[TweakTown] Intel claims Apple would be lost without their chips

[MisterLilBig]

With Apple's deep pockets -- they could probably build their own fab (and buy AMD).... So they could make their own desktop x86 CPU's if they wanted.

Buying AMD destroys the usage of x86. Tho, considering that AMD did do AMD64, would it be possible to just make an x64 chip without Intels x86?

 

[scannall]

Buying AMD destroys the usage of x86. Tho, considering that AMD did do AMD64, would it be possible to just make an x64 chip without Intels x86?

It's kind of an interesting thought. AMD is an anti-trust shield for Intel. It's possible a sale of AMD could be negotiated that would keep the licensing agreement. But, it still isn't a good purchase for anyone.

 

[imported_ats]

The Apple people buy their desktops for OSX (and the Apple logo). If Apple could suddenly squeeze FX 8350's inside their Imacs, the Apple fans would still buy them (and probably would barely notice).

This is a theory that gets trotted out a lot, but its important to remember that Apple lost significant marketshare when they were not performance competitive. While Apple's ecosystem and design given them a certain amount of lockin, it is not carte blanche.

With Apple's deep pockets -- they could probably build their own fab (and buy AMD).... So they could make their own desktop x86 CPU's if they wanted. They don't seem interested, since most of their sales come from iOS devices.

It only makes sense to be vertically integrated if it gives you significant advantages because it also carries with it significant risk. The reality is that in the performance sectors of the semiconductor market, it has historically been rather difficult to keep up with Intel in performance. Pretty much everyone that once did has either vacated the market or been reduced to very niche portions of the market. There is little to no advantage to Apple to compete head on with Intel in the laptop/desktop CPU market because unlike mobile, Apple simply doesn't have enough volume to get any type of significant leverage.

 

[jdubs03]

With ARM licensing its uArch or pricier design license, it is possible that an Apple or AMD could go for higher power levels. There isn't anything stopping that except for the market (iPad Pro/MacBook Air) and developer uptake.

If Apple starts making SoC's that come close to Intel Core M, lets say 5Y71, this puts pressure on Intel to either raise performance or cut the price at which they sell their chips, or maybe a bit of both. I think the A9/x will give us the best indication of whether or not Apple has the uArch designers capable of challenging Intel's product stack at equivalent power levels.

 

[CHADBOGA]

And so what? Intel is milking as much as possible from Apple, so why Apple should't look for alternatives that would increase their margins?

If they didn't went with Intel they would have considerably larger profit margins.

Considering your knowledge of what Intel charges Apple is less than non-existant, how have you worked out that Intel is "milking" Apple? D:

 

[StrangerGuy]

Dunno about the rumor but its always fun to watch Intel apologists in denial mode.

Sorry Intel, you thought you can grab Apple by the balls like PC OEMs did but they completely outmaneuvered you with custom ARM and cultish adoration of the consumers who could care less about the CPU inside while their x86 offering now is just a mere footnote.

 

[Blitzvogel]

It's kind of an interesting thought. AMD is an anti-trust shield for Intel. It's possible a sale of AMD could be negotiated that would keep the licensing agreement. But, it still isn't a good purchase for anyone.

I wonder if the licensing agreement could still be valid if AMD operated as and sold product as AMD but was externally owned (and funded) by another entity as a subsidiary? AMD would effectively still be selling their products with their name but could at least transfer their non-x86 specific tech within their owner.

 

[scannall]

Considering your knowledge of what Intel charges Apple is less than non-existant, how have you worked out that Intel is "milking" Apple? D:

I doubt Intel is 'milking' anything. Apple has shown they don't mind spending money to get the parts they want. It isn't cheap to develop their SOC's for instance. The rumor mill anyway has Apple's CPU design teams being three times bigger than AMD's. Or to put up with terrible yields, and that expense for their A8 and A8X.

But, they do want parts made to their specs, and delivered in a timely manner. Something Intel usually, but not always delivers.

Apple actually has decent margins on their equipment. It isn't like Dell or HP racing to the bottom on razor thin margins. By not racing to the bottom, they can provide a better product and better service.

 

[Kenmitch]

I despise all things Apple.

Apple investing $'s into AMD for custom designed APU's seems like it would make more sense to me. I see no reason why the two of them couldn't produce a better than good enough product.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

I despise all things Apple.

Why is this such a popular sentiment? And why do you hate Apple personally?

Apple investing $'s into AMD for custom designed APU's seems like it would make more sense to me. I see no reason why the two of them couldn't produce a better than good enough product.

