Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why hasn't Apple acquired AMD?

SoyCapitanSoyCapitan said:
The rumour is that most of Apple's desktop machines will move to ARM. The most top end iMac and MacBook Pro model will stay x86 for compatability with traditional apps not yet ported to ARM. So iOS will become a desktop operating system for most models.

I predict OS X x86 will be made available to be installed on any PC to compete against Windows directly. Kext signing, non EFI cards, free operating system, and Metal are important parts of this to ensure competitiveness against Windows. This groundwork has now been laid.

This will happen in around 2 years when iOS is ready to move to the consumer and office desktop environment. There will be no more Mac Pro from that point on.

For developers of both iOS and OS X it will mean much greater opportunities. For Apple it means they can concentrate on consumer products and revenue from their online stores.

They don't need to invest money on AMD. They already have laid the foundation for a lot of growth to come.
Click to expand...

There have naturally been rumours that extrapolate ARM displacing Intel CPUs in more and more mobile devices. This thinking is somewhat justified by the ever increasing power of Apple's ARM chips in contrast with the somewhat stagnant Intel desktop CPU. The recent Mac Book product could very well have been a consideration for an ARM processor instead of an Intel CPU. The rumoured iPad Pro might actually outperform it with an ARM processor in some tasks. Regardless of this, my prediction is that Apple will likely continue to use x86 for OS X based machines and iOS on ARM based hardware for the foreseeable future. Intel is now delivering CPUs capable of running in fanless packaging like the Mac Book which was one significant advantage of ARM that has now been neutralized.

If you understand Apple, then you realize it's not in the cards to offer OS X as a stand-alone OS for PCs. Apple has clearly stated that they are all about delivering products that delight their customers. They are not interested in raw market share or dominance of the desktop or anything like that old-school Microsoft thinking. Apple's recipe for delivering products that delight customers is to provide the entire stack (hardware, software and services). There's no way they can fulfill any objective they hold dear, by offering OS X as a stand-alone OS.
 
First of all, CPUs and GPUs have too low profit margin for Apple to consider acquisition of any brand producing them.
Secondly, they are perfectly fine with current state, when they are customers for semi-custom hardware. It fits perfectly for their needs. And profit margins.

About x86-ARM battle. I believe that in future Tablets will become just a HUB for connecting with Mac Pro-ish workstation and producing content directly on the screen of the tablet, while using the computer, much more powerful than Tablet, without Monitor, etc. ARM and x86 technologies are not interchangeable. Apple has everything for that future to come true(OS'es, APIs, cloud, Apps, ecosystem), and that is exactly where they want to go.
 
koyoot said:
First of all, CPUs and GPUs have too low profit margin for Apple to consider acquisition of any brand producing them.
Secondly, they are perfectly fine with current state, when they are customers for semi-custom hardware. It fits perfectly for their needs. And profit margins.
Click to expand...

Actually Intel's and Nvidia's gross profit margin are both around 60% vs. 40% for Apple. They are very profitable businesses. In fact, the only ones making decent profits on PC sales are Intel, Nvidia, and Microsoft. Of course AMD is barely profitable, but if someone could turn them around and make them competitive, there's no reason they couldn't enjoy similar profit margins.

EDIT: I'm not saying this is a good reason for Apple to buy AMD... but saying there is no profit in CPUs and GPUs is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Apple would buy AMD, I think any move or capital investment would be focused around metal performance across OS X & iOS, if any is made at all.

I would hope eventually with enough research that Intel can release an X64 mobile chip with maybe a decent amount of integrated RAM that makes financial sense for iOS devices.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me that Apple work closer with Intel on developing future graphics & integrated processing platforms for both desktop and mobile - this would help get them away from Samsung as well as alleviate their reliance on AMD or Nvidia in higher end machines.

Apple has never been about the latest spec hardware but the best spec hardware that works the most optimally with their software.
 
Really surprised nobody has mentioned the potential impact of recent Xcode changes (albeit still Beta) - notably BitCode - on future CPU plans.

One of the challenges in moving architectures (e.g. x86 -> Arm) is ensuring an adequate supply of readily available software on any new machine. You don't want, as a developer, to be forced to provide separate builds of software for any potential (and maybe yet unknown) architecture.

Enter BitCode.

This publishes an 'abstract' representation of your developed program (not dissimilar to the principles of Java byte code) up to the AppStore - from here Apple 'optimise!' and deliver the 'compiled' program down to the user as a download.

Clearly, once all this is in place (and it isn't yet), developers using the AppStore don't have to care what target architectures exist - Apple will do all the work. They can introduce new CPU,GPU etc and simply have to do some work on their end to target those and have instantly available software across all platforms.

