Apple Unlikely To Move To Intel Chips For iPhone, iPad [View article]
Ashraf, l carefully read and enjoyed your article. So, I figure you already know this but naive SA readers do not:
All Apple Inc. OSs run on the same Darwin/Mach/UNIX kernel. There might be some optimizations specific to each device, or not. There are powerful compiler optimizations specific to each CPU.
The iOS UI runs on top of Darwin and the Mac OSX UI also runs on Darwin. A developer or enthusiast might run both UIs on one sufficiently large computer.
The only barrier to evolution for Apple Inc. is the legacy compiled application code (e.g., Intel Core CPU versus Apple A series CPU). Apple has a very successful history of migrating off CPU architectures and also UIs to more modern ones. This is in Apple's DNA.
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
Robert, you are so right. History is repeating itself with WINTEL. Previous legal monopolies have always failed. E.g., US Steel and Detroit automobile manufacturers. Today, Detroit stands but is bankrupt. Bankrupt ideas are capital destroyers.
Do not expect too much from mere fanbois. After 7-8 years of consecutive WINTEL market failures, the pressure is intense.
New Intel (INTC +0.6%) CEO Brian Krzanich has already signed off on a major reorg, one that includes the creation of a "new devices" unit, Reuters reports. Krzanich has been promising mobile will become a bigger priority for the chip giant. "We see that we've been a bit slow to move in the space ... We're well positioned already and the base of assets we have will allow us to grow much faster." [View news story]
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
mitchell, we are witnessing yet another dangerous bubble, with Intel Corporation...a future outcomes "prediction bubble". There is no limit on or common sense to the claims of a new WINTEL. The cause of this bubble is fortunately very clear: billions of marketing spread thickly around the media.
I eagerly await the rumored Apple Mac upgrades expected to coincide with WWDC. Whether Apple Inc. goes with Haswell is market feedback concerning Intel's future.
With so much going for it, Intel is expected to ship good chips in volume just as Intel already did with previous Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. The prices are high, exceeding $1000.00 per retail CPU at the high end.
With so much opportunity, the rest of the planet is expected to ship custom chips, optimized for each device. Internet companies are becoming DIY chip designers. Embedded device companies are also. Internet of things companies...you see the pattern.
Apple (AAPL) releases Tim Cook's official statement (.pdf) to the Senate ahead of his Tuesday appearance at a hearing on corporate tax payments. Among other things, Apple claims it paid ~$6B in federal taxes in FY12 and a 30.5% effective federal tax rate, and that its foreign units don't engage in the practices the hearing focuses on (the shifting of IP to offshore havens, revolving loans from subsidiaries, etc). The company proposes a tax system that's "revenue neutral, eliminates all tax expenditures, lowers tax rates and implements a reasonable tax on foreign earnings." (previous) [View news story]
US Corporate tax rate should max out at 15 to 25 percent, depending on the industry. Higher for polluting and natural resource extracting industries because they harm the future GDP. No tax breaks except the current R&D.
Heck, make US Corporate tax rate fixed, depending on the industry.
Whoops! I just scared most of the K Street lobbyists, I mean ex-Congresspeople.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
randol, so Intel must sell Haswell or Bay Trail at less than $17.50 per SoC. That makes perfect "cents" down to the penny!
Also, you must account for all the other chips required for a "system". The comparison between Intel SoC and in-house semi-custom SoC is apple-to-oranges at the system level. If Intel SoC requires more chips total, the cost, power, heat go up and performance goes down.
It even gets better as you do diligence. GP is general purpose: slow, power hungry, extravagant of real estate. SP is special purpose: fast, power effecient, spartan of real estate. The market has changed in 2012.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Jim, I define "failed" from the perspective of the market. Intel could not "monetize" it. HW vendors lost their "sunk costs". Customers were stuck with "crap" systems and "sunk costs". IT departments were stuck with "a pig with lipstick".
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. You define Itanium as an Intel success; however, why has Intel wanted to kill Itanium for many years AND why did HP sue Oracle? Not all SA readers would agree with Jim's Intel architecture calls. You just insulted many HW vendors who used i960 only to have Intel lose interest in keeping i960 up to date.
