Apple and Samsung in the Fray to Acquire Intel: Rumor

[Vincero]

I doubt Apple would really want to become a component manufacturer for others - if they picked up Intel I suspect that certain regulators/customers would demand they maintain that.

One example that comes to mind is AuthenTec who were making fingerprint sensors for lots of laptop vendors... well until Apple bought them... that didn't last long. It would really have made little difference for Apple to keep that company going as a component supplier in the space they were in, but no f**k everyone else.

Apple would more than likely break it up and sell bits off; maybe networking to HP, maybe some of the core logic stuff to any other interested parties, whatever's left of the FPGA business to whoever is in that field, fabs to someone (maybe keep one), etc.

 

[theglaze]

I can't see Apple doing anything good for the consumer if they acquire Intel, neither can I see Samsung doing good with it. Not good companies at all.

I can't see Intel doing anything good for the consumer if Intel stays un-acquired.

285K is more impressive as a belt buckle than a CPU.

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

This is all it is. The US government would never allow either purchase. It's absolute nonsense.

You don't know that, and I don't believe its nonsense either. I believe that it is very much possible for at least Apple to acquire Intel, were an agreement to actually happen. Intel makes nowhere near the amount of money Apple does, and the market share Intel currently has is rapidly going to AMD and their CPUs such as Ryzen and EPYC. Intel has tried for years to get out of this hole they are in, and it has not yet happened, even despite them bringing back Pat. Intel is not the seemingly invinceable corporation it once was anymore. They haven't even been able to retain market share in the GPU market since they launched Alchemist back in 2022, and Battlemage hasn't even been released. Their failure to create better performing chips is astronomically bad, which is why I believe it opens the possibility for them to be acquired, as they have stagnated in terms of innovation for literally over a decade, since even before the launch of Ryzen.

It should also be said that Intel and Apple don't even compete in the same segments. Apple creates laptops, smartphones, products related to entertainment such as the Apple TV and AirPods, and smartwatches, as well as has a huge division related to just services such as Apple Music and Apple TV+ which rakes in almost $100 billion a year alone from all their services. Intel is pretty much only known for their designing and engineering of chips designed around the x86 architecture for client and server.

Apple designs and engineers chips too, but they create chips based on the ARM architecture, not on the x86 architecture, and they are strictly for use in their own hardware products, such as the Mac, iPhone, and iPad; they don't sell them to consumers to buy and use in their own builds, nor do they license them out or sell them to third-party OEMs. So I do not believe them acquriing Intel would fall under any antitrust or anticompetive laws. And I believe Apple would benefit from acquring at least Intel's foundry business, as it would give them an entry path into reducing their reliance on foreign companies, such as TSMC, for their manufacturing of chips.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Nice vague reply.

Yup, that's all. Your comment was just silly.

You don't know that, and I don't believe its nonsense either.

Yes, I do. It's absolute twaddle, kinda like..

285K is more impressive as a belt buckle than a CPU.

...that statement..

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

Yup, that's all. Your comment was just silly.


Yes, I do. It's absolute twaddle, kinda like..


...that statement..

No, you don't. Did you read my full reply? From what I can tell there aren't really any antitrust concerns with regard to Intel being acquired by Apple, as they don't really compete in any of the same segments, unless you somehow consider them making their own chips for their own products (that they don't sell to consumers or third-party OEMs) to be competing with Intel. And Apple has actually acquired one of Intel's businesses in the past, when they acquired their modem division a few years ago back in 2019. So the possibility of them acquring the whole company is seriously not unrealistic.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No, you don't.

Intel will NEVER be bought buy Apple. EVER! It would violate anti-trust laws in a big way. Samsung will NEVER buy Intel. Too many security problems and anti-trust issues. It's a rumor that is so lacking that a screen door on a submarine sounds like a more likely idea.

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

Intel will NEVER be bought buy Apple. EVER! It would violate anti-trust laws in a big way. Samsung will NEVER buy Intel. Too many security problems and anti-trust issues. It's a rumor that is so lacking that a screen door on a submarine sounds like a more likely idea.

No it wouldn't. Apple and Intel don't compete. Intel and AMD do. It would violate anti-trust if AMD tried to acquire Intel, as AMD is Intel's sole competitor, but Apple? I highly doubt it would.

 

[lexluthermiester]

No it wouldn't. Apple and Intel don't compete.

Context is important. You're missing some. It's as simple as that. It'll never happen.

 

[ScaLibBDP]

Take a look at a 5-day and 1-month charts of Intel Corporation stock price:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/

Is there a correlation with all these rumours ( this is Not the 1st one during last a couple of months! ) about absolutely Not possible takeover of Intel Corporation?

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

Context is important. You're missing some. It's as simple as that. It'll never happen.

You literally cannot say that it will never happen, as large acquisitions have gone through before, e.g. Disney and 21st Century Fox. And what context am I missing here? I've lived long enough to know that Intel being acquired by Apple isn't out of the realm of possibilites.

 

[Daven]

You literally cannot say that it will never happen, as large acquisitions have gone through before, e.g. Disney and 21st Century Fox. And what context am I missing here? I've lived long enough to know that Intel being acquired by Apple isn't out of the realm of possibilites.

