apple!!!
Which Apple could easily afford (see my earlier point on iPhone revenues)
This all wouldn't bother me if it weren't for these stupid traders that distort the stock market with this speculation BS. It's their idiotic advice that drive the markets, and only further underscore the fact that markets are not rational.