I am getting tired of all the noise and claims. The i960 just reminded me of the 1980s, Cisco, and ASICs. If any one of the Intel is "all knowing and invincible" analysts were correct, then there would be a much smaller ASIC market. Thanks, Jim, for a great idea.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Strat, you make very practical points. I agree, these are more important than magic transistors.
For further corroboration, research Intel tv. Intel did some easy tech work but have left out the eco-system and content licenses, for last. That probably will backfire on Intel when negotiating with all the big players.
Intel's DNA is to paint themselves into the corner, drive off on tangents.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Michael, based on due diligence, you among all Intel bulls should recognize that Intel has suffered harsh financial and business conditions on several occasions. Recent years are just one example.
IBM anointed Intel's 8088 (bad idea) and 8086 and many subsequent generations. Intel has failed with all the other Intel architectures, and there have been many (e.g., IA432, i960, i860, IA64 Itanium, Xscale). Isolated, Intel is likely to spin out of control.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Arnold, welcome to SA. Keep writing. You do not need to sprinkle your clearly non-technical articles with tech-speak. You need to sharpen your thesis and supporting points. Repetition is no substitute for precise framing of your debate.
Your business model/investment thesis hinges on a single unproven assumption, to whit, Intel's magic transistor is sooo great that all Intel competition must quickly fail.
My considered, reasoned, and supported business model/investment thesis trumps yours, game and set. If your business model/investment thesis is absolutely correct, then all competent Intel competitors are already working on significant improvements. IBM, TSMC, Samsung, and GF will jointly match Intel on gate leakage current, transistor switching speed, voltage/heat.
Intel's competitors have already whittled Intel's magic transistor advantage down. Magic is for kids and dreamers.
Our mobile, Internet of things, smart space, and smart accessory future pivots on several things, having NOTHING to do with Intel's magic transistor.
Intel executes way too slooow to win. Intel is a chip house with a 1960s business model as refined by the 1980s IBM PC granting Intel's x86 a chip monopoly. To paraphrase a famous saying, when Intel sees a device, Intel only sees transistors.
Intel will continue to win designs in its traditional markets like PCs, laptops, servers. Competitors will continue to reduce Intel's monopoly there. Meanwhile, mobile and low power will continue to grow at a ferocious pace, already far exceeding annual unit production rates for Intel CPUs.
Apple Unlikely To Move To Intel Chips For iPhone, iPad [View article]
All Apple Inc. OSs run on the same Darwin/Mach/UNIX kernel. There might be some optimizations specific to each device, or not. There are powerful compiler optimizations specific to each CPU.
The iOS UI runs on top of Darwin and the Mac OSX UI also runs on Darwin. A developer or enthusiast might run both UIs on one sufficiently large computer.
The only barrier to evolution for Apple Inc. is the legacy compiled application code (e.g., Intel Core CPU versus Apple A series CPU). Apple has a very successful history of migrating off CPU architectures and also UIs to more modern ones. This is in Apple's DNA.
What's Your Exit Strategy? [View article]
I wonder how many SA readers are following these tactics.
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
Folks, meet me and my shadow...heh-heh.
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
Do not expect too much from mere fanbois. After 7-8 years of consecutive WINTEL market failures, the pressure is intense.
New Intel (INTC +0.6%) CEO Brian Krzanich has already signed off on a major reorg, one that includes the creation of a "new devices" unit, Reuters reports. Krzanich has been promising mobile will become a bigger priority for the chip giant. "We see that we've been a bit slow to move in the space ... We're well positioned already and the base of assets we have will allow us to grow much faster." [View news story]
How Intel Could Jump 2 Moore Generations Ahead And Capture The Mobile Chip Industry [View article]
I eagerly await the rumored Apple Mac upgrades expected to coincide with WWDC. Whether Apple Inc. goes with Haswell is market feedback concerning Intel's future.
With so much going for it, Intel is expected to ship good chips in volume just as Intel already did with previous Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. The prices are high, exceeding $1000.00 per retail CPU at the high end.
