Report: Intel in Talks With Apple to Manufacturer iPhone, iPad Processors

[Puddle Jumper]

They don't care about Sharp in that respect. They want Sharp around, not to have nominal competition, but to have access to LCDs panels without building more factories; have access to very large LCD panels; try to get access to Sharp's famed IGZO technology; and benefit somehow from Apple's upcoming Apple TV.

Given that Samsung isn't really innovating in the LCD arena; has an OLED tv that is inferior to LG's (according to Displaymate); and is trying all kinds of weird things in their small SAMOLED screens in order to increase resolution or make it tolerable, one has to wonder if Samsung is good at anything other than economies of scale manufacturing. Samsung succeeds at this by 1) agreeing to manufacturer a competitor's product. Then they learn the ins and outs of that product and then introduce their own. R&D is done by the competitor. By the time the competitor realizes what is going on it is too late. This happened to SONY, then Apple, and it will happen to Qualcomm. I mean, where is the innovation from Samsung? flexible OLED screens? SONY and many other Japanese firms did that years ago.

Sony and the other Japanese companies showed of OLED a long time ago but they never did anything with it, the Galaxy S was the first OLED device with widespread acceptance and even now nearly all OLED devices used by consumers are Samsung phones.

Samsung's already beaten Qualcomm for several generations now (Hummingbird vs Snapdragon S2, Exynos 4210 vs Sanpdragon S3, Exynos 4 Quad vs S4 Plus, Exynos 5250 vs S4 Pro) and is poised to easily do it again with Exynos 5 Octa.

You may hate Samsung but they are the driving force behind hardware in the mobile sector.

 

[lothar]

Unless Intel can get power consumption under control. I see this as Intel fabbing Apples ARM SOC. Which for Apple would give them a nice lead over the competition.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busting-the-x86-power-myth-indepth-clover-trail-power-analysis
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone

Myth busted.

 

[Dari]

Sony and the other Japanese companies showed of OLED a long time ago but they never did anything with it, the Galaxy S was the first OLED device with widespread acceptance and even now nearly all OLED devices used by consumers are Samsung phones.

Samsung's already beaten Qualcomm for several generations now (Hummingbird vs Snapdragon S2, Exynos 4210 vs Sanpdragon S3, Exynos 4 Quad vs S4 Plus, Exynos 5250 vs S4 Pro) and is poised to easily do it again with Exynos 5 Octa.

You may hate Samsung but they are the driving force behind hardware in the mobile sector.

You're right that they did nothing with the technology. Also, I don't know much about SoCs but I doubt that the Samsung processors were superior to Qualcomm's. Qualcomm has been in the business far longer (like Intel) and you are the first to say Samsung's processors have always been superior...

 

[dagamer34]

Ehh that review has some issues. First is the fact the OS cant utilize the 5th core for Tegra 3. Second they are comparing an old chip to Intels current line up.

On top of that, what tablets I can get today with Intel inside have about 4.5 hours worth of battery life on them during moderate use and they are noteably heavier. My nearly 3 year old Tegra 2 based Transformer can watch 8 solid hours of 720p movies on a single charge. Light to moderate use? That runs into days.

Anyways I suspect at some point the performance of ARM and the process shrinks of Intels product will converge. But I dont see it happening quite yet. And Apple seems to enjoy having a custom designed SOC.

Thing is, current Atom chips are based on a core architecture that's an astonishing 5 years old. And it STILL competes with current chips. As far as video decoding, that's all done on dedicated hardware decoders while the CPU basically sits idle, so it's not a CPU battery life test, it's a platform battery life test.

Regardless, I think Anand put it best that Intel is not a CPU design company that manufactures chips, it's a fab process company that just happens to make CPUs. I see absolutely no reason why they would give their most valuable asset (advanced fab tech) to essentially their competitors.

 

[jpiniero]

I see absolutely no reason why they would give their most valuable asset (advanced fab tech) to essentially their competitors.