Given that Xcode with this capability won't make general release until I guess around Sept they will presumably have to ramp up usage over a period of time to ensure a decent catalogue of software submissions are made with this capability before any architectural change appears. Maybe they will, in the future, require resubmission of all Apps - one good way to clear out legacy in the AppStore?

So, predictions time.
- Apple will produce ARM based desktop/laptop hardware.
- iOS and OS X will merge into a common platform
- The mechanisms for architecture change are being sown now
- They will have the capability to republish software without developer intervention (eg. refactoring APIs arising from platform changes/fixes)
- They can intelligently scan BitCode uploaded for potential issues (security, unauthorised API etc)

Timeframe - I would guess 2017 for hardware change (maybe late 2016)

Of course they may not but the important thing is they will have the capability if required.

PS: For all you developers using low level assembly - I'm not sure how that fits in with the above. Maybe Apple won't care.

PPS: If developers distribute outside the AppStore then it's up to you I guess how you'd target the different architectures.
 
Plumhead said:
....
Enter BitCode.
....
...
...
So, predictions time.
- Apple will produce ARM based desktop/laptop hardware.
Click to expand...

Running what? iOS , Watch OS, and maybe TViOS .... sure. App thinning and BitCode are solving platform fragmentation issues in that space in the next version. They could be used for other stuff but that is what they are being applied to currently.


OS X, not so clear.

To date BitCode is targeted more so toward "smaller" rather than more capable devices. Watch and other Wearable and/or Internet of things that Apple jumps into likely will have less capable CPUs and GPUs than the mainstream iOS devices, let alone the OS X ones with Intel CPUs in them.

An energy efficiency optimizer that has different thermal and/or power profiles is pretty much in the range of what they have.

Also Apple doesn't do the Mx (motion) chips. They buy those. The Apple Watch CPU is trailing edge (looks like a chopped down A7 class core or maybe an slightly upgraded A6 core on 28nm process. )

http://www.chipworks.com/about-chip...e-apple-watch-technical-teardown-blog#Update1

If someone ( Intel , NXP , TI , etc ) comes up with a better watch CPU than Apple for the right price Apple will probably buy it .... just like they buy the Mx chips. For example, small memory on watch may warrant staying at 32 bit while the iOS ecosystem transitions to 64 only.


- iOS and OS X will merge into a common platform
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Bigger iPads and more multitasking apps? Yes. iOS and OS X will have a larger overlapping upper/lower edges but probably not merge. Similar visual design cues? Yes. Merge at core services layer probably not. OS X has to deal with a wider set of 3rd party devices ( meaning broader device drivers ) and 3rd party software ( the Mac App Store is not going to 100% of the Mac software market; Adobe and Microsoft. aren't in a hurry to cough up 30% to Apple for their mainstream apps. iOS is a "race to the bottom" lost cause, but Windows is fully viable alternative to OS X. ).

If bigger iPads gobble up more of the low end OS X range then Apple is done. They don't actually need more fratricide in that situation ( increase OS X moving down into iOS zone).

- The mechanisms for architecture change are being sown now
Click to expand...

Fat Binary infrastructure is present in OS X now but Apple isn't using it. What do ARM "desktop" solution ( if existed, because do no right now) buy? As long as Intel is delivering at workable prices there is not a good reason to move. If AMD implodes and Intel jacks up the prices or becomes unmotivated then can pull the trigger on moving.... but until it is really more so a fact of whether there is an actual "problem" to solve by going to ARM. AMD has a pretty good chance of not disappear. ( there is more doom and gloom talk that is a problem now than AMD on the wrong path. They just need some bridge financing until exit the tunnel. )


Control isn't "the core problem". A deep need for substantially cheaper Macs isn't it either. Apple has an extremely successful OS for ARM. iOS. Waaaaaaaaaay bigger than Macs and way more profitable. What Apple needs is something different than that which is still integrated to augment their revenues.

- They will have the capability to republish software without developer intervention (eg. refactoring APIs arising from platform changes/fixes)
Click to expand...

BitCode does nothing for significantly refactoring code. It is basically the internal representation that the compiler uses before it dumps the assembler (or binary if assembly is fused) at the last stage of compile. What BitCode primarily allows is different compiler optimizer passes to be run just before doing the assembly conversion. It doesn't refactor the code. It may convert a manual series sequence of math ops into a vector operation if it detects that is the actual intent but it isn't going to change what the code is doing or flip CocoaTouch into mainstream Cocoa.


- They can intelligently scan BitCode uploaded for potential issues (security, unauthorised API etc)
Click to expand...

Can do that now with current binaries. BitCode makes it a bit more uniform, but it doesn't particularly improve things.
All the stubs for the dynamic bindings to the API calls are present BitCode or not.

BitCode could allow more trace path analysis (e.g., what are you doing before get to call points), but I'd be shocked if Apple would put that into the inspection process flow.


