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

[s44]

All Intel need to do is get their power requirements under control and they should be fine with mobile x86.

Depends on what "should be fine" means.

Unless Win8 x86 ends up as the only OS standing (not hugely likely in tablets, impossible in phones), there's no way the manufacturers will allow Intel to start extracting monopoly profits from a sector (mobile SOCs) that grew up on the opposite.

So yeah, Intel can be a player. But they're not going to maintain the same level of profits that way.

 

[StrangerGuy]

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

Having a huge installed base means jack shit to Intel's bottom line if people are sticking with their old ones longer than ever. Besides PCs are just boring, overcomplicated and poorly built devices that are used out of necessity than appeal to most people.

And there are entire regions on this planet that Intel simply can't sell to when they are charging entry-level x86 chips that cost more than a fully web capable <$60 Android tablet.

 

[WelshBloke]

Depends on what "should be fine" means.

Unless Win8 x86 ends up as the only OS standing (not hugely likely in tablets, impossible in phones), there's no way the manufacturers will allow Intel to start extracting monopoly profits from a sector (mobile SOCs) that grew up on the opposite.

So yeah, Intel can be a player. But they're not going to maintain the same level of profits that way.

I don't think Intel are so worried about getting high profits in the mobile sector. It's more about stopping ARM mobile hardware migrating into Intels profitable desktop markets.

 

[MrX8503]

Apple has always worked closely with Intel. Intel worked on light peak and some of the first ULVs for the MacBook Air.

No one ever believed that Apple would leave PowerPC but it happened.

Intel fabbing ARM chips for Apple may not be out of the realm of possibility.

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.

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.

I don't really consider Samsung innovative. What they're good at is making the same product as their competitor better and market the crap out of it.

I believe Samsung spent 1B on R&D and 11B on marketing.

Samsung isn't the kind of company that comes out with the "iPhone" of ideas. They just make really good electronics based on the path already set for them.

 

[MichaelBarg]

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



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.

The margins would be whatever the difference between the price Apple pays and the manufacturing cost. Other companies making Smartphone SOCs like TSMC and Qualcomm make very nice margins, so I don't see any basis to assume that they would have to go down. For that matter Apple's margin on an Iphone is much higher than most PC margins so if anything they are likely less price sensitive than Intel's PC CPU customers.

As far as an "admission" about ARM, well hey I'm sure they would rather get Apple on an x86 product. And turning down the business because its a bad deal may be the right move. But if they're ignoring the opportunity because they don't want to admit that a competitor is doing well, maybe they should reflect on some lessons from their own past.

 

[Tom]

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



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.



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.

PC sales are in a huge slump..and unlike cars there's not gonna be a reason for them to pick up again, ever.

A huge part of the intel/microsoft pc market hasn't needed most of the power and capability of such a system for years and years, but there was no alternative.

That's completely changed and people aren't going to keep paying for power and complexity now that they don't have to.

 

[ponyo]

I don't really consider Samsung innovative. What they're good at is making the same product as their competitor better and market the crap out of it.

I believe Samsung spent 1B on R&D and 11B on marketing.

Samsung isn't the kind of company that comes out with the "iPhone" of ideas. They just make really good electronics based on the path already set for them.

Substitute Apple with Samsung in your first sentence.

I don't really consider Apple innovative. What they're good at is making the same product as their competitor better and market the crap out of it.

Sounds right to me. You could plug in pretty much any successful company and it will be right.

As for Samsung only spending 1B on R&D, that's pretty laughable and totally incorrect. You have the companies backward. Apple doesn't hardly spend anything on R&D considering its size. Samsung spends a ton. Some might say it's because Apple doesn't really invent anything but takes work by others and patent it and claim it as their own. See what I did there? Apple spent about $4 billion in R&D last year. Samsung? Try $42 billion total for Research and Capital spending and $12 billion of that for was for R&D. Samsung spent $30 billion on facilities and capital investments.

 

[dagamer34]

PC sales are in a huge slump..and unlike cars there's not gonna be a reason for them to pick up again, ever.

A huge part of the intel/microsoft pc market hasn't needed most of the power and capability of such a system for years and years, but there was no alternative.

That's completely changed and people aren't going to keep paying for power and complexity now that they don't have to.

No, PC growth has stopped, not PC sales. And it's a 30-year old business, it was bound to happen sometime. You must not confuse profits that a company wants with growth which is what investors want. The former affects the company, the latter affects the shareholders who have a stronger desire for the stock price to go up than a company to make profits (see Microsoft and Apple in the last year as the perfect example of this).

The goal of a private company is to make profits, the goal of a public company is to return value to shareholders. The two are not the same, which is what makes this so confusing (it's like trying to deconstruct why Amazon's stock price is so high despite the fact they are loosing money).

 

[lothar]

I don't really consider Samsung innovative. What they're good at is making the same product as their competitor better and market the crap out of it.
Samsung isn't the kind of company that comes out with the "iPhone" of ideas. They just make really good electronics based on the path already set for them.

I feel the same way about Apple.

 

[MrX8503]

Substitute Apple with Samsung in your first sentence. Sounds right to me. You could plug in pretty much any successful company and it will be right.

So the iPhone was the same device as WinMo and BB smartphones in 2007? How about the iPod or iPad for music player and tablets?

The Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy player was the same device as the other iDevices I mentioned. Samsung doesn't create new markets like Apple does. Samsung hasn't come up with a game changing device like the iPhone.

As for Samsung only spending 1B on R&D, that's pretty laughable and totally incorrect. You have the companies backward. Apple doesn't hardly spend anything on R&D considering its size. Samsung spends a ton. Some might say it's because Apple doesn't really invent anything but takes work by others and patent it and claim it as their own. See what I did there? Apple spent about $4 billion in R&D last year. Samsung? Try $42 billion total for Research and Capital spending and $12 billion of that for was for R&D. Samsung spent $30 billion on facilities and capital investments.

I was wrong about the R&D, it was an old stat. However, Samsung spent $11B on marketing vs Apple's $1B. So Samsung spent $12B on R&D, good for them, maybe they'll innovate then.

If anyone has a heavy hand in marketing, its Samsung.

I feel the same way about Apple.

What has Samsung created that has created new markets like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad?

 

[Yongsta]

So the iPhone was the same device as WinMo and BB smartphones in 2007? How about the iPod or iPad for music player and tablets?

The Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy player was the same device as the other iDevices I mentioned. Samsung doesn't create new markets like Apple does. Samsung hasn't come up with a game changing device like the iPhone.



I was wrong about the R&D, it was an old stat. However, Samsung spent $11B on marketing vs Apple's $1B. So Samsung spent $12B on R&D, good for them, maybe they'll innovate then.

If anyone has a heavy hand in marketing, its Samsung.



What has Samsung created that has created new markets like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad?

That's the thing, iPod = Previous markets in Diamond Rio MP3 player, Samsung Yepp YP-D40 (Yepp Line), etc.

iPhone = Smartphone market was big but dominated by Blackberry Treo. LG Prada & other touch gesture phones (Jeff Han - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JcSu7h-I40, 2005 Neonode N1m Phone - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0), other smart phones. However, the key things that changed the industry here is iOS & the App Store. Google did purchase Android in 2005 (a good 2 years before iPhone announcement).

iPad = A lot of touch tablet devices beforehand, Samsung Origami http://www.mydigitallife.info/samsung-q1-ultra-mobile-pc-origami-review-by-bostonherald/ (Touch screen Tablet / Mobile PC running Windows). However iPad used iOS which was built from the ground up for hand usage, other tablet devices were using desktop OS and clumsy.

Apple is good at taking elements from previous things, putting them together in a pretty package and marketing it. But you can see where their inspiration comes from. All of these things were under the watch of Steve Jobs, it's going to be interesting to see how things go with Tim Cook. Look at Microsoft when Bill Gates stepped aside and put Steve Ballmer in charge. Great Leaders are important.

 

[MrX8503]

Nice examples, but the iPod, iPhone, and iPad made all those devices look primitive by 5 years.

Apple is good at taking elements from previous things, putting them together in a pretty package and marketing it.

Samsung's $11B in marketing would like to have a word with you. Apple spent only $1B.

 

[TuxDave]

Nice examples, but the iPod, iPhone, and iPad made all those devices look primitive by 5 years.

Samsung's $11B in marketing would like to have a word with you. Apple spent only $1B.

Heh, it reminds me when I went to San Francisco and one of the BART stops (like a subway/train station) was completely plastered with SGS3 adds. Every wall poster, every floor spot, every ceiling spot, along the escalators was filled with same ad. You'd think that if they were going to go buy out everything, they could've at least spent some time to make them all coordinate vs just copy/paste across the whole terminal.

 

[ponyo]

Heh, it reminds me when I went to San Francisco and one of the BART stops (like a subway/train station) was completely plastered with SGS3 adds. Every wall poster, every floor spot, every ceiling spot, along the escalators was filled with same ad. You'd think that if they were going to go buy out everything, they could've at least spent some time to make them all coordinate vs just copy/paste across the whole terminal.

Maybe the idea was to not coordinate. You saw it and remembered it better because it was copy and paste.

 

[TuxDave]

Maybe the idea was to not coordinate. You saw it and remembered it better because it was copy and paste.

I think you give Samsung too much credit. Personally, I got off the Bart, looked around, thought to myself "wtf, they made this place look terrible" and didn't bother looking at a good portion of the posters in any detail (so there's a small possibility they might have changed one word here and there. )