Seeking Alpha

Apple (AAPL) has "deliberated" about migrating its Mac hardware away from Intel (INTC) CPUs,...

Apple (AAPL) has "deliberated" about migrating its Mac hardware away from Intel (INTC) CPUs, sources tell Bloomberg Businessweek, though such a move isn't considered imminent. If Apple was to abandon Intel, it would likely be in favor of its ARM-based A-series processors, currently used in iOS devices. Last year, a Japanese blog reported Apple put an A5 chip inside a MacBook Air test model, and an Intel exec claimed Apple threatened to end its relationship with Intel over power consumption. Will Haswell's power savings be enough to satisfy Apple?
Comments (28)
  • CaladesiKid2
    , contributor
    Comments (271) | Send Message
     
    This decision would go a considerable way to explaining the swan dive in INTC share price over the past six weeks. Fascinating to watch the growing dominance of AAPL and GOOG in equity markets.
    3 Oct 2012, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3129) | Send Message
     
    Another look (albeit biased) at this circumstance: http://bit.ly/RZhpSd
    3 Oct 2012, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • sduris
    , contributor
    Comments (554) | Send Message
     
    Maps. Chips. Search soon. Closing the loop at 1 Infinite Loop. These sequence of events will be exciting to watch.
    3 Oct 2012, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • jameskm03
    , contributor
    Comments (102) | Send Message
     
    It might happen but the MacBook market is not a big part of Apples business or the laptop market. It's also not like Intel isn't doing anything to make their chips better...
    3 Oct 2012, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • podmeister
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Yeah... Apple's Mac sales only accounts for a measly $25 Billion or so. A paltry 20% of their revenue.

     

    Seriously, Apple is huge, and when they make any kind of move, whether it's chips, screens, cases or batteries, it has a huge impact in the industry. P.S. Apple is designing their own low power chips now. They are not going to wait for Intel.
    3 Oct 2012, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • sduris
    , contributor
    Comments (554) | Send Message
     
    LMAO.
    3 Oct 2012, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • piggysun
    , contributor
    Comments (113) | Send Message
     
    rumors have been around for quite a while. what's new?
    3 Oct 2012, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • studebakerstew
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    This was known in the Apple community about 6 months ago. Intel has always been a poor fit, and the early Intel Macs were half the computer that the Power PC's were. (32 bit vs 64 bit, memory addressing issues, processors stopping with ide access)
    3 Oct 2012, 10:30 PM Reply Like
  • J.D. Welch
    , contributor
    Comments (1990) | Send Message
     
    If the Intel CPUs weren't better than the PowerPC ones, then why did Jobs switch to Intel inside?...

     

    Yeah, thought so... :-/
    3 Oct 2012, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • studebakerstew
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Heat, speed, and cost per chip. The G-6 (if it used Apple's nomenclature) chip addressed the speed, but with the small user base it would have without Apple put the price up there. A dual core G5 is about 150w, a 2 or 6 core socket F Opteron about 115w of that era. New Opterons with 16 cores are 140w or less for the faster 6200 chips ($1500 each). What is important to the builder? raw clock speed, true through put, battery life, flops/watt, total heat output, integrated graphics, or cost per chip. Life is a compromise, same for computers.
    4 Oct 2012, 01:18 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3371) | Send Message
     
    Apple switched because PowerPC was a hot, slow, power hog that was hitting a wall.

     

    "In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the PowerPC G5 processor and promised that within a year, the clock speed of the part would be up to 3 GHz. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the POWER4-derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a laptop computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the personal computer industry."
    4 Oct 2012, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3371) | Send Message
     
    Studebaker, please explain how the 32 vs 64 bit difference is relevant? I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about nor it's relation to the applicable markets Apple serves.
    4 Oct 2012, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (2347) | Send Message
     
    The day Apple moves away from x86 chips is the day that I put every nickel I can on $100 out of the money Apple puts two years out.

     

    I'm a little porked at Apple at the moment. I finally mustered up the courage to make the switch to a Macbook Air. Looked nice, booted in 12 sec, weighs 3lbs, 8 hour battery life. Life looked good.

     

    It also locked up solid five times a day.
    The geniuses couldn't get my data over very well and lost my outlook contacts while trying to move them over.They told me that they had to use third part software to do the outlook move and it didn't work very well.

     

    Apple should be better than that, but they aren't. I like the phone...for now.

     

    I drove myself crazy for three weeks and finally returned it. They didn't like that, but they didn't like a meeting in conciliation court even more.

