POLL: Would Apple buying AMD be...

[KingPing]

Apple buying AMD jeje, i might become an Intel and Nvidia fanboy, who knows

 

[cadaveca]

IBM already has an x86 licence.

The reason there is no IBM vs Intel in x86, is because Intel has already kicked their arses and IBM aren't coming back for a second dose.

Ah, Chad, you get it!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I didn't realise that IBM still existed, wow, learn something new every day.

They're huge, just not in the consumer computing market. They sell super computers, processors to be used in consumer electronics (like cash registers), they operate clouds, and design specialized software (e.g. World Community Grid).

IBM already has an x86 licence.

The reason there is no IBM vs Intel in x86, is because Intel has already kicked their arses and IBM aren't coming back for a second dose.

The license states they can't sell an IBM x86 processor outside of an IBM computer. Note that IBM hasn't made an x86 processor since the 1980s. AMD, Via, and Cyrix (now National Semiconductor) don't have that limitation.

 

[Flyordie]

There is really no way this will happen. AMD just purchased ATI. AS you have seen they have done some great things with the 4xxx and 5xxx graphic cards. Phenoms newest line 6 core is pretty awesome, especially the price point. Basically I feel, as a stock holder in AMD, that we haven't even seen a true profit yet from the ATI acquisition. I think most shareholders feel this way. So unless apple can come in and offer me 20% more for my stock it's not going to happen. I firmly believe AMD will continue to climb in the market and I may get more than 20% return on my investment.

It's not a matter if Apple can, it is a matter if the shareholders are willing to sell when there is so much potential.

I got in at $2.35 currently its at $9.77...and I'm riding it all the way to $18.00 for sure.

lol, I got in at $1.82/unit. I bought 1,100 Units. (or shares if you prefer to call them that)

So answer the question/poll... Nope. Wont' happen.

 

[douglatins]

AMD has ATI, ATI does games, MAC? No games. So there will be the end of ATI for gaming, apple should dissapear

 

[cadaveca]

AMD has ATI, ATI does games, MAC? No games. So there will be the end of ATI for gaming, apple should dissapear

STEAM, and it's full library, is coming to a MAC near you soon. And because of Apple's closed-platform business practices, they might have a leg up on getting developers, too...

It’s officially official: Valve will bring its Steam online distribution service and titles from its massive library of hit games to the Mac this April, the company confirmed Monday.

The successful content-delivery service will bring Valve titles like Left 4 Dead and the upcoming Portal 2, as well as games from other publishers, to Apple computers for the first time.

The move was telegraphed last week in a series of teaser posters that mashed characters from Valve games into retro Apple ads. Dan Connors, CEO of Telltale Games, called Apple and Steam a natural fit.

“If there’s anything like iTunes on the PC right now for games, it’s Steam,” Connors said. “So you’ve got two great leaders in digital distribution coming together.”



Read More http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/03/steam-mac/#ixzz0lhqOuMMw

 

[FordGT90Concept]

lol, I got in at $1.82/unit. I bought 1,100 Units. (or shares if you prefer to call them that)

$8000 profit, nice!

STEAM, and it's full library, is coming to a MAC near you soon. And because of Apple's closed-platform business practices, they might have a leg up on getting developers, too...

Only the Valve, Steam-native applications (e.g. Half-Life) are being ported and, of course, Steam itself. It is not very likely any other publishers are going to jump on that bandwagon especially seeing how Mac OS X market share is no longer growing. The market is still too small.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Speaking of apple, anyone know if there's some sort of court case tracking site to get regular updates on the htc suit? I'm curious to see if the judge will risk appeals and invalidate a few of apple's patents, like that undervolting one.

 

[Fourstaff]

AMD+Apple? No chance, people who back AMD are sensible people, people who back Apple are fanatics. I can't see how AMD is going to be sold to Apple unless Apple offers an obscene amount.

Just checked, Apple is worth about $50 billion compared to AMD's $10 billion. Apple can buy AMD by force, and that's got me worried.

 

[btarunr]

Where do these rumors come from? Even for rumors, this is bullshit.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

It would make AMD/ATi products more expensive. It would take away the reason people buy AMD CPUs which is price/performance. If anybody says its a morality issue that they buy AMD they are ignorant. AMD is no charity, it is an important niche in the enthusiast market.

Everything Apple is function follows form. Not a good thing for utilitarian devices if you ask me. CPU production is as utilitarian as it gets.

 

[Flanker]

i would find that apocalyptic

 

[DaedalusHelios]

I heard that they were going to run the iBoard platform on AMD products.

The iMat is much more ambitious.

 

[HalfAHertz]

Would this deal hurt apple? No because their clients don't care what's in the shiny box as long as it works.

Would it hurt AMD and ATI? Hell yes because the way Apple conducts business would distance the chip maker's current clientele.

I still have faith that AMD can come up with a competing product against Intel, all they need is a bit more time. I'd an Intel only monopoly on the desktop market is my worst nightmare.

Edit: Lol at DaedalusHelios's post

 

[qubit]

What, Apple control freakery applied to PC technology? No thanks.

