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 Intel?

z31fanatic said:
lol
Intel are a huge company. Apple couldn't afford to buy them. Microsoft would probably buy Intel before Apple could.
Click to expand...
You do know that Apple is worth more than Microsoft and Google combined...so Microsoft wouldn't even be able to buy Intel either.

Apple is also America's first company that's worth over $700 billion. So if the FTC approves, Apple could buy Intel, but they can't because of the FTC and because they don't need to anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kettle
placidity44 said:
As stated above the A8X is extremely capable and Apple's chips are very state of the art. The A8X scores 4477 on Geekbench 3 multicore score whereas a 2013 MacBook Air with a Core i7 4650U cpu scores 5621.
Click to expand...

Please, Geekbench is utterly meaningless for cross-platform comparisons. Look at real applications. In browser tests, iPad Air is always around two (or more) times slower than a Core M with a comparable TDP. Apple and ARM have a long way to go until they can match Intel's performance. Intel is just so far ahead when it comes to research on superscalar architectures. To get there, ARM needs to give up what originally defined ARM (which already started happening btw). I mean, look at AMD — they used to have much faster CPUs, but now they are struggling. Why? Because Intel had more luck, they have developed an architecture around a decade ago (Pentium Pro) which has proven itself to be surprisingly scalable. Does Apple have an architecture with this much potential? Maybe. But until they can unlock that potential, it is very likely that Intel will move ahead again.
 
leman said:
Please, Geekbench is utterly meaningless for cross-platform comparisons. Look at real applications. In browser tests, iPad Air is always around two (or more) times slower than a Core M with a comparable TDP. Apple and ARM have a long way to go until they can match Intel's performance. Intel is just so far ahead when it comes to research on superscalar architectures. To get there, ARM needs to give up what originally defined ARM (which already started happening btw). I mean, look at AMD — they used to have much faster CPUs, but now they are struggling. Why? Because Intel had more luck, they have developed an architecture around a decade ago (Pentium Pro) which has proven itself to be surprisingly scalable. Does Apple have an architecture with this much potential? Maybe. But until they can unlock that potential, it is very likely that Intel will move ahead again.
Click to expand...


I explicitly stated it was difficult to compare them...geekbench is just for benchmarks obviously it doesn't translate entirely into real world performance I was just intending on giving a relative idea on how capable these chips are, but for a ton of people it will be good enough. Point being Intel has no reason to sell and since apple is a mobile device company I see no reason even if they could to buy a company that is at a disadvantage in the mobile segment.
 
I'm not sure why everyone wants an ARM based Mac so bad. Intel's work fine, and there would be numerous issues with compatibility and fragmentation for years before ARM could catch up in performance enough to even start replacing the Macbook Air, let alone any of the desktop Macs.

I really don't see the advantage of switching to ARM. Even switching to AMD CPUs make more sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beachguy, TheIguana and scaredpoet
iKrivetko said:
Apple could theoretically buy Microsoft AND Intel.
Click to expand...
No, they can't. Even though Apple is worth $700bn, that doesn't mean they have that much money in liquid assets; it would be impossible for them to free up their entire net worth. They most definitely would not have enough for both companies, and even with one they'd probably have to move assets around to get the money.
 
Makes no sense whatsoever on any level. Cash reserves are a very necessary part of Apple. Just because they COULD do it certainly does not mean they SHOULD do it. This is the problem with so many things these days. Some one gets an idea in their head and thinks they HAVE to follow through with it just because the idea happened into their brain. Not a good way to manage one's business or life.
 
Last edited:
Let's say they could afford it and the FTC allowed it.....how long would it take for Apple to make their $170 billion back. Doesn't even make sense to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beachguy
I only asked about it because Apple, more so than many companies, likes and benefits from strict control over their supply lines.

Intel's sporadic and unreliable chip production seems like it would be a primary component Apple would like much more control over.

Perhaps Apple would be better off hiring the best of the best from Intel and AMD and taking processor production entirely in-house?
 
TechZeke said:
I'm not sure why everyone wants an ARM based Mac so bad. Intel's work fine, and there would be numerous issues with compatibility and fragmentation for years before ARM could catch up in performance enough to even start replacing the Macbook Air, let alone any of the desktop Macs.

I really don't see the advantage of switching to ARM. Even switching to AMD CPUs make more sense.
Click to expand...
To me, the allure would that Apple is no longer hostage to Intel's erratic update cycle. If Apple were to design their own PC processors, they should in theory be able to better customise them to work better with their software. In addition, they would be able to update their laptops on a more predictable cycle and even buck the standard PC update cycle.

But in reality, if Intel is having so much problems improving their design despite their experience and expertise in this field, I have my doubts if Apple can do any better.
 
Eldiablojoe said:
Intel's sporadic and unreliable chip production seems like it would be a primary component Apple would like much more control over.
Click to expand...

Has it though? Broadwell's release has been a disaster principly because material science is starting to run into some pretty substantial challenges with die-shrinks. You still have not explained how Apple's ownership of Intel would fundamentally solve the underlying science and engineering challenges being experienced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leman
Eldiablojoe said:
Intel's sporadic and unreliable chip production seems like it would be a primary component Apple would like much more control over.
Click to expand...

Intel CPUs currently represent the peak of the CPU technology. It doesn't really matter if their chip production is sporadic and unreliable (which sin't true btw), as there is simply nothing that can compete with them. I would understand complaints about the lack of updates if there was a competitive product on the market. However, there isn't.