If Apple wanted an APU, and wanted AMDs expertise, they would just poach the lead engineers. I believe that Apple did poach a few engineers from AMD already.

Also, Apple already produces great products.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Dunno about the rumor but its always fun to watch Intel apologists in denial mode.

Sorry Intel, you thought you can grab Apple by the balls like PC OEMs did but they completely outmaneuvered you with custom ARM and cultish adoration of the consumers who could care less about the CPU inside while their x86 offering now is just a mere footnote.

Intel seems to think it can squeeze Apple... and I honestly think it is endangering the company. Otellini should've been castrated for missing the opportunity to create the iphone SoC, and now BK should be fired for trying to squeeze Apple and now putting out these press releases, claiming Apple needs them.


I would fire every person at intel who failed to meet Apple's expectations, and BK should be offering Tim Cook his first born on a platter to not switch to ARM. If Apple switches to ARM, it will soon be goodbye intel as a profitable company.

 

[Kenmitch]

Why is this such a popular sentiment? And why do you hate Apple personally?


If Apple wanted an APU, and wanted AMDs expertise, they would just poach the lead engineers. I believe that Apple did poach a few engineers from AMD already.

Also, Apple already produces great products.

I don't like the Apple way of doing things.

Engineers can only do so much without the IP.

 

[ControlD]

I would fire every person at intel who failed to meet Apple's expectations, and BK should be offering Tim Cook his first born on a platter to not switch to ARM. If Apple switches to ARM, it will soon be goodbye intel as a profitable company.

So you are saying the only profits Intel is currently making are from sales to Apple. Do you have any data to back that up?

 

[VirtualLarry]

So you are saying the only profits Intel is currently making are from sales to Apple. Do you have any data to back that up?

Why feed obvious trolls? Look at his post history in VC&G. Now he's spilling over to CPUs, to "defend Apple".

 

[ControlD]

Why feed obvious trolls? Look at his post history in VC&G. Now he's spilling over to CPUs, to "defend Apple".

Good point, sorry. This one just seemed too silly to ignore.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

So you are saying the only profits Intel is currently making are from sales to Apple. Do you have any data to back that up?

Read what I wrote: Intel will soon be an unprofitable company if they lose Apple as a customer. They are already losing billions trying to catch up to Apple in mobile and they are failing.

What happens when every person using a mac is no longer on intel x86? Nobody would even notice. Nobody would miss intel, and nobody would care that they are now using an Apple A10X Processor.

At that point, all intel will have is the server market, and it's only a matter of time before ARM beats intel there too. That is, if Skylake is as disappointing as Broadwell. I am hoping that won't be the case.

I realize many people here love intel, but the vast majority of the population has no idea what intel is nor do they care. That's what intel should be worried about, they have nothing they can point to and say "look what that intel processor did! Wasn't that cool? Wasn't that fun?"... the processor does nothing for anybody except sit there. So it's irrelevant who makes it.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

I don't like the Apple way of doing things.

Engineers can only do so much without the IP.

Fair enough, I can see how Apple would be frustrating if you like to tinker around... Apple definitely does not support an "open" platform.


There are big advantages to having intel x86 in Apple, but there are also disadvantages. I think if intel cut it's margins down to 20% with Apple, they would be amicable.

 

[Enigmoid]

Read what I wrote: Intel will soon be an unprofitable company if they lose Apple as a customer. They are already losing billions trying to catch up to Apple in mobile and they are failing.

What happens when every person using a mac is no longer on intel x86? Nobody would even notice. Nobody would miss intel, and nobody would care that they are now using an Apple A10X Processor.

At that point, all intel will have is the server market, and it's only a matter of time before ARM beats intel there too. That is, if Skylake is as disappointing as Broadwell. I am hoping that won't be the case.

I realize many people here love intel, but the vast majority of the population has no idea what intel is nor do they care. That's what intel should be worried about, they have nothing they can point to and say "look what that intel processor did! Wasn't that cool? Wasn't that fun?"... the processor does nothing for anybody except sit there. So it's irrelevant who makes it.

Apple is barely relevant to intel in the grand scope of things.

Probably at most 10% of the non server market. It will hurt business but by no means affect profitability of the company.

The main thing with apple is if they ditch intel it sets a precedent for other companies to do as well.

 

[ControlD]

What happens when every person using a mac is no longer on intel x86? Nobody would even notice. Nobody would miss intel, and nobody would care that they are now using an Apple A10X Processor.