 

[Frick]

Sweet lord it would be horrible. Apple would make everything Apple-exclusive and force you to activate your new GPU through iTunes. Or something like that. I dont like apple.

 

[H82LUZ73]

They're huge, just not in the consumer computing market. They sell super computers, processors to be used in consumer electronics (like cash registers), they operate clouds, and design specialized software (e.g. World Community Grid).



The license states they can't sell an IBM x86 processor outside of an IBM computer. Note that IBM hasn't made an x86 processor since the 1980s. AMD, Via, and Cyrix (now National Semiconductor) don't have that limitation.

Actually Cyrix is the IBM chip I have one with IBM logo on it.....

I seen this rumor coming when the Apple and AMD article about BUYING CPU,GPUS was on Heaven Hardware 2 days ago.

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Would this deal hurt apple? No because their clients don't care what's in the shiny box as long as it works.

Would it hurt AMD and ATI? Hell yes because the way Apple conducts business would distance the chip maker's current clientele.

I still have faith that AMD can come up with a competing product against Intel, all they need is a bit more time. I'd an Intel only monopoly on the desktop market is my worst nightmare.

Edit: Lol at DaedalusHelios's post

I would say they compete fine right now at the value angle. It is not a must to have the fastest chips if they can still compete in the price war. Intel has too much money on the table for development. Intel is like the Yankee's(USA baseball) where they can just buy the best talent to dominate the market. Bill Gates bought tons of Apple stock to try to prop them up at one point. If Apple falls, then Microsoft gets broken up by anti-trust laws. Same with Intel if AMD falls. AMD serves a purpose that Apple would prevent them from fulfilling if you follow me on this.

It would be much better for IBM to buy AMD. Then they would have enough money to compete with Intel head to head and we would see the most competition in the computer industry occur with technology progressing faster than ever before. AMD always just needed more funds to meet its real potential.

IBM ended the third quarter of 2009 with $11.5 billion of cash on hand and generated free cash flow of $3.4 billion, excluding Global Financing receivables.
~Source www.ibm.com/investor/financials/

With that kind of money they could buy AMD and pay off all of AMDs debt in one stroke. Not even taking on more debt buying them. That is impressive buying into a tech market niche with your spare change. But of course it would be a risky move for such an old tech giant.

 

[sandiegoborn32]

AMD belongs to PC users!

 

[yogurt_21]

If anyone would buy AMD, it would probably be IBM. An x86 architecture would be very valuable to them. They have virtually no presence in the consumer market and an AMD buyout would correct that. IBM vs Intel is fair game.

Intel has already stated that AMD's x86 license is non tranferable.

i.e. unless intel magically gets a whim to issue another one, anyone who buys amd will no longer be able to make processors.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

while that may be true we all know that if intell pulled that move they would again get shut down hard for a monopoly of the market. so in theory if AMD was bought out intell still could stop them from making cpus because to do so would again cause a monopoly and thus ruin intell in the process

 

[HalfAHertz]

Intel has already stated that AMD's x86 license is non tranferable.

i.e. unless intel magically gets a whim to issue another one, anyone who buys amd will no longer be able to make processors.

Nut sure if I understand this 100%, buuut if AMD is sold to Company X, The parent company won't be able to license CPUs under it's own name but would be able to continue licensing them under AMD's name as long as it stays operational even with the imposed limitation, no?

 

[DaedalusHelios]

Nut sure if I understand this 100%, buuut if AMD is sold to Company X, The parent company won't be able to license CPUs under it's own name but would be able to continue licensing them under AMD's name as long as it stays operational even with the imposed limitation, no?

Company X could keep AMD as a subsidiary and still keep on making x86 chips under the AMD name and subsidiary. That is the exploitable loophole. (Link was left for those not familiar with the term as many people here don't speak english as a primary language.)

 

[devguy]

I would love to see Apple loose Intel exclusivity. However, letting the consumer have any choice in their buying decision (except for expensive, really expensive, or super expensive) is very un-Apple. Thus, should they add AMD, it'll likely become AMD only at some point. I doubt Intel will let that happen.

From what I understand, the only reason Apple is interested in AMD now is because of Fusion (and maybe Opteron). I highly doubt we will see something like a Phenom II (or even Bulldozer) in an Apple product. Intel's upcoming monolithic CPU + GPU still has a crappy GPU. Further, they aren't exactly too thrilled with nVidia after their GPU issues last year. Thus, a similarly (maybe slightly less) performing CPU combined with a far superior GPU on the same monolithic die sounds very appetizing for any notebook manufacturer (no matter who it is).

As for Apple buying AMD, GTFO! :shadedshu

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Actually Cyrix is the IBM chip I have one with IBM logo on it.....

IBM made only one Cyrix-based x86 processor and two Intel-based x86 processors. They might be very valuable today or at least in 20-30 years.

Intel has already stated that AMD's x86 license is non tranferable.

i.e. unless intel magically gets a whim to issue another one, anyone who buys amd will no longer be able to make processors.

It wouldn't be transferred, it would be part of a buyout. IBM buying AMD, AMD would technically still hold the licence but IBM is in control of said license. I'm not sure if the license remains through merger but it for sure does through buyout.