5 ms·

"they would not have lost Mac as a business customer if they continued to innovate" I'm not entirely sure this is true. I mean, I guess it depends on whether o

by jzb 2y ago

"they would not have lost Mac as a business customer if they continued to innovate" I'm not entirely sure this is true. I mean, I guess it depends on whether one expected Intel to be able to make not just a decent chip for PCs/laptops, but also one for phones & tablets. Once Apple started dabbling in its own chips for the iPhone and iPad, it seemed inevitable that they'd expand that to their macOS systems too. Apple has been a rough customer to please for chip designers/manufacturers, I'm not sure any company could've satisfied them with a general-purpose chip.

hbn 2y ago
If they played their cards right as the top dog ~20 years ago, they could have perhaps ended up with the relationship with Apple that TSMC does today.
- talldayo 2y ago
  1. Intel didn't have big fabs 20 years ago, so they didn't have anything to offer Apple that would resemble TSMC's partnership. 2. There's no money in designing licensed CPU cores as a middleman for a company that drives margins so low they're associated with suicide nets and forced labor. 3. If TSMC is lost due to Chinese aggression (which is a non-zero chance), Apple is left fabless and has to choose between importing Samsung silicon at-cost or partnering with Intel.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    Might take them a few years to update their software to run on the Samsung stack. What are they going to do without all the auxiliary processors they build in? Or do they have a team which has their software working on other people's silicon in case their supply chain get blown up?
    - talldayo 2y ago
      Also, importantly, how hard will the US government be taxing imports and propping-up Intel? I think that an anti-Apple and pro-Apple administration would both want them to stop shipping jobs offshore. There's a tariff knob that can be adjusted until only Intel (or GlobalFoundries, lmao) are feasible choices, and if the US wants their Intel investment recouped then they may well push for that kind of deal. Personally, I find the "samurai's honor" shit where one company avoids another to be childish and stupid. If you make Apple's board choose between ending their grudge-match or blowing up their margins, I don't think they'll care much either. Or maybe I'm wrong, and the 2027 iPhone is manufactured with 24nm wafers intended for the Toyota Prius.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    > Intel didn't have big fabs 20 years ago, They had leading edge ARM chips though. If Apple used XScale (i.e. the default choice had Intel not decided to get rid of it due to "reasons") for the iPhone that would have significantly reduced the likelihood of them developing competitive chips themselves. Also 20 years? Samsung was still making Apple's chips back in 2014. > 2. There's no money in designing licensed CPU cores as a middleman for a company that drives margins so low they're associated with suicide nets and forced labor. Is Apple significantly or at all worse than their competitors in this regard? In any case only reason Apple is designing their own chips is because there weren't any decent options for their use cases available on the market (and Intel only has itself to blame for that...)

by jzb 2y ago

hbn 2y ago

If they played their cards right as the top dog ~20 years ago, they could have perhaps ended up with the relationship with Apple that TSMC does today.

talldayo 2y ago
1. Intel didn't have big fabs 20 years ago, so they didn't have anything to offer Apple that would resemble TSMC's partnership. 2. There's no money in designing licensed CPU cores as a middleman for a company that drives margins so low they're associated with suicide nets and forced labor. 3. If TSMC is lost due to Chinese aggression (which is a non-zero chance), Apple is left fabless and has to choose between importing Samsung silicon at-cost or partnering with Intel.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Might take them a few years to update their software to run on the Samsung stack. What are they going to do without all the auxiliary processors they build in? Or do they have a team which has their software working on other people's silicon in case their supply chain get blown up?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Also, importantly, how hard will the US government be taxing imports and propping-up Intel? I think that an anti-Apple and pro-Apple administration would both want them to stop shipping jobs offshore. There's a tariff knob that can be adjusted until only Intel (or GlobalFoundries, lmao) are feasible choices, and if the US wants their Intel investment recouped then they may well push for that kind of deal. Personally, I find the "samurai's honor" shit where one company avoids another to be childish and stupid. If you make Apple's board choose between ending their grudge-match or blowing up their margins, I don't think they'll care much either. Or maybe I'm wrong, and the 2027 iPhone is manufactured with 24nm wafers intended for the Toyota Prius.
- qwytw 2y ago
  > Intel didn't have big fabs 20 years ago, They had leading edge ARM chips though. If Apple used XScale (i.e. the default choice had Intel not decided to get rid of it due to "reasons") for the iPhone that would have significantly reduced the likelihood of them developing competitive chips themselves. Also 20 years? Samsung was still making Apple's chips back in 2014. > 2. There's no money in designing licensed CPU cores as a middleman for a company that drives margins so low they're associated with suicide nets and forced labor. Is Apple significantly or at all worse than their competitors in this regard? In any case only reason Apple is designing their own chips is because there weren't any decent options for their use cases available on the market (and Intel only has itself to blame for that...)