     

    I'm back to my boat anchor waiting for the cool Ultrabooks to come after Win 8 gets here.
    3 Oct 2012, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • berylrb
    , contributor
    Comments (2179) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like they did not scan the disc for errors before migrating. If so migrating data is a tricky buzzard, I did not use third party software i did the old fashioned CSV file way.

     

    Not all geniuses are geniuses at moving PC data.
    4 Oct 2012, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    Touch screen Ultrabooks are going to be comming out soon so I;ve heard.
    6 Oct 2012, 01:06 AM Reply Like
  • pman6
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    apple should buy amd and get it over with.
    4 Oct 2012, 04:20 AM Reply Like
  • DanoX
    , contributor
    Comments (2603) | Send Message
     
    No they should built a new fab plant for making chips, which would be a better investment than buying AMD.
    5 Oct 2012, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • piggysun
    , contributor
    Comments (113) | Send Message
     
    Too risky, and neither of them have the R&D capability as Intel.
    5 Oct 2012, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • MexCom
    , contributor
    Comments (3051) | Send Message
     
    Could it be a green mail buyout is brewing? I can't believe Apple would end its relationship with INTC. Their power is in their R&D. Low power consumption is a big project in the lab.
    4 Oct 2012, 05:33 AM Reply Like
  • optionmike
    , contributor
    Comments (82) | Send Message
     
    people are underestimating the power of Intel's research and development. They are moving slow with the evolution in their mobile architecture, but if Haswell is as good at power consumption/performance as they are saying, its a gamechanger
    4 Oct 2012, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • TwistTie
    , contributor
    Comments (2477) | Send Message
     
    Apparently Apple has determined that I purchased a few shares of Intel recently.
    4 Oct 2012, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • sduris
    , contributor
    Comments (554) | Send Message
     
    AAPL got a lot of new business thanks to the Intel chips. AAPL does need to make a decision and stick with it in that regard. The potential flip-flopping isn't helping anyone. However, if it is ultimately better for the machines, make the change. Make the right decision and stick with it. Please.
    4 Oct 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Matt-Man
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    Current A6 performance is impressive in iPhone5. It however is about same level as current Intel Atom single core version. Sure A7/8/9 will improve, but Atom is from 2008, current Intel x86 Ivy Bridge is >10x performance to Atom/A6.

     

    In practice Apple will not be competitive in highend CPU performance without increasing R&D significantly _and_ building 5billion next gen CPU factory. No one else than Intel currently can make 22nm chips that you need to have to compete with Intel.

     

    Sure maybe it is ok to have only 30-50% capacity of the current Intel offering performance but that does not sound as a winning strategy.
    4 Oct 2012, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    Intel is also going to be jumping to the next size wafers, 18 inches (450mm). When they switched from 8 inch to 12 inch, it gave them a very significant drop in manufactuing costs. Going to 18 inches will give them that big decrease again. Intel will be able to build more chips at a lower price. Very few other companies are even at 12 inches yet.
    6 Oct 2012, 01:13 AM Reply Like
  • Matt-Man
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    Maybe Intel could be a foundry to Apple, Apple relationship with Samsung is not doing well and TSMC does not have real advantage over Samsung. Intel could give many good reasons to take Samsungs place. However for Intel this would not be same level margin business as selling their own CPUs of course, but business anyway.

     

    It is bit double edged sword, if Intel would manufacture Apples Ax chips, that alone could allow Apple to move away from x86 in all mobile products. In desktops I do not see any reason to dump Intel, but desktop market is shrinking anyway.
    6 Oct 2012, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • sduris
    , contributor
    Comments (554) | Send Message
     
    Instead of AAPL and Intel converging on technology which was going on in the past - when they used the Intel chips in the Macs - I see a divergence now going on. I think it might be a good thing to go separate ways.
    7 Oct 2012, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Stockgal87
    , contributor
    Comments (355) | Send Message
     
    Intel needs to get into the ARM processor game. Really, the mobile marketplace isn't buying what Intel is selling, and they should stop trying to paddle the canoe upstream and build something people want to buy (that is, an ARM based SoC). They have the chops to make a good one. They did offer to fab Apple's chips but Apple turned them down at the time. Maybe the situation has changed with the Samsung patent conflict... I am sure Intel has TONS of extra fab capacity.
    9 Oct 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Matt-Man
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    Well TI:s OMAP is for sale, not sure if Intel could just buy it having dominant position in processors
    9 Oct 2012, 02:28 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|