Apple and Samsung in the Fray to Acquire Intel: Rumor

[Vincero]

I can't see Apple being green lit to buy Intel by some international regulators - two companies famous for anti-competitive/consumer behaviour trying to merge seldom work. Samsung would be excluded for obvious reasons.

 

[Squared]

Too many SKUs

I've never understood this. Tech journalists have lamented that AMD has too few SKUs; a single Ryzen CPU model has so much variance that it almost feels like you don't know what you're getting. Intel's higher SKU count means that if you buy slightly lower-performing silicon, you know it and you pay less for it.

Non-tech people tend to not see anything past "Ryzen 7" or "Core 7", and have no idea that Intel has more models. So it's not hurting anyone and it helps people who want a more exact outcome from their purchase.

 

[londiste]

Journalistic duties aside (its our job to report on this) such a thng is never going to happen. Regulatory would never approve this, nor is Intel looking for a buyer.

I mean this is a bullshit rumor from a not very trustworthy source in the first place. Apple, Samsung and some others are definitely testing the waters but as you said - Intel is not looking for a buyer and there will be regulatory problems with trying to acquire Intel.

 

[Hecate91]

The news keeps piling on. Pat paints a bleak picture for Intel’s roadmap during conference call.

Intel Panther Lake to launch in second half of 2025, no more Memory on Package in future products - VideoCardz.com

Intel wants to simplify roadmaps with fewer products, bring more wafers home for better margins Following the disclosure of Q3 2024 earnings, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger shared some insights on upcoming client CPU plans, though he offered little on graphics. Gelsinger confirmed that the recently...

videocardz.com

Scaled down GPU plans
Too many SKUs
No more memory on package
Low Xeon sales

Scaling down GPU plans and no more memory on package is concerning, I wonder what that means for ARC dGPU, and memory on package is how Intel got their mobile chips to be efficient. I don't like laptops with soldered on RAM but Lunar Lake seems to be competitive.
I just don't see any company being allowed to buy Intel, I wouldn't expect shareholders or the US govt to allow it. Apple has no use for Intel, but if Apple were allowed to buy Intel it wouldn't be good for the consumer.

 

[Daven]

Scaling down GPU plans and no more memory on package is concerning, I wonder what that means for ARC dGPU, and memory on package is how Intel got their mobile chips to be efficient. I don't like laptops with soldered on RAM but Lunar Lake seems to be competitive.
I just don't see any company being allowed to buy Intel, I wouldn't expect shareholders or the US govt to allow it. Apple has no use for Intel, but if Apple were allowed to buy Intel it wouldn't be good for the consumer.

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.

Intel is no more immune to buyout, bankruptcy, etc than ANY other company.

I've never understood this. Tech journalists have lamented that AMD has too few SKUs; a single Ryzen CPU model has so much variance that it almost feels like you don't know what you're getting. Intel's higher SKU count means that if you buy slightly lower-performing silicon, you know it and you pay less for it.

Non-tech people tend to not see anything past "Ryzen 7" or "Core 7", and have no idea that Intel has more models. So it's not hurting anyone and it helps people who want a more exact outcome from their purchase.

Intel has about 2-3 desktop chips that they split into 20-30 SKUs (35W, 65W, 125W and 170W). AMD also has about 2 desktop chips and they split them into about 10 SKUs. I prefer the latter.

I can't help but think that tech news was much higher quality in 2015 when everyone thought AMD would fail. When articles talked about AMD getting bought out they came with information about AMD's x86 patent and said that an AMD sale would not transfer the x86 license to a new company. Intel owns the x86 patent, but AMD owns the x86-64 patent, and I imagine AMD placed the same ruled on Intel. That 64-bit ISA patent is essential for Intel's business.

Selling the foundry business might make more sense. After the launch of Lunar Lake on TSMC N3P and Arrow Lake on TSMC N3B and Granite Rapids and Sierra Forest on Intel 3, I'm convinced that Intel foundries are better than is commonly thought and Intel designs are worse. Intel needs its foundries, so selling them would be a last resort. Partly selling them could be an option though. Maybe Apple and Qualcomm and Samsung would each get a 25% share. If I were Intel I wouldn't give Samsung a share without also getting some control over Samsung foundries.