They may not have much choice. Fabs are so expensive that they need to keep utilization up, and with PC sales slumping they needed to do something; thus the foundry deals.

 

[Mopetar]

Might not even be Intel's cutting edge process tech. I'm sure that they're using most of that themselves. What they'd probably give Apple is their previous generation process, which actually competes well with what anyone else offers.

If its just going to sit unused anyway, why not sell the use of it to someone else?

 

[jpeyton]

I see absolutely no reason why they would give their most valuable asset (advanced fab tech) to essentially their competitors.

Agreed. This is a win/lose for Apple/Intel, because Apple is the only company that has any long-term strategic interest in using Intel's fabs.

 

[WelshBloke]

Might not even be Intel's cutting edge process tech. I'm sure that they're using most of that themselves. What they'd probably give Apple is their previous generation process, which actually competes well with what anyone else offers.

If its just going to sit unused anyway, why not sell the use of it to someone else?

Because Intel wants the world to stay on x86?

 

[Dari]

Because Intel wants the world to stay on x86?

I thought they were in the business to make money... If Intel refuses on principle then TSMC, IBM, or Global Foundries will get the contract and Intel gets nothing.

 

[WelshBloke]

I thought they were in the business to make money... If Intel refuses on principle then TSMC, IBM, or Global Foundries will get the contract and Intel gets nothing.

I'll be pretty suprised if Intel give up on a massive chunk of the mobile space and start fabbing ARM processors.

I'd be not so surprised if they work with Apple to get x86 based stuff more power efficient and help Apple unify their desktop and mobile OSs.

 

[jpeyton]

I thought they were in the business to make money... If Intel refuses on principle then TSMC, IBM, or Global Foundries will get the contract and Intel gets nothing.

TSMC has more demand than supply last time I checked. The people with the fab capacity are holding all the cards in this scenario. For companies that are dedicated to fabbing designs for others, Apple would be a good partner. But Intel still has skin in the game, and I don't see any long term gain for them by fabbing for Apple.

 

[Dari]

I'll be pretty suprised if Intel give up on a massive chunk of the mobile space and start fabbing ARM processors.

I'd be not so surprised if they work with Apple to get x86 based stuff more power efficient and help Apple unify their desktop and mobile OSs.

As has been mentioned earlier, they've done it before (their own) so this isn't some major leap. As for iOS running on top of x86, it's what Steve Jobs originally wanted but his underlings said no and threatened to rebel/leave if Jobs did not back down. He did and now he's gone so I seriously doubt Apple will upend everything just to please a manufacturer.

For the record, Intel has already lost to ARM. Whether or not they want to at least benefit from it (not unlike Microsoft benefitting from Android) is up to them.

 

[dawheat]

They don't care about Sharp in that respect. They want Sharp around, not to have nominal competition, but to have access to LCDs panels without building more factories; have access to very large LCD panels; try to get access to Sharp's famed IGZO technology; and benefit somehow from Apple's upcoming Apple TV.

Given that Samsung isn't really innovating in the LCD arena; has an OLED tv that is inferior to LG's (according to Displaymate); and is trying all kinds of weird things in their small SAMOLED screens in order to increase resolution or make it tolerable, one has to wonder if Samsung is good at anything other than economies of scale manufacturing. Samsung succeeds at this by 1) agreeing to manufacturer a competitor's product. Then they learn the ins and outs of that product and then introduce their own. R&D is done by the competitor. By the time the competitor realizes what is going on it is too late. This happened to SONY, then Apple, and it will happen to Qualcomm. I mean, where is the innovation from Samsung? flexible OLED screens? SONY and many other Japanese firms did that years ago.

I'd hazard that the current electronics ecosystem would be noticeably behind where it is today without Samsung. In tons of non-sexy ways, from end-products to internals, they have driven improvement (and dropped prices) in just about every electronics category that no other company has shown they have been able to duplicate, or willing to spend the massive R&D Samsung is willing to (11 billion?)?