PS: For all you developers using low level assembly - I'm not sure how that fits in with the above. Maybe Apple won't care.
Click to expand...

Don't care they don't get some device drivers. .... that really isn't all that viable when competitor Windows fully enables it.

PPS: If developers distribute outside the AppStore then it's up to you I guess how you'd target the different architectures.
Click to expand...

Rosetta worked all the way down the device driver level.... in part because Apple knew they needed those pieces to be competitive.

If absolutely everything is in the app store and on ARM then for the most part largely have iOS. Apple already has iOS. Apple could do a Chromebook like device with iOS relatively easily. Keyboard support in iOS is improved in version 9. Force touch trackpad means probably don't necessarily need to touch the screen as much.
 
thefredelement said:
...
I would hope eventually with enough research that Intel can release an X64 mobile chip with maybe a decent amount of integrated RAM that makes financial sense for iOS devices. ...
Click to expand...

RAM restricted to the size of a single chip package means dramatically higher restrictions than using multiple packages ( the normal now with DIMMs and solder to the motherboard ) implementations used now that number 8 or more. Mainstream RAM is a sliicon process that Intel doesn't do. Intel's eRAM used in IrisPro is far more a large L3 or L4 cache ram than "main memory". that isn't going to be enough to run the OS and 1-2 applications out of.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me that Apple work closer with Intel on developing future graphics & integrated processing platforms for both desktop and mobile -
Click to expand...

They already do. Intel Core M .... enabled thinner and smaller systems. Who does that sound like? It isn't exclusively for Apple but as long as it is available as a reasonable price that doesn't really matter. ( Dell is using the same 5K panels in their monitor as in the 5K iMac .... is Apple having a huge drama queen melt down over that? Nope. )

The focus of making the GPU more of a priority in their CPU-GPU packages has Apple's input (and finger prints on it). Wanted new interface bus .... Thunderbolt ... worked with Apple to get it to market. Apple wanted "do everything port" ... USB Type C with Apple/Intel major driving contributors to the projects.

The notion that Apple and Intel need to discover a close working relationship is like Columbus discovering America. (already been done numerous times in the past. )

Intel has a range of solution all the way from the "Rasberry Pi" zone ( https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/do-it-yourself/edison.html ) up to supercomputer zone. ( http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-phi-detail.html) .


this would help get them away from Samsung as well as alleviate their reliance on AMD or Nvidia in higher end machines.
Click to expand...

The bigger, multiple , "Retina" screen problem there aren't current alternatives to AMD and Nvidia at the moment.
AMD and Intel are going to carve off more of the mainstream GPU users with integrated CPU-GPU packages but upper end is likely going to stay with those two vendors. If graphics goes stagnant again.( fixed resolution/dpi for a decade then they are in trouble, but for now they have a decent "get out of jail" card. )
 
Plumhead said:
- Apple will produce ARM based desktop/laptop hardware.
Click to expand...

Maybe they will produce a Chromebook-like device that will make the MacBook seem heavy, thick, and fast, but I don't see them replacing the rest of the Mac line. But an ARM Mac Pro, especially in your 2017 time frame, seems comical to me.

Yes ARM is getting powerful quickly, but Intel has woken up and is getting their processors very efficient just as quickly. I don't see any need or benefit to move to ARM.
 
ActionableMango said:
Maybe they will produce a Chromebook-like device that will make the MacBook seem heavy, thick, and fast, but I don't see them replacing the rest of the Mac line.
Click to expand...

As if the new Macbook is thick and/or heavy. Folks who complain about the MacBook being too heavy are candidates to examine to see if suffering from the "Princess and the Pea" syndrome. Too light that magSafe doesn't work anymore is at slippery slope of diminishing returns. If Apple can drop the MacBook price back to the entry MBA price level then they will sell lots of them.

Apple might be able to sell an incrementally "cheaper" laptop with iOS and a ARM. That depends upon how the Atom line evolves over time.

But an ARM Mac Pro, especially in your 2017 time frame, seems comical to me.
Click to expand...

Apple has historically done a CPU transition when they can do the whole Mac line up. Alot of the ARM proposals are that Apple is going to enter some realm where they are going to split the OS X line up for an extended period of time. I don't buy that.

ARM isn't going to catch up to the Mac Pro class CPU. It isn't even on ARMs roadmap at all.

The next gen queued up is refocusing on the smartphone power envelopes.

http://anandtech.com/show/9184/arm-reveals-cortex-a72-architecture-details

Apple's next gen is coupled to that move.
 
It would be stupid for Apple to buy AMD. Their CPU's cant match Intel for performance per watt and Apple wants super efficient CPU's for their paper thin MacBook (which is the ********* laptop ever anyways).

AMD is barely getting by. Would you buy a sinking ship?
 
I think its better for Apple to let competition between AMD & Nvidia battle it out for the best video card to use in Mac computers. Apple tends to switch between the two depending on their needs and what kind of deals it can get. Intels CPU's are still far ahead of AMD's. AMD Graphic cards are close enough to Nvidia even though they don't have the market share.
 
Even if you don't think Apple will make ARM macs anytime soon, buying AMD seems like a pretty poor long term investment for a company that believes the iPad is the future of computing.
 
I suppose they might do that if AMD gets in trouble even more. Nvidia seems to increase the distance between them in this new generation gpus, but we'll have to see when both have unveiled their full range of products. If AMD keeps going down, apple might jump in.
 
Atisha said:
I don't see how Apple would create a Mac OS for x86 PCs. ARM is going to be the doom for all of us. Yeah, one day a significant breakthrough in microprocessors will create some 10 year transition where every tech company and consumer feel they must adjust, like with HD TV the past 10 years. ARM is not going to be that. It'll be a way for Apple to save money and probably make their handheld devices slightly faster.

Either Apple, or Apple fans want to pretend that "professionals" will readily accept the transition. Let me ask, what "professionals" are left? Because before, at least in my industry, it was Adobe and Final Cut. Adobe apps are on Windows, and no professional uses Final Cut X except for cutting quick wedding videos. What will happen is consumers will buy iPads like they used to before, have no idea what is going on, the "professionals" will be long gone, and the gamers will be long, long gone.

I've used Macs since I was a child and the past 8 years have definitely been the best time for a Mac user, solely because of Intel processors and Bootcamp. The best thing that Apple has going for them right now is Mac OS, which is honestly a superior OS to everything out there, and nearly universal hardware compatibility -- to the point of Hackintoshes being an issue for Apple.

Think about companies we take for granted like Blizzard. There is no way they'd make Mac products anymore.

I feel like this is going to be the end of Apple as we know it, like when Nintendo made themselves a company dedicated to children's games. My next comp purchase might have to be my first PC -- better to prepare early.
Click to expand...

An unfortunate example, as Blizzard is exactly the company that has just stopped making a Mac version of their overwatch, because Apple's soft- and hardware simply can't take it anymore. If any PC could use OS X, Blizzard's support would in fact be more likely to return.
 
G-News said:
An unfortunate example, as Blizzard is exactly the company that has just stopped making a Mac version of their overwatch, because Apple's soft- and hardware simply can't take it anymore. If any PC could use OS X, Blizzard's support would in fact be more likely to return.
Click to expand...
The only reason why Blizzard is not bringing Overwatch to OS X(at this moment...) is because of software, not hardware. There is not Shader Model 5.0 support in OS X. Sierra brings some features from Direct3D11 but not full compatibility.
 
koyoot said:
The only reason why Blizzard is not bringing Overwatch to OS X(at this moment...) is because of software, not hardware. There is not Shader Model 5.0 support in OS X. Sierra brings some features from Direct3D11 but not full compatibility.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Another example is Frontier Development released Elite Dangerous on OS X but was unable to release the sequel Elite Dangerous: Horizons. Not because the hardware requirements went up but because OS X does not support Shader Model 5 which is used for a new feature in the game.
 
Insisting on using integrated graphics on most models (and even the ones that do not, are using mobile versions of the dGPUs) doesn't make macs look so great either. There are more major titles that were supposed to be delivered on Mac, but never did. There are even more titles that their developers stated that mac it not considered a gaming platform. And even more game developers that do not develop for mac - period.

Witcher 3 is an example of the 1st category. The upcoming Star Citizen an example of the 2nd (I recall Chris Robert's statement during the first days of the project regarding mac). The h/w is just not there for this. It's not only a matter of API features, it's a matter of performance. If apple acquired amd could start to steer things a bit. But it's all about mobile for them now.
 
By the looks of thing, Apple will focus on External enclosures for GPUs. Sierra already natively allows to connect external enclosure to Mac.
 
koyoot said:
By the looks of thing, Apple will focus on External enclosures for GPUs. Sierra already natively allows to connect external enclosure to Mac.
Click to expand...

That is just basically "Keeping up with the Jones" at this point.

" ... What is novel here, as Intel told us as far back as June, is that what really changed their tune was that there is finally a sensible GPU hotplugging solution in place, allowing video cards to be added and removed without rebooting. This makes it much easier to use an eGFX solution ... "
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10133/amd-xconnect-external-radeons

The Thunderbolt 3 + Windows 10 stack supporting it means that if macOS doesn't they will just be all that much further behind going forward. Windows already deployed this. So like the software API (at this point Metal) being behind the curve the base OS stack is behind also.

Gaming on iOS is significant revenue that gamers will increasingly follow over time. Some of that will "trickle down" to the macOS. macOS will be benefit, but won't be the driver. These external GPUs aren't going to be a primary driver either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: linuxcooldude
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back