Any Speculation on why Microsoft has never showed interest in buying AMD?

[Demoth]

Not only would they keep the money inhouse for Xbox GPUs but could also have the ability to make cards tailored to the newest DX features.

On the CPU side they would have to restart from scratch, but that is the whole reason AMD stock is selling in the sub $10 garbage bin in the first place. If they could get even a slightly inferior CPU out, MS would have far more clout to force retail computer vendors to offer the chip in many configurations.

If MS had the ability for CPU/GPU research and development in-house, there would seem to be more innovation possible as MS would not only be producing items to beat the competitor, but also to make their own software (i.e. Vista) more appealing.

 

[Quiksilver]

Don't you think Microsoft is already too much on an Monopoly?

 

[Fox5]

Microsoft is as valuable as it is because it stays light on physical assets. Plus, why own the company when you can just buy the design anyway? AMD chips might not be a good fit for the next xbox (plus, that's 5 years of other development between the xbox launches they have to fund), what if an IBM or Intel chip or VIA chip is better?

 

[AmberClad]

I think some of it might be regulatory (they wouldn't be allowed to buy AMD/ATI). Especially in Europe, they've been facing some major scrutiny over what the Europeans deem monopolistic behavior. AMD, on the other hand, has been welcomed with open arms, and given subsidies by Germany to build some of their fabs, if I recall. So I doubt it's going to go over well if AMD is bought out by big, scary Microsoft.

Also, philosophically, those two companies seem like they would clash. Microsoft being the epitome of old establishment, and AMD being the edgy underdog. Apple seems like a more natural match (if not for their Intel partnership).

 

[street carp]

The topic reminded me of an article I read a couple of months ago when the writer hypothesized Microsoft will eventually become a holding company like (Warren Buffett's) Berkshire Hathaway. In this light AMD could be a target (given the low stock price/benefit of an in-house CPU supplier), but as it's a commodity-type company (and presently losing in its industry) it's longterm profitability is questionable. (As is Intel's.)

Article

But good point about the government not even allowing such a merger/purchase.

 

[taltamir]

Microsoft is in enough shit over monopoly rules... otherwise they would have bought a chip maker 10 years ago and made windows support ONLY their chips (through DRM). Apple hardware was the SAME except for the microprocessor and they made mac os run only on it... now with intel processors the ONLY thing forcing you to buy hardware from apple at 4x the cost (thats made by the same companies who make pc hardware) is the fact that it contains DRM forcing you to do so (which people cracked btw... you can use a DRM cracked OSX on your PC now)

Besides they aren't paying AMD per chip, they paid them a one time fee to design the chip with the license belonging to microsoft.

That one time cost might be a little higher then the cost of RnD to develop it themselves, but this way they can buy which ever chip is best a couple of years from now when they make the xbox 720 or whatever

 

[videogames101]

because they then get their ass sued for being a monopoly. software+hardware

 

[Slugbait]

Originally posted by: taltamir
otherwise they would have bought a chip maker 10 years ago and made windows support ONLY their chips (through DRM).

Apple does that...they almost destroyed themselves once because of it. IBM did something similar...by the late 90's Microsoft finally beat them in yearly software revenue. Closed architecture has an unusual tendency to equal potential extinction. And do you really think Intel would stand down and not put their software developers on a mission to create the killer OS that ALSO runs on "Microsoft processors"? Please...

Purchasing AMD or Intel wouldn't trigger DOJ intervention...it's not software. And if anyone asks, just point at IBM and say, "You let THEM do it for the last 20 years". So it has nothing to do with monopolistic practices or violating regulatory commissions.

They lose money on every Xbox sold, so the money they keep by buying AMD would STILL mean they'd have to do write-downs of millions against it every year...because if recent history serves as any indication at all, they would overpay by about 6 billion dollars.

GPU research is already done "in house". Microsoft works closely with every chip manufacturer to plan out DirectX. There are huge NDA agreements set up for specific individuals on both sides, capabilities and wish lists are drawn up, etc.

The reason they wouldn't even consider purchasing a CPU/GPU manufacturer is simple: profit margin.

 

[Demoth]

I wasn't really thinking MS would want to make anything closed architecture for the for-seeable future, but I sure would be looking to heavily break into the hardware end of things to really become poised to dominate the future of this industry- and that's robotics. The only thing holding back C3PO's off the assembly line is processing power and drivers. Processing power to equal the human brain is not very far off as it stands now. Software to even get bipedal locomotion would require a Manhattan project only MS right now could pull off.

For the short term, if they kept the CPUs non-propriatory, there should be few legal issues. I'd really like to see more companies try to produce CPUs as Intel's competition is just too weak to compete. Even when they had the crown of the XT then A64, they were just too weak to force many major suppliers to sell their chips.

I'd have no problems releasing MS on Intel and letting these two giants slug it out.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Demoth
The only thing holding back C3PO's off the assembly line is processing power and drivers. Processing power to equal the human brain is not very far off as it stands now. Software to even get bipedal locomotion would require a Manhattan project only MS right now could pull off.

Umm, Honda did it three years ago. It couldn't be that hard.

 

[SickBeast]

Has Microsoft ever purchased a hardware company? Why would they start with such a risky investment like AMD?

Perhaps Apple could buy them, giving them complete control over the hardware in their machines.

It might even make sense for a company like Dell to buy them.

If the ideal suitor existed, my guess is that it would have been a done deal a long time ago.

I just read an interview with AMD's CEO; he essnetially said that the CPU/GPU businesses are the most risky in the entire tech industry. That probably explains why nobody buys them.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Has Microsoft ever purchased a hardware company? Why would they start with such a risky investment like AMD?

Perhaps Apple could buy them, giving them complete control over the hardware in their machines.

It might even make sense for a company like Dell to buy them.

If the ideal suitor existed, my guess is that it would have been a done deal a long time ago.

I just read an interview with AMD's CEO; he essnetially said that the CPU/GPU businesses are the most risky in the entire tech industry. That probably explains why nobody buys them.

Apple is Intel Bitch :! Apple still has to whore with Intel till they pay of the huge debt of Intel spending so much cash $$ in porting over Mac OS X ! The most interested company in buying amd is samsung.

 

[Denithor]

No one has cracked the "Wintel" joke yet?

Amazing...

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Denithor
No one has cracked the "Wintel" joke yet?

Amazing...

Windows + AMD would be...Wamd?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Apple is Intel Bitch :! Apple still has to whore with Intel till they pay of the huge debt of Intel spending so much cash $$ in porting over Mac OS X ! The most interested company in buying amd is samsung.

What would Samsung even do with AMD? I've never seen a Samsung-branded computer.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Microsoft is in enough shit over monopoly rules... otherwise they would have bought a chip maker 10 years ago and made windows support ONLY their chips (through DRM). Apple hardware was the SAME except for the microprocessor and they made mac os run only on it... now with intel processors the ONLY thing forcing you to buy hardware from apple at 4x the cost (thats made by the same companies who make pc hardware) is the fact that it contains DRM forcing you to do so (which people cracked btw... you can use a DRM cracked OSX on your PC now)

Besides they aren't paying AMD per chip, they paid them a one time fee to design the chip with the license belonging to microsoft.

That one time cost might be a little higher then the cost of RnD to develop it themselves, but this way they can buy which ever chip is best a couple of years from now when they make the xbox 720 or whatever

microsoft isn't stupid. the success of the PC is largely linked to its openness. that allows a lot of things apple cannot provide.
pro class service by un licensed technicians.
better maintainance in area's where apple is not present.

and ofcourse low low prices due to competition. micrsoft's 90+ % market share is no coincidence. it has a lot to do with the platform.

MS could buy AMD but have you seem amd financial statements. its a disgrace of a company that can't ever make profit.

 

[rchiu]

Why would MS wanna buy AMD? Software is a high margin business and cpu is high investment low margin commodity business.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Apple is Intel Bitch :! Apple still has to whore with Intel till they pay of the huge debt of Intel spending so much cash $$ in porting over Mac OS X ! The most interested company in buying amd is samsung.

What would Samsung even do with AMD? I've never seen a Samsung-branded computer.

They want the fabs :! Samsung is huge coropration that is bigger than Intel , Apple , Sony..ect. They want AMD fab !! Samsung wants to make its own CPU/GPU for its TV/DVD/Mobile and loads thousands other device it sell. AMD for 4billion looks ultra cheap to get into.

 

[hans007]

microsoft is a platform company.
making hardware i think would go against the generally openness of developing for their platform. i mean what would intel think?

what would nvidia think etc...

microsoft would have almost nothing to gain from buying AMD too. i dont think there would be any monopoly problems with it, just it would be a stupid move.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Why would MS wanna buy AMD? Software is a high margin business and cpu is high investment low margin commodity business.

IP for console development?

- AMD is losing money; consoles lose money (on the hardware) as a general rule.
- AMD excels in the low-end/budget specs, which is what consoles target.
- Microsoft is OK with its games division hemorraging cash in the short term.

*shrugs*

This speculation is just for fun anyway, IMO.

EDIT:

I think AMD will survive. If you have read the recent roadmap adjustment, the company appears to be repositioning itself into its old role. Before the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64; AMD used to be a low-cost/high-value chip-maker, like in the 486/K5/K6/K6-2 days where they do not match Intel clock for clock in many things but yet manage to bring a better price/performance ratio (mostly on the low end). A return to profitability will enable the company to survive, even if not as the same AMD that often took the price *and* performance crown during the P4/Netburst era.

 

[Genx87]

They arent interested in

A. A dying company.
B. Increased costs of manufacturing hardware.
C. They work with Intel. Dont want to piss off the hardware monopoly or you may find your software monopoly becomes a duopoly or worse.

 

[tcsenter]

Any Speculation on why Microsoft has never showed interest in buying AMD?

I suppose for the same reasons Microsoft has never showed ANY interest in becoming a hardware company. Complimentary peripherals, consumer electronics gadgets, and accessories, sure, but nothing more.

Buying a [troubled] CPU and core logic manufacturer with its own foundry assets of AMD's vastness just to save a few bucks on its next generation gaming console makes about as much sense as buying Panasonic to save a few bucks on lithium batteries, or buying Texas Instruments to save a few bucks on wireless baseband chips.

Not only would they keep the money inhouse for Xbox GPUs but could also have the ability to make cards tailored to the newest DX features.

What do you think GPUs are developed for now, old DX features? Who do you think advises Microsoft on which features DX should support?