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
Snapdragon is an ARM based product. The A4 isn't a Snapdragon. It's most likely a Hummingbird design by Intrinsity (which Apple is alleged to own now) and fabbed by Samsung.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/evidence-for-intrinsity-in-the-ipad
It would explain the "unexplained" increase in size of the A4 die. 1-in-N signalling takes a lot more space than normal static CMOS.
Google is a horrible company to do business with I know from first hand experience. Any nonsense you hear about Apple being difficult in any realm is nothing compared to the ridiculous mistreatment that google provides businesses they depend on for their revenue.
So since everyone copied the iPhone, Google didn't? That seems to be misapplied logic.
C copied B and B copied A but C did not copy A because somehow magically B might have come up with A on their own but not really with any evidence, so C did not Copy A. Although I want to say they didn't copy B either because they are cool and stuff and make a search engine, so C ended up like A just because and stuff.
Standard for most lawyers. Because they are always giving people the business.
, right Esquire?OK. I'm tired and will quit this thread. Its clear that many folks just don't understand Apple, as evidenced once again by the above quote.
Apple's strong suit is neither hardware nor software... its product design. They create the best designed products by controlling as much of the hardware and software as possible... and by using product design to create platforms that nurture and leverage entire ecosystems of 3rd-party hardware and software manufacturers. Vertical integration enables Apple to create the best designed products because it enables them to pay obsessive attention to every detail of the design.
However, you are on to something when you mention "interface". Controlling the interface design is crucial to superior product design. That's why MacOS only runs on Apple-designed computer hardware; it gives Apple complete control of the hardware/software interface. Apple also uses "interface" to nurture and control 3rd-party ecosystems: witness the proprietary iPod dock connector (hardware interface) that controls the ecosystem of 3rd-party iPod hardware accessories and the iTunes software interface (not to mention various APIs) that controls the ecosystem of 3rd-party iPod software "accessories". In fact, Apple tries hard to create designs that make the interface disappear or go away entirely: human-machine interfaces are always as simple and fluid as possible; Mac computers have always had an excellent "fit & finish" because the pieces fit together so snugly... now with unibody construction many MBP pieces are merged into one and many interfaces go away entirely. But to control any interface, you (usually) need to control both sides and that requires vertical integration. (Software API's seem to violate this rule. You control the API when you control the OS; you don't need to control the software application as well.)
Apple just does this amazing dance which focuses on the ENTIRE product as an integrated whole and not just once piece. They are neither a software company nor a hardware company. They are neither a computer company nor a music/video gadget company nor a cell-phone company. Buying ARM will not make them a chip designer or manufacturer either; it will just make them more vertically integrated. These are just pieces of products. Apple make PRODUCTS writ large. You don't buy just a laptop from Apple, you buy into an entire system of laptop/cell-phone/book-reader/music-player/video-watching lifestyle devices whose designs are all integrated and interconnected. E.g., the new inertial trackpads on the updated MBP line now work like the iPhone/iTouch/iPad touch screens.
Okay, either you understand the Jobs/Apple vision or you don't. That's all I have to say.
My point is if it is a profitable and viable business opportunity, why is nobody competing in the space?
Do you think the people qualified to magically fill the void exist and will magnetically come together if for some reason Apple bought ARM and restricted distribution?
It takes a little bit more than a hole in the marketplace. I would say with them having such an overwhelming marketshare that the market exists. So if the pieces really did easily sit out there to compete someone would bring them together because with one major player with the overwhelming share of the market there is a lot of pie to take from them.
In other words, one person in a business in not much worse than none. There is still a ton of opportunity. Intel has billions to spend attacking this issue, and I am sure would love nothing more to dominate in the same area but can't.
People have this idea that if Apple pulled these resources off the table they would magically be replicated in no time. Cmaier's experiences with AMD tell you how important the people are in such developments, and thus there is zero guarantee that someone be able to readily fill the void with chips that are nearly as capable.
Sure someone would provide something, but the odds of it being as good any time soon would be very small, in my opinion. Or like I said, someone else would already be doing it.
If Intel evaporated tomorrow, would someone show up in the next 36 months magically capable of making better cpus? Not likely.
I am not saying it makes sense for Apple to buy ARM, or if they did to stop distribution to other companies. I am saying that if they did so, it would have a dramatic impact on those who require those components for mobile applications. For those people who competed with Apple directly, it would be the most severe, because they would likely be left with using vastly inferior counterparts for many years.
if(rumor == false)
{
Hey Steve, you rock!
}
else
{
Whose liver did he get, anyway, Lex Luthor?
}
{
Hey Steve, you rock!
}
else
{
Whose liver did he get, anyway, Lex Luthor?
}
Unless Apple agrees to keep supplying the chips (although probably at a premium and always a generation behind their own version).
It would mean an incredible revenue source for Apple.. And of course more control..
I wouldn't mind seeing Apple get back into hardware design. From what I have read of Apple's history, the early designs for hardware were a little bit ahead of their time.