What I'm sure is true is that Intel and Samsung are considering a foundry alliance and Intel is trying to convince Apple and Qualcomm to use the 18A node and pay for some of it up front.

The past cannot be easily used to determine the future as too much has changed. For about 30 years (1985-2015), Intel and Microsoft held about 90% of all computing devices and computing software. Now there are dozens and dozens of players with just about as much power if not more than Intel. It's true that AMD could have failed anytime but the purchase of ATI saved them. Intel had no idea how important the GPU and mobile (smartphones) would become. Not competing in those markets is very bad for Intel regardless of their current products and node access.

 

[xSneak]

What are the implications for x86 licensing if intel gets sold to another company ? Would that company be forced to make x86 cpus for the consumer market or would AMD be allowed to have a monopoly over everything ?

All those years of stock buy backs and short sighted management have come to bite intc in the ass.

I"m not a stock analyst or a computer engineer so I don't really have much foresight into this. It seems weird that Qualcomm isn't interested in buying them

 

[Lycanwolfen]

Does not surprise me since intel is falling down the tubes. Ever since they started this P core E core L1 Core BS. AMD stuck to it's roots making much better performance CPU's 8 core pure, 16 core pure and even 64 core and 96 core threadrippers. Intel has been falling behind. Pat is a complete moron. They need to stop this fancy BS and make some pure P core CPU's There latest CPU dropped Hyperthreading that was a major bad move. AMD 16 core 32 thread stomps it. Intel will go down in history because it was stupid.

 

[bonehead123]

"Money talks, bullshit walks" 'nuff said

In other words, all of the above named companies have plenty of both, so IF there is a buyout/takeover actually in the works in some high-level exec suite somewhere, it will basically boil down to 'HOW MUCH' and "What's in it for me/us"....

And regardless of which company does what, I'm certain good ole Patty boi will want to take his gazzilion $$ share right off the top, then run & hide in some dark, dreary cavern somewhere, never to be heard from again, which IMHO, would be a good thing ....

 

[Nhonho]

These are complicated days, huh... First ARM kicks its biggest client, Qualcomm, and then Intel can really be bought...

But is it worth buying a giant, expensive, inefficient company, with products that are outdated compared to its competitors and that generates US$ 16 billion in losses per quarter like Intel? Is it worth spending a LOT of money to buy this company that doesn't generate profits (it only generates US$16 billion in losses per quarter)?

How much would the purchase cost? 1 US dolar? (seriously, I'm not kidding)

 

[Vincero]

These are complicated days, huh... First ARM kicks its biggest client, Qualcomm, and then Intel can really be bought...

But is it worth buying a giant, expensive, inefficient company, with products that are outdated compared to its competitors and that generates US$ 16 billion in losses per quarter like Intel? Is it worth spending a LOT of money to buy this company that doesn't generate profits (it only generates US$16 billion in losses per quarter)?

How much would the purchase cost? 1 US dolar? (seriously, I'm not kidding)

IP, patents, etc., all has value.
Intel have a large amount of products outside of CPUs (despite the sell offs), and are primary members of many of the standards groups.

To be honest I'd be more concerned about Broadcom than Qualcomm trying to buy it.

 

[Daven]

IP, patents, etc., all has value.
Intel have a large amount of products outside of CPUs (despite the sell offs), and are primary members of many of the standards groups.

To be honest I'd be more concerned about Broadcom than Qualcomm trying to buy it.

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

 

[Assimilator]

As others have said, there's zero chance of any non-US company being permitted to buy Intel (this includes Broadcom, which is a Singaporean company pretending to be an American one). Apple seems unlikely to me because x86 currently lacks the ability to operate at the low power levels that they require in order to have a unique selling point for their overpriced tat; Qualcomm is more likely but I just don't know if they are capable of digesting an entity as huge as Intel.

Ultimately Gelsinger is fighting against the inertia of an engineering company that hasn't done real engineering for at least a decade. That sort of rot takes time to clean up and while that's going on there is guaranteed to be pain. It's a delicate balancing act between not changing too much too fast (so that continuity is retained) while also not changing too slowly (so that the turnaround takes too long). Personally I think Gelsinger is doing just fine.