At that point, all intel will have is the server market, and it's only a matter of time before ARM beats intel there too.

But that isn't even remotely the case. If Apple ditches Intel as their CPU supplier for the Mac, Intel will still have more than the server market. Intel will have the server market and all the other markets they are currently in, minus Macs. There are a lot of other customers for Intel processors besides Apple. I'm pretty sure if you add up the units sold to all of those other customers, the numbers dwarf what Apple is buying. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

I agree with Enigmoid that Apple setting a precedent would perhaps be the biggest problem for Intel, but it is speculation as to whether all of Intel's other customers would be quick to jump ship as well.

 

[dahorns]

But that isn't even remotely the case. If Apple ditches Intel as their CPU supplier for the Mac, Intel will still have more than the server market. Intel will have the server market and all the other markets they are currently in, minus Macs. There are a lot of other customers for Intel processors besides Apple. I'm pretty sure if you add up the units sold to all of those other customers, the numbers dwarf what Apple is buying. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

You are not wrong.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree with Enigmoid that Apple setting a precedent would perhaps be the biggest problem for Intel, but it is speculation as to whether all of Intel's other customers would be quick to jump ship as well.

It would be quite a radical shift for Apple, but imagine this for a second:

Apple switches to their internally-developed AXx ARM-based CPUs.
Apple creates an "Apple Clone" platform, based on their internally-developed CPUs, and encourages all the current Intel platform OEMs to switch over to the "Apple ARM platform", promising bigger margins.

That would be something to see. Imagine a complete platform market-share reversal, where Apple software and Apple-designed ARM CPUs take the majority marketshare, instead of Microsoft and Intel.

If Apple's A9x CPU, and Samsung's process technology excel, along with Intel's delays and screwups (Not to mention, MS's current OS mess), then this could be a possibility. I wonder if Apple has considered this possibility. (I know that they put the kibosh on "Apple Clones" a few years ago, but I think that they should re-visit this stance.)

 

[imported_ats]

But that isn't even remotely the case. If Apple ditches Intel as their CPU supplier for the Mac, Intel will still have more than the server market. Intel will have the server market and all the other markets they are currently in, minus Macs. There are a lot of other customers for Intel processors besides Apple. I'm pretty sure if you add up the units sold to all of those other customers, the numbers dwarf what Apple is buying. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

I agree with Enigmoid that Apple setting a precedent would perhaps be the biggest problem for Intel, but it is speculation as to whether all of Intel's other customers would be quick to jump ship as well.

And we're assuming that Apple's Mac customers wouldn't also jump ship, which based on past history is a flawed assumption.

 

[Kenmitch]

Fair enough, I can see how Apple would be frustrating if you like to tinker around... Apple definitely does not support an "open" platform.


There are big advantages to having intel x86 in Apple, but there are also disadvantages. I think if intel cut it's margins down to 20% with Apple, they would be amicable.

So your saying Intel should cut it's margins so Apple's increase?

 

[witeken]

It would be quite a radical shift for Apple, but imagine this for a second:

What makes you think Apple will

*overcome Intel's process lead;
*beat Intel's Core CPUs for laptops;
*have an offer compelling enough to gain significant market share within a short time;
*do the above with any positive return on investment?

Sounds impossible to me.

 

[B-Riz]

It would be quite a radical shift for Apple, but imagine this for a second:

Apple switches to their internally-developed AXx ARM-based CPUs.
Apple creates an "Apple Clone" platform, based on their internally-developed CPUs, and encourages all the current Intel platform OEMs to switch over to the "Apple ARM platform", promising bigger margins.

That would be something to see. Imagine a complete platform market-share reversal, where Apple software and Apple-designed ARM CPUs take the majority marketshare, instead of Microsoft and Intel.

If Apple's A9x CPU, and Samsung's process technology excel, along with Intel's delays and screwups (Not to mention, MS's current OS mess), then this could be a possibility. I wonder if Apple has considered this possibility. (I know that they put the kibosh on "Apple Clones" a few years ago, but I think that they should re-visit this stance.)

WinTel is too deeply embedded in business. (Think of all the legacy hardware and software out there too.)

And everything that business's run on.

MS offers good corporate support for their software, and Intel (x86) commodity chips / workstations are easily supplied from a number of OEM's at a reasonable price.

People complain about the WinTel tax, the Apple tax would be worse.

As I stated earlier, an ARM desktop CPU would resemble an Intel part if it wanted to compete with Intel, and it would be re-inventing the wheel, wasted money.