It seems Lex might be messing with us. There is nothing stopping Intel from being acquired. Lex is just using insults to belittle our arguments while not providing any evidence that Intel is specially protected from acquisition. Lex just can’t fathom it.

There was a company called DEC that was just as big as Intel with similar products and services. DEC had over 140,000 employees at one time. It sold products to the US government including the military. It was bought by Compaq which was in turn bought by HP.

Acquisitions and mergers happen. It’s much easier for a US company to buy Intel but overseas companies can too. For example,

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2015/5/12/defense-contractor-reinvents-itself-to-operate-under-foreign-ownership

There are hurdles of course when big companies are acquired by foreign ones as shown by the above example. But it can happen. And by the way, that’s an example of a defense contractor in whole. Intel is only a defense contractor in part.

 

[Visible Noise]

MLID. Not even worth the internet bandwidth to quote it.

 

[Vincero]

It seems Lex might be messing with us. There is nothing stopping Intel from being acquired. Lex is just using insults to belittle our arguments while not providing any evidence that Intel is specially protected from acquisition. Lex just can’t fathom it.

There was a company called DEC that was just as big as Intel with similar products and services. It sold products to the US government including the military. It was bought by Compaq which was in turn bought by HP.

Acquisitions and mergers happen.

Bits of it were bought by different people. DEC also to a certain extent fell out of favour/use by businesses turning to x86/Itanium/PowerPC/etc. systems and servers as it reorganised and sold off different bits of the business. Compaq were only interested in the PC / enterprise units, so whatever other business units were left were divested.
AMD picked up the DEC Alpha CPU part of the business, handily to use the EV6 bus for Athlon products rather than try to ground up develop or keep using Intel Socket7 - confusingly Intel ended up with the DEC chip design part (hey another fab and team to add to the business I guess).

There are some parallels - Intel have sold off some business units, some understandably, but not all making sense - Intel spinning off the FPGA business doesn't really make sense to me considering the business they are in, but for the most part Intel are not having the downfall DEC/Digital had.... yet

 

[Daven]

Bits of it were bought by different people. DEC also to a certain extent fell out of favour/use by businesses turning to x86/Itanium/PowerPC/etc. systems and servers as it reorganised and sold off different bits of the business. Compaq were only interested in the PC / enterprise units, so whatever other business units were left were divested.
AMD picked up the DEC Alpha CPU part of the business, handily to use the EV6 bus for Athlon products rather than try to ground up develop or keep using Intel Socket7 - confusingly Intel ended up with the DEC chip design part (hey another fab and team to add to the business I guess).

There are some parallels - Intel have sold off some business units, some understandably, but not all making sense - Intel spinning off the FPGA business doesn't really make sense to me considering the business they are in, but for the most part Intel are not having the downfall DEC/Digital had.... yet

Thanks for the great background information! What happened to DEC is very similar to what is happening to Intel. I might go as far to say it's the same situation. Many don't remember DEC. It was a big chip and systems company that fell. It can happen. It definitely happens.

 

[Nhonho]

Please educate yourself on what "intellectual property" is before making such ignorant statements.

Why this unprovoked aggression?

Intel's "intellectual property" is causing losses of US$16 billion per quarter...

At this point, there is very little confidence that Intel can save itself so we have a number of potential buyers with enough stock trading value/cash:

Apple
Alphabet
Amazon
Meta
Nvidia
TSMC
Broadcom
Oracle
Samsung
AMD
Cisco
Qualcomm
Texas Instruments
IBM

AMD can't buy Intel because it would have a monopoly on x86.

And if Nvidia bought Intel, it would crush AMD.

 

[Dave65]

Id take this with a GIANT grain of salt since it's coming from Moores Law is Dead.. He is never right and I cannot believe TPU is posting this.

 

[Daven]

Why this unprovoked aggression?

Intel's "intellectual property" is causing losses of US$16 billion per quarter...



AMD can't buy Intel because it would have a monopoly on x86.

And if Nvidia bought Intel, it would crush AMD.

There ‘s no such thing as an x86 monopoly just as there is no such thing as a Snickers monopoly. X86 is a product of Intel that was licensed to companies in the past and one in the present.

The market is CPUs and there are dozens and dozens of CPU designers and manufacturers.

Nvidia could not get ARM because it would have been uncompetitive which is different than a monopoly.

Id take this with a GIANT grain of salt since it's coming from Moores Law is Dead.. He is never right and I cannot believe TPU is posting this.

Is that true? He has been 100% wrong on everything he ever posted?

 

[londiste]

Take a look at a 5-day and 1-month charts of Intel Corporation stock price:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/

Is there a correlation with all these rumours ( this is Not the 1st one during last a couple of months! ) about absolutely Not possible takeover of Intel Corporation?

No, there is not.
This is due to Intel publishing their quarterly financials.

 

[eidairaman1]

I have to disagree here. There is a huge bias from all us tech enthusiasts on this topic. Intel getting bought out is too big of a change in reality for many of us to think about or accept.