With so much opportunity, the rest of the planet is expected to ship custom chips, optimized for each device. Internet companies are becoming DIY chip designers. Embedded device companies are also. Internet of things companies...you see the pattern.
Apple (AAPL) releases Tim Cook's official statement (.pdf) to the Senate ahead of his Tuesday appearance at a hearing on corporate tax payments. Among other things, Apple claims it paid ~$6B in federal taxes in FY12 and a 30.5% effective federal tax rate, and that its foreign units don't engage in the practices the hearing focuses on (the shifting of IP to offshore havens, revolving loans from subsidiaries, etc). The company proposes a tax system that's "revenue neutral, eliminates all tax expenditures, lowers tax rates and implements a reasonable tax on foreign earnings." (previous) [View news story]
Heck, make US Corporate tax rate fixed, depending on the industry.
Whoops! I just scared most of the K Street lobbyists, I mean ex-Congresspeople.
God, I do not like dealing with taxes.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Also, you must account for all the other chips required for a "system". The comparison between Intel SoC and in-house semi-custom SoC is apple-to-oranges at the system level. If Intel SoC requires more chips total, the cost, power, heat go up and performance goes down.
It even gets better as you do diligence. GP is general purpose: slow, power hungry, extravagant of real estate. SP is special purpose: fast, power effecient, spartan of real estate. The market has changed in 2012.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. You define Itanium as an Intel success; however, why has Intel wanted to kill Itanium for many years AND why did HP sue Oracle? Not all SA readers would agree with Jim's Intel architecture calls. You just insulted many HW vendors who used i960 only to have Intel lose interest in keeping i960 up to date.
I am getting tired of all the noise and claims. The i960 just reminded me of the 1980s, Cisco, and ASICs. If any one of the Intel is "all knowing and invincible" analysts were correct, then there would be a much smaller ASIC market. Thanks, Jim, for a great idea.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
For further corroboration, research Intel tv. Intel did some easy tech work but have left out the eco-system and content licenses, for last. That probably will backfire on Intel when negotiating with all the big players.
Intel's DNA is to paint themselves into the corner, drive off on tangents.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Three card Monty is being played by Arnold. By focusing exclusively on Intel's "magic transistor", everything else is treated as irrelevant.
The count of chips in the device is very important, as are heat generation, power consumption, functionality, IP licenses.
Magic transistors might as well be magic beans.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Intel, TSMC And Samsung Are Driving Semiconductor Capital Spending In 2013 [View article]
This information has been very useful.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
IBM anointed Intel's 8088 (bad idea) and 8086 and many subsequent generations. Intel has failed with all the other Intel architectures, and there have been many (e.g., IA432, i960, i860, IA64 Itanium, Xscale). Isolated, Intel is likely to spin out of control.
Reference: Wikipedia at http://bit.ly/10J409b.
Structural Change In The Mobile Processor Marketplace: Intel Wins; ARM, AMD Lose [View article]
Your business model/investment thesis hinges on a single unproven assumption, to whit, Intel's magic transistor is sooo great that all Intel competition must quickly fail.
My considered, reasoned, and supported business model/investment thesis trumps yours, game and set. If your business model/investment thesis is absolutely correct, then all competent Intel competitors are already working on significant improvements. IBM, TSMC, Samsung, and GF will jointly match Intel on gate leakage current, transistor switching speed, voltage/heat.
Intel's competitors have already whittled Intel's magic transistor advantage down. Magic is for kids and dreamers.
Our mobile, Internet of things, smart space, and smart accessory future pivots on several things, having NOTHING to do with Intel's magic transistor.
Intel executes way too slooow to win. Intel is a chip house with a 1960s business model as refined by the 1980s IBM PC granting Intel's x86 a chip monopoly. To paraphrase a famous saying, when Intel sees a device, Intel only sees transistors.
Intel will continue to win designs in its traditional markets like PCs, laptops, servers. Competitors will continue to reduce Intel's monopoly there. Meanwhile, mobile and low power will continue to grow at a ferocious pace, already far exceeding annual unit production rates for Intel CPUs.