A lot has changed in the last 30 years and Apple now has considerable experience with hardware. It would also shield Apple from unscrupulous competition by ensuring supply for the more essential parts of their machines.
A lot has changed in the last 30 years and Apple now has considerable experience with hardware. It would also shield Apple from unscrupulous competition by ensuring supply for the more essential parts of their machines.
I'm curious to know what Agnilux was working on. I think people are getting a little punchy over Google for nothing.
Other than the Nexus ONE Goog hasn't shown a whole lot of interest in delivering hardware directly to consumers.
Apple and ARM go back to the Acorn days and Newton. If I'm ARM Holdings (which I'm not) I'm feeling a lot more comfortable about an Apple acquisition than Google who seems to be all over the place and a bit unfocused lately.
Why not spend the money to develop their own non-ARM architecture, that is superior to the current CPU's. This would give them 'bragging rights' that they used back in the Non-Intel days and it would prevent the **** storm that a purchase like this would generate.
With that said, I would like to see them try. Really. The ensuing drama over this would be quite entertaining, popcorn worthy indeed.
With that said, I would like to see them try. Really. The ensuing drama over this would be quite entertaining, popcorn worthy indeed.
It takes years to design a chip, get manufacturing yields, and bring it to market, even assuming you could match all the great low-power technology in ARM, which you probably couldn't. Even Intel, with all its resources and expertise, is struggling with mobile chips. By the time anyone else came up with a true competitor, Apple would rule the world. I do think it'd be likely that regulators would step in and either block this sale or hamstring it severely.
But, isn't this the kind of bold, industry-shaking move you want to see Apple do with that huge pile of cash? What else can they do with it, other than something like this? Mobile chip tech is really the only type of major acquisition they'd be interested in (except maybe Adobe?), and one that helps their core business. 20% of their warchest really isn't that much for a move of this scale, they'll probably add that back just from next year's profits alone.
But, isn't this the kind of bold, industry-shaking move you want to see Apple do with that huge pile of cash? What else can they do with it, other than something like this? Mobile chip tech is really the only type of major acquisition they'd be interested in (except maybe Adobe?), and one that helps their core business. 20% of their warchest really isn't that much for a move of this scale, they'll probably add that back just from next year's profits alone.
OK, Apple develops an architecture and licenses it to competitors (say, Samsung). At the same time, obviously nothing prevents Apple to use the better version of the same architecture (and there are many ways how they come up with this scenario). Apple does not have to even tell anybody what exactly the use in their own chips (and knowing Apple they will not). Or, it can be the same architecture but Apple will always have much earlier access to it than anybody else. So every licensee will be stuck with a potentially inferior architecture and late to market disadvantage. Not a very enviable position. I just do not see that as a workable scenario. I am not aware of any company that does business in a similar way. If anything it reminds me of DEC (and even Apple itself with Power PC) trying to sell Alpha chips to competitors. Remember how this ended up?
a ploy to trick google!
This is a ploy to get Google to spend 10bn on a chipmaker that they don't need. Google really only understands advertising...that's google's real secret, one that it hides in plain sight. It's so obvious even its employees don't realize it.
Buying ARM will bog google down for years. They're just dumb enough to do it.
This is a ploy to get Google to spend 10bn on a chipmaker that they don't need. Google really only understands advertising...that's google's real secret, one that it hides in plain sight. It's so obvious even its employees don't realize it.
Buying ARM will bog google down for years. They're just dumb enough to do it.
That's not quite how it works overall. ARM designs their basic cores and publicizes these building blocks. Companies like Qualcomm, Nvidia, Marvell and more then take these cores ..add their own "secret sauce" and deliver their product.
Apple's ownership of ARM does give them an advantage as they are on the front line in the design process but they still have to develop their own secret sauce and the core design is expensive enough that you're not going to see them hidden from 3rd party.
Not really sure why everyone is calling this move a "monopoly" or an "anti trust" move.
Are there other companies who make processors? Yes.
Does this move prevent others from entering the market? No.
Would Apples move prevent others from buying a processor? No.
Just because ARM might be the best on the block doesn't mean that everyone is *entitled* license its technology.
Should Ford be entitled to Ferraris engine design?
Should Boeing be forced to sell airframes to Air Buss?
No.
This move would not be a "monopoly" or "anti trust" move.
The only way Apple would get in trouble is if they went to Samsung (or another chip fabrication company) and said "if you manufacturer these other companies chips you cannot manufacturer ours."
Are there other companies who make processors? Yes.
Does this move prevent others from entering the market? No.
Would Apples move prevent others from buying a processor? No.
Just because ARM might be the best on the block doesn't mean that everyone is *entitled* license its technology.
Should Ford be entitled to Ferraris engine design?
Should Boeing be forced to sell airframes to Air Buss?
No.
This move would not be a "monopoly" or "anti trust" move.
The only way Apple would get in trouble is if they went to Samsung (or another chip fabrication company) and said "if you manufacturer these other companies chips you cannot manufacturer ours."
Considering a young man died so that Jobs could go on living, I'd say your joke is freakin cold.