No regulatory entity will block such a deal if it means closing down fabs and 100% firing all Intel employees. And no US government body has the stomach to fully own any company for long.

National security aside, in the end it comes down to capitalism. If Intel falls low enough, it can and will be bought. End of story.

Just like the crap autobailout in 2008, #Toobigtofail

 

[redeye]

Apple won’t buy it. Does not need to use intel fabs, first in line for TSMC.

intel can survive without the fabs and GPU stuff…

IMO Just like person insolvency, you can keep your “house and car” (Canada) if you can afford the payments…
so intel keeps the “instruction set” becomes fab less, gets rid of the “boat anchor” GPU division and uses the Qualcomm’s newly acquired fabs for intel.
(Wiki states the Qualcomm is an American Company, )
don’t not know why I though it was similar Samsung (Korean owned)

 

[dyonoctis]

I once made a bet around 2010 with a friend of mine that not a single company around at that time will be around in 50 years as very few companies are around today from the 1960s. That would mean in 2060, there will be no Disney, no Nike, no Apple and certainly no Intel. Just think of how much has changed in the 50 years preceding 2010. No one of adult age in 1960 can even recognize the world today. Now imagine the world in 2060. It's hard to do because humans can't bring themselves to see change especially incremental change.

It really depends on the business area of said company. I think that there are more century-old companies than you realize...
The likes of Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Winsor & Newton, Staedler, Canson, Faber Castell, Levi's, Pilot, Bausch and Lomb, Bosch, etc... have been around for over a century, and survive on brand prestige...along with the fact that they are doing business in a market that's already been stabilized, and not that susceptible to technological breakthrough.

Nike Adidas and Puma have a symbiotic relationship with sports and athletes: their sponsorship is a big chunk of an athlete's living hood, and they get marketing benefits from being associated with Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappé and so on. When Nike developed shoes that were so good, that it noticeably made people wearing them better, said shoes got banned. So there's not really an incentive to make something groundbreaking in that field and extinguish the competition. (the same thing happened with the swimming suit that provided too much buoyancy. Every brand had to settle to something more plain and standard)

Massive difference with Intel who's doing business in an area that's constantly pursuing innovation, and when they hit a performance wall, things get bad really fast. if the competition is better. Nobody is going to ban a CPU or GPU for being too good over the competition Most of the big companies that kicked the bucket either failed to keep up in a market that moved fast, did business in a sector that stopped being relevant in the grand scheme of things, or just plain bad business moves.

Yes, The world is massivelly different from it was 50 years ago... but look outside of tech, and you'll realize that old money from as far back as the 18th century is still doing great even though they've never been involved in the computer, internet or A.I craze. There are categories of goods that humanity has been lusting after for several millennia, (I'm talking 10 000 BC) and those goods are still massively popular today. Even if they don't really bring any tangible value beyond "questionable fun"

 

[Easo]

This is not going to happen. Why do people keep insisting that it will?

 

[Ravenas]

I think there is high probability that Apple purchases the fabs for vertical integration.

 

[Daven]

This is not going to happen. Why do people keep insisting that it will?

Read the whole discussion

It really depends on the business area of said company. I think that there are more century-old companies than you realize...
The likes of Hermes, Louis Vuitton, Winsor & Newton, Staedler, Canson, Faber Castell, Levi's, Pilot, Bausch and Lomb, Bosch, etc... have been around for over a century, and survive on brand prestige...along with the fact that they are doing business in a market that's already been stabilized, and not that susceptible to technological breakthrough.

Nike Adidas and Puma have a symbiotic relationship with sports and athletes: their sponsorship is a big chunk of an athlete's living hood, and they get marketing benefits from being associated with Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappé and so on. When Nike developed shoes that were so good, that it noticeably made people wearing them better, said shoes got banned. So there's not really an incentive to make something groundbreaking in that field and extinguish the competition. (the same thing happened with the swimming suit that provided too much buoyancy. Every brand had to settle to something more plain and standard)

Massive difference with Intel who's doing business in an area that's constantly pursuing innovation, and when they hit a performance wall, things get bad really fast. if the competition is better. Nobody is going to ban a CPU or GPU for being too good over the competition Most of the big companies that kicked the bucket either failed to keep up in a market that moved fast, did business in a sector that stopped being relevant in the grand scheme of things, or just plain bad business moves.

Yes, The world is massivelly different from it was 50 years ago... but look outside of tech, and you'll realize that old money from as far back as the 18th century is still doing great even though they've never been involved in the computer, internet or A.I craze. There are categories of goods that humanity has been lusting after for several millennia, (I'm talking 10 000 BC) and those goods are still massively popular today. Even if they don't really bring any tangible value beyond "questionable fun"

Those are some nice points. Yes there are a dozen or more century old companies. But like everything mainstream such companies can be counted on your fingers and toes while thousands upon thousands of companies are gone. Think about it. In the last 100 years, literally a million businesses have come and gone worldwide and only about 20 have survived.

Who will be around in another century?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I could see apple doing it, to get the fabs if nothing else. TSMC is a very expensive company to work with and its not getting any better.