Eldiablojoe said:
Perhaps Apple would be better off hiring the best of the best from Intel and AMD and taking processor production entirely in-house?
Click to expand...

So if the best of the best have difficulties with new process implementations working at Intel and AMD, you think that it will go better if they work at Apple? Don't really understand your logic here. There is also a big danger of trying to do too many things at once. Besides, having the best brain resources is not enough — you also need the access to the chip designs, which have been developed for decades. If Apple were to hire all the smartest people from Intel, the only effect we would see is a complete stagnation of CPU tech for few years until Apple can get to the point where Intel is now.
 
Eldiablojoe said:
So, that being said, why hasn't Apple acquired Intel to better control the chip delays, which seems to be Apple's albatross as far as production delays go. At least an investment sufficient to obtain 51% control?
Click to expand...

A more likely alternative would be for them to develop their own chips to use in their laptops and desktops. It's only a matter of time before they do that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they already have prototype MacBooks and iMacs with their own processors.
 
Eldiablojoe said:
Perhaps Apple would be better off hiring the best of the best from Intel and AMD and taking processor production entirely in-house?
Click to expand...
They already do it for their iphones and ipads and that useless costly watch. From their entire revenue Macs are actually a small part, they make much much more on the phones and tablets. In part because they sell so much more of those and also because they can produce them for less than a quater of what they sell for. Huge profit margin, huge volume.
Macs may have a big profit margin compared to windows PCs but small (relatively) compared to ipad/iphone.

Actually producing inhouse like buying the fabs would be ridiculous. That is such a costly business which would make their company huge but not profitable. Apple is profitable because they let other companies produce their gadgets for cheap (in China, Taiwan, South Korea mostly) and than they add software and sell it with a huge markup (2-4 times the cost) under their name. If they bought up foxconn or TSMC, they'd just get the extra expenditure but little extra profit in their balance sheet.
The nice thing about software is that you have to write it once and get your return on investment and than it is all profit from there. That is why Microsoft and any big software company can be really profitable. Because software multiplies for free (almost: there is still support cost but almost). Foxconn, TSMC in short all companies that produce real goods need to carefully caluclate the cost and return of each single item they produce. They got variable costs.
Apple is essentially a software company just like Microsoft. They are like a Nestle who says how much milk and sugar and other poison go into a new candy stick but next tell another companie to make them to those specification and ship them out. If they actually would "produce" their product, they could never be as profitable as they appear to be in their US stocks.
 
Eldiablojoe said:
Intel's sporadic and unreliable chip production seems like it would be a primary component Apple would like much more control over.
Click to expand...

Again i have to ask: Are people really that blindly worshipful of Apple that they think Apple could just magically cause Intel to go back on schedule? Apple can barely do it with the existing products (hardware and software) they have control over.

The issue with Intel is not something that can be solved with money, or even a change in ownership. Only time and continued R&D will resolve it... if at all. Intel's x86 line may very well be at the end of the line for Moore's Law, and short of some new breakthrough technology (which sorry, Apple does not have, and if they did, they wouldn't need to buy Intel at all), we may just have to get used to new chips taking longer to mature going forward.
 
Let's not also forget that Apple has had some control of their desktop chips in the past.

The PowerPC architecture was produced under the AIM alliance-Apple, IBM, and Motorola. IBM and Motorola(now Freescale) did the fabrication, but Apple had significant input on the design.

There were many reasons for the switch to Intel, but one of the motivations was that IBM overpromised and under-delivered on the PPC 970 CPU(aka the G5). Steve Jobs stood up in 2002 and promised 3ghz G5s within a year or 18 months(I forget which). They hit 2.7ghz in late '04 or early '05(I forget which), but that was with a(problematic) liquid cooling system. The best G5 to ever come out of Cupertino had a pair of 970FX processors(dual core G5s) running at 2.5ghz with liquid cooling-the still well respected "G5 Quad."

Along with that, IBM never could get the thermal issues and power consumption on the 970 series down to the point where they could be used in laptops(the late Powerbooks with 7447As running at 1.5ghz or faster got toasty enough). I have an Xserve G5 with dual 2.0ghz 970s, and even this low-profile(1U) rackmount server has coppper heatsinks that are thicker than Powerbook G4s-and the thing still runs hot even with all 10 fans blasting. The heatsink in the 970FX based dual core G5 I use at work is about 3" tall.

All that aside, I think Apple was happy to get out of the desktop CPU business, and I don't see them being in a hurry to get back into it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheIguana
Why buy someone who is not a competitor, who releases umpteen more product lines than you actually use, and whose very profitability relies on supplying all your competitors as well as yourself.

For no great advantage versus buying the relatively small subset of models that best suit you from their product line, and in the process suddenly assume all their risk?
 
What if Intel aren't for sale? (Which they aren't by the way.) You can't just throw money at something and expect to own it. This thread is ridiculous.
 
They're too big as others stated - there's no way apple could swing such a take over. Then there's the regulatory issues, i.e., monopoly - it would never pass muster on that vein.

Then there's the stock holders - what's in it for them. I mean Intel is doing pretty well, what benefit to the stock holders if apple buys them?
 
Eldiablojoe said:
I only asked about it because Apple, more so than many companies, likes and benefits from strict control over their supply lines.

Intel's sporadic and unreliable chip production seems like it would be a primary component Apple would like much more control over.

Perhaps Apple would be better off hiring the best of the best from Intel and AMD and taking processor production entirely in-house?
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't have an X86 license so even if they had the know how they couldn't produce chips.
 
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