And I consider the original Note the most innovative phone since the iPhone 4. Everything since the iPhone 4 has felt like incremental improvement from iOS and Android - except for the Note which gambled on a huge screen size and reintroduced the stylus back into the modern smartphone world. Certainly Samsung didn't create these individual features, but they were the first to bring them together in a compelling product. Now everyone is ramping up with a Note clone.

<edit> I also shudder to think where different markets would be if Samsung hadn't been able to challenge the leader. Certainly Apple would be happier and far more complacent without Samsung - and neither HTC, Motorola, Nokia, or anyone else has shown they're able to keep Apple on their toes from a comprehensive product standpoint (development, marketing, sales channels, branding, etc). Samsung shook up Sony in the TV world, GE and Whirlpool in the appliance world, Apple in the smartphone world, etc. As an end-consumer, I'm glad they're around.

 

[WelshBloke]

As has been mentioned earlier, they've done it before (their own) so this isn't some major leap.

I'm kind of aware of that as it was me that posted it. At the time though Intel hadn't spent a ton on R&D and marketing trying to get x86 into the mobile area.

As for iOS running on top of x86, it's what Steve Jobs originally wanted but his underlings said no and threatened to rebel/leave if Jobs did not back down. He did and now he's gone so I seriously doubt Apple will upend everything just to please a manufacturer.

Apple definitely seem want to unite iOS and macOS and there are only two choices they could make. Personally I'm not ruling out either of them.

For the record, Intel has already lost to ARM. Whether or not they want to at least benefit from it (not unlike Microsoft benefitting from Android) is up to them.

You better phone up Intel and tell them that they have been wasting their time then. Let me know how that goes please.

 

[Yongsta]

I'd hazard that the current electronics ecosystem would be noticeably behind where it is today without Samsung. In tons of non-sexy ways, from end-products to internals, they have driven improvement (and dropped prices) in just about every electronics category that no other company has shown they have been able to duplicate, or willing to spend the massive R&D Samsung is willing to (11 billion?)?

And I consider the original Note the most innovative phone since the iPhone 4. Everything since the iPhone 4 has felt like incremental improvement from iOS and Android - except for the Note which gambled on a huge screen size and reintroduced the stylus back into the modern smartphone world. Certainly Samsung didn't create these individual features, but they were the first to bring them together in a compelling product. Now everyone is ramping up with a Note clone.

<edit> I also shudder to think where different markets would be if Samsung hadn't been able to challenge the leader. Certainly Apple would be happier and far more complacent without Samsung - and neither HTC, Motorola, Nokia, or anyone else has shown they're able to keep Apple on their toes from a comprehensive product standpoint (development, marketing, sales channels, branding, etc). Samsung shook up Sony in the TV world, GE and Whirlpool in the appliance world, Apple in the smartphone world, etc. As an end-consumer, I'm glad they're around.

You could say the original Galaxy S helped start a new trend in the Android world, emphasizing on performance (PowerVR gpu, Hummingbird CPU), larger displays and Super AMOLED Screen. Whether you like AMOLED or not, it pushes display technology to improve every year.

The concerning thing is how vertically integrated Samsung is. Just in my home, I have 2 Samsung TV's (and one Panasonic Bravia), Samsung refrigerator, Samsung microwave, I was thinking about getting a Samsung washer & dryer but went with LG. SSD drive & Ram I put in my new computer were made by Samsung. Heck, all these were probably shipped over here on a ship manufactured by Samsung as well (Samsung Heavy Industries). It's kind of scary if you think about it.

 

[MichaelBarg]

People keep saying that by making chips for Apple Intel is giving something to its competitors. I don't see how that makes sense; Apple sells phones, computers, tablets etc. Not chips. I'm not sure there's a single thing Apple sells that's a replacement for a single thing Intel sells. If there is, the overlap is not substantial on either side.

Meanwhile Intel is in business to make money. If Apple will pay enough for Intel to earn a margin competitive with its other products that's great for them, and if they won't I doubt Intel would take the business. Higher utilization at a good margin is real profits. Long run this gives Intel non-trivial competitive advantages as well. Fabs are very capital intensive and getting more so. Vacuuming up a big chunk of business that [Not Intel] manufactures makes it tougher for competitors to keep up, or in this case tougher for competitors to avoid falling further behind in process technology.

Also, if Intel wants to get Apple running all x86 manufacturing for Apple will give them unprecedented (for Intel) insight into to what exactly Apple wants in a mobile SOC. Intel can take whatever they learn and turn around to pitch an x86 solution to Apple. Does Apple bite? Maybe, maybe not. But it can't hurt for Intel to know exactly what they are trying to beat when they design & pitch a solution to Apple.

Now this does take Intel in a different direction, and that may ultimately not be to their advantage. That's obviously why they are thinking carefully about it. Nonetheless it seems to me there is also a very real upside for Intel in this kind of arrangement.

 

[WelshBloke]

People keep saying that by making chips for Apple Intel is giving something to its competitors. I don't see how that makes sense; Apple sells phones, computers, tablets etc. Not chips. I'm not sure there's a single thing Apple sells that's a replacement for a single thing Intel sells. If there is, the overlap is not substantial on either side.

Meanwhile Intel is in business to make money. If Apple will pay enough for Intel to earn a margin competitive with its other products that's great for them, and if they won't I doubt Intel would take the business. Higher utilization at a good margin is real profits. Long run this gives Intel non-trivial competitive advantages as well. Fabs are very capital intensive and getting more so. Vacuuming up a big chunk of business that [Not Intel] manufactures makes it tougher for competitors to keep up, or in this case tougher for competitors to avoid falling further behind in process technology.

Also, if Intel wants to get Apple running all x86 manufacturing for Apple will give them unprecedented (for Intel) insight into to what exactly Apple wants in a mobile SOC. Intel can take whatever they learn and turn around to pitch an x86 solution to Apple. Does Apple bite? Maybe, maybe not. But it can't hurt for Intel to know exactly what they are trying to beat when they design & pitch a solution to Apple.

Now this does take Intel in a different direction, and that may ultimately not be to their advantage. That's obviously why they are thinking carefully about it. Nonetheless it seems to me there is also a very real upside for Intel in this kind of arrangement.

It's not about Intel making chips for Apple that would be newsworthy, it's Intel making ARM based chips for Apple that would be newsworthy.

 

[jpiniero]

People keep saying that by making chips for Apple Intel is giving something to its competitors. I don't see how that makes sense; Apple sells phones, computers, tablets etc. Not chips.

Fabbing Apple's designs would be an admission that their attempts to slow ARM have failed.

and if they won't I doubt Intel would take the business.

The margins are obviously going to be worse if they fab Apple's designs versus their own. Of course, 30% is better than 0; thus the dilemma Intel has. If they let Apple pass now, they may not get another shot.

 

[lopri]

I thought they were in the business to make money... If Intel refuses on principle then TSMC, IBM, or Global Foundries will get the contract and Intel gets nothing.

You mean, if Intel doesn't rely on governmental force (x86 patent enforcement alliance a.k.a. Wintel).

Wish it had happened like 10 years ago. Intel as a cutting-edge foundry and other design houses trying to get their chips from Intel. The whole industry would have benefited and the mobile revolution would have been here much sooner.

 

[lopri]

I mean, look at the current mobile market and competition and choices laid out for you. (Intel included) Compare that to.. oh, I don't know. Q6600 v. QX6700? Plus obligatory motherboard tax that comes with every year?

Look at this gorgeous motherboard. How much do you think it would have cost in 2006?

http://techreport.com/review/24426/gigabyte-ga-z77n-wifi-mini-itx-motherboard-reviewed

 

[lopri]

They don't care about Sharp in that respect. They want Sharp around, not to have nominal competition, but to have access to LCDs panels without building more factories; have access to very large LCD panels; try to get access to Sharp's famed IGZO technology; and benefit somehow from Apple's upcoming Apple TV.

Given that Samsung isn't really innovating in the LCD arena; has an OLED tv that is inferior to LG's (according to Displaymate); and is trying all kinds of weird things in their small SAMOLED screens in order to increase resolution or make it tolerable, one has to wonder if Samsung is good at anything other than economies of scale manufacturing. Samsung succeeds at this by 1) agreeing to manufacturer a competitor's product. Then they learn the ins and outs of that product and then introduce their own. R&D is done by the competitor. By the time the competitor realizes what is going on it is too late. This happened to SONY, then Apple, and it will happen to Qualcomm. I mean, where is the innovation from Samsung? flexible OLED screens? SONY and many other Japanese firms did that years ago.

To be frank, the description fits Apple, IMO. Nothing comes in my mind what they exactly invented.. other than some (admittedly pretty) designs. They're extremely good at borrowing others' inventions and forging their own. (and not forgetting patent applications)

 

[Dari]

I'd hazard that the current electronics ecosystem would be noticeably behind where it is today without Samsung. In tons of non-sexy ways, from end-products to internals, they have driven improvement (and dropped prices) in just about every electronics category that no other company has shown they have been able to duplicate, or willing to spend the massive R&D Samsung is willing to (11 billion?)?

And I consider the original Note the most innovative phone since the iPhone 4. Everything since the iPhone 4 has felt like incremental improvement from iOS and Android - except for the Note which gambled on a huge screen size and reintroduced the stylus back into the modern smartphone world. Certainly Samsung didn't create these individual features, but they were the first to bring them together in a compelling product. Now everyone is ramping up with a Note clone.

<edit> I also shudder to think where different markets would be if Samsung hadn't been able to challenge the leader. Certainly Apple would be happier and far more complacent without Samsung - and neither HTC, Motorola, Nokia, or anyone else has shown they're able to keep Apple on their toes from a comprehensive product standpoint (development, marketing, sales channels, branding, etc). Samsung shook up Sony in the TV world, GE and Whirlpool in the appliance world, Apple in the smartphone world, etc. As an end-consumer, I'm glad they're around.

While I will agree that Samsung (and LG and countless Taiwanese and Chinese firms) have driven prices down, they have never been innovative. If you can point to me their innovation I'd be more than happy to hear it. They are really just good at manufacturing and manufacturing fast, not necessarily inventive.

 

[Dari]

To be frank, the description fits Apple, IMO. Nothing comes in my mind what they exactly invented.. other than some (admittedly pretty) designs. They're extremely good at borrowing others' inventions and forging their own. (and not forgetting patent applications)

True.

 

[Tom]

Point 1. the vast majority of current pc users don't need x86 anymore.

point 2. Microsoft has shown they can't do anything but x86, which is a shrinking market.

The world is moving away from the traditional x85 pc. Big time. Microsoft is accelerating the pace with which this is happening by not delivering products people want or need.

Apple and Google have won the war for devices to connect to the web, which is all most users need and that is going to be much more the case going forward.

So Intel has to adapt or become obsolete.

 

[WelshBloke]

Point 1. the vast majority of current pc users don't need x86 anymore.

The vast, vast majority of PC users use x86 and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

point 2. Microsoft has shown they can't do anything but x86, which is a shrinking market.

Microsoft has nothing to do with x86 do they? I thought most of their stuff can be recompiled to run on other architectures, there's just been no point in them doing that.

The world is moving away from the traditional x85 pc. Big time. Microsoft is accelerating the pace with which this is happening by not delivering products people want or need.

Apple and Google have won the war for devices to connect to the web, which is all most users need and that is going to be much more the case going forward.

So Intel has to adapt or become obsolete.

This hasn't really got anything to do with Microsoft as far as I can see. They can just make their stuff run on whatevers available.

All Intel need to do is get their power requirements under control and they should be fine with mobile x86.
If it does go tits up for them they can still out manufacture anybody else with ARM chips anyway as a last resort.