What are the chances of Apple getting in the x86 business?

[Rakehellion]

There have been rumors of Apple switching to ARM sometime in the future for their MacBook line. While they have the power, I think that's absurd.

They've already got a chip that beats the Atom and Core 2 Duo, and more money than Intel and AMD combined, so they could scalp a nice team of engineers to pump out a special mid-range x86-64 CPU designed for tablets and ultrabooks. A MacBook air with 20 hours of battery life or an iPad with i5-level performance would put a dent in the mobile market.

 

[Phynaz]

Absolutely Zero.

 

[HopJokey]

No license, no go.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Zero.

Also the stockholders are busy getting their hands on all that money. I doubt there will be much left in a few years.

 

[Rakehellion]

...

 

[ChronoReverse]

Even if they had the license, it'd still be zero.

 

[bullzz]

suspected there might be a minuscule chance before A7. its zero now

@HopJokey - by license, do you mean ARM license for emulation

 

[BUnit1701]

Intel owns x86. Anyone else who produces x86 CPUs has a license from Intel.

 

[TuxDave]

About 1-0.999... chance.

 

[Rakehellion]

Intel could give up a license to produce something they aren't able to.

 

[ElFenix]

Intel could give up a license to produce something they aren't able to.

what would apple be able to produce with an x86 license that intel wouldn't be able to?

 

[Rakehellion]

what would apple be able to produce with an x86 license that intel wouldn't be able to?

A high performance, low power chip. No one's buying Atoms or i7s anymore.

 

[Blitzvogel]

We should be asking when Apple will will move their entire ecosystem to ARM.

 

[ElFenix]

A high performance, low power chip. No one's buying Atoms or i7s anymore.

and just how is apple, with 0 experience designing X86 cores, and access to fabs that are years behind intel, going to do this better than intel itself?

 

[Rakehellion]

and just how is apple, with 0 experience designing X86 cores, and access to fabs that are years behind intel, going to do this better than intel itself?

Experience can be bought. Just a few years ago, they had no experience designing chips or phones, music players, or a lot of what they're known for now.

 

[Rakehellion]

HYPOTHETICAL: If they buy acquire a majority shareholding 51% of VIA Technologies (Centaur Technology) => native monolithic single-die x86-64 QuadCore low power and low cost processor with new 2MB L3 cache, and SIMD up to AVX2 (28nm TSMC)...

Hell, they might as well buy AMD.

 

[Rezist]

It looks like the days of x86 being dominant are passing there already at the front of the ARM train taking away that market share it just makes no sense.

 

[ShadowVVL]

Experience can be bought. Just a few years ago, they had no experience designing chips or phones, music players, or a lot of what they're known for now.

I guess you did not read the bit about the fabs in elfenixs post

Intel may have less money but they have fabs worth billions and billions that are years ahead of anyone else.

I dont think buying amd would get them anywhere and they would still have no fabs.

Apple will need alot more then a hundred billion to catch intel

 

[Idontcare]

Absolutely Zero.

It is this (same as TuxDave so deftly captured while leveraging his sig at the same time :thumbsup.

For starters one has to ask themselves what the motivation would be?

The argument for x86 has been "software compatibility and legacy apps".

Now look at what Apple has done with ARM and their iApps store.

They have zero need to tap x86...and not just because their ARM-based products don't need the "me too" software offerings that would come with x86 compatibility, but more importantly because those x86 applications do not require the iTunes and iApp store which means Apple would be stepping away from those listing/selling fees and revenue if they stepped away from the proprietary aspects of a captured audience that their existing ARM-based product lineup intrinsically delivers for them.

x86 works for Intel because Intel doesn't want (until now) to be in the business of managing a software storefront. They were willing to leave that to Microsoft and Adobe, plus others.

Apple upended that business model, which is what was truly innovative about their iPod/Pad/Phone products.

No way they go back to a 20th century hardware/software business model after having invented and benefited from the money to be made in using a 21st century business model.

 

[zir_blazer]

If you want to make a x86 Processor, you need a x86 license from Intel, something which only AMD and VIA have if I recall correctly, and if you lose these, x86 would become an Intel only monopoly.
There is a second, less-efficient way, which is what Transmeta did to support x86 on non-x86 Processors via emulation. And with absolutely no advance in either technology or process over Intel, it is only a last resource if what you wanted is to break that monopoly, even with a massive product disadvantage.

 

[Blitzvogel]

If you want to make a x86 Processor, you need a x86 license from Intel, something which only AMD and VIA have if I recall correctly, and if you lose these, x86 would become an Intel only monopoly.
There is a second, less-efficient way, which is what Transmeta did to support x86 on non-x86 Processors via emulation. And with absolutely no advance in either technology or process over Intel, it is only a last resource if what you wanted is to break that monopoly, even with a massive product disadvantage.

How difficult/feasible would it be for AMD to build a Transmeta type CPU that could emulate ARM code while still staying x86-native? Such a move might save some die area involved with having full ARM core along with the x86 cores.

 

[monstercameron]

isnt via's x86 license expiring soon?

 

[2is]

We should be asking when Apple will will move their entire ecosystem to ARM.

So, still never?

 

[SunnyD]

HYPOTHETICAL: If they buy acquire a majority shareholding 51% of VIA Technologies (Centaur Technology) => native monolithic single-die x86-64 QuadCore low power and low cost processor with new 2MB L3 cache, and SIMD up to AVX2 (28nm TSMC)...

VIA's license is non-transferable iirc. I think AMD re-negotiated in the last cockup when they spun off their fabs that their license IS transferable.

 

[Cerb]

A high performance, low power chip.

They could want the moon, too, but an x86 license won't get them that. They instead would need people who know a few things about rockets, politics, and defense, and the money to make it happen.

They would need to buy Intel, the whole company, not acquire an x86 license.

No one's buying Atoms or i7s anymore.

People are still buying i7s just like they ever were. They've never been mainstream CPUs.

No one buys Atoms, yet Atom boards and barebones keep going OOS, and I still see Atom-powered machines on store shelves? They're even effective in phones, now. People still buy them.

How difficult/feasible would it be for AMD to build a Transmeta type CPU that could emulate ARM code while still staying x86-native?

Which? x86-native or Transmeta-like? Emulating or executing? You can't have it all.

Such a move might save some die area involved with having full ARM core along with the x86 cores.

AMD went with a Cortex-A5, TMK. I wouldn't be surprised if all the glue circuitry to integrate it into the chip as a whole is much larger than the ARM core and caches.

 

[tential]

I guess you did not read the bit about the fabs in elfenixs post

Intel may have less money but they have fabs worth billions and billions that are years ahead of anyone else.

I dont think buying amd would get them anywhere and they would still have no fabs.

Apple will need alot more then a hundred billion to catch intel

Buying AMD would probably set them further back...