These are complicated days, huh... First ARM kicks its biggest client, Qualcomm, and then Intel can really be bought...

But is it worth buying a giant, expensive, inefficient company, with products that are outdated compared to its competitors and that generates US$ 16 billion in losses per quarter like Intel? Is it worth spending a LOT of money to buy this company that doesn't generate profits (it only generates US$16 billion in losses per quarter)?

How much would the purchase cost? 1 US dolar? (seriously, I'm not kidding)

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

 

[TF-GrayWizard]

What are the implications for x86 licensing if intel gets sold to another company ? Would that company be forced to make x86 cpus for the consumer market or would AMD be allowed to have a monopoly over everything ?

All those years of stock buy backs and short sighted management have come to bite intc in the ass.

I"m not a stock analyst or a computer engineer so I don't really have much foresight into this. It seems weird that Qualcomm isn't interested in buying them

• That Intel and AMD basically share x86-related stuff like patents and promise to not pursue litigation for any potential patent infringements (Agreement was made in 2009)
• AMD licences x86 from Intel and Intel does the same to AMD for x86-64
• if the cross-licence agreement was to be nullified by a buyout of Intel or AMD then either side could theoretically sue the other one and halt all sales of any CPU that uses x86 or x86-64 patents since the agreement is no longer in place.

The original patents from late 90s early 2000s are "expired" afaik but that would mean most of the stuff made to optimize x86 or x86-64 will still be protected under IP/patents and each optimization of both instruction sets just extends the patents anyway.

Basically if my armchair non-SME reading of it means that theoretically if one side was bought out then there is a possibility that until a new agreement is made no x86(-64) related CPUs could be manufactured by either company without the possibility of litigation occurring between them.

Intel/AMD cross-license Agreement:

Patent Cross License Agreement

 

[ScaLibBDP]

Hey TPU, Reputable companies do Not spread rumours!

I regret to see that TechPowerUp ( TPU ) continues to spread rumours from so questionable "sources" like Moore's Law is Dead.

Seriously, just take a look at a history of "news" from Moore's Law is Dead.

 

[Daven]

Hey TPU, Reputable companies do Not spread rumours!

I regret to see that TechPowerUp ( TPU ) continues to spread rumours from so questionable "sources" like Moore's Law is Dead.

Seriously, just take a look at a history of "news" from Moore's Law is Dead.

I'm enjoying the hell out of this conversation.

TPU, please continue to make us think by providing us with interesting topics even if it goes against our feelings and thoughts about what's happening in the tech world. Your reputation as one of the best online tech news and review sources is secure and I for one continue to want to have all the possible information and not just what I want to hear.

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

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 significantly disagree with this. Apple makes outstanding consumer chips, and they make really good products that billions of people have bought. Obviously you don't have to agree with everything Apple does, but they are no doubt one of the best performing companies on the planet in terms of financials. And whatever they might do, if they were to actually acquire Intel, almost certainly wouldn't be worse than what has already been going on at Intel, especially with them making chips that literally perform worse than their products in previous generations. If anything, I'd argue that Intel stands to benefit if they were to be acquired by Apple, especially considering the fact that their silicon engineering team is literally one of the best in the industry. Sure their engineering team is centred around ARM, but, the point stands. They just released the M4 lineup which has significantly better performance than even the M3 series, in the realm of like 20% for the M4 Max vs the M3 Max, which is something you rarely, if ever, see in the x86 space anymore. But Intel has been having business problems for quite a while now...and it doesn't seem to have changed under Pat returning either.

All I'm saying is that Intel needs serious help, and I feel that with how much effort Apple has put into their consumer chips, that they would stand to benefit if Apple were to acquire them.

 

[Daven]

I significantly disagree with this. Apple makes outstanding consumer chips, and they make really good products that billions of people have bought. Obviously you don't have to agree with everything Apple does, but they are no doubt one of the best performing companies on the planet in terms of financials. And whatever they might do, if they were to actually acquire Intel, almost certainly wouldn't be worse than what has already been going on at Intel, especially with them making chips that literally perform worse than their products in previous generations. If anything, I'd argue that Intel stands to benefit if they were to be acquired by Apple, especially considering the fact that their silicon engineering team is literally one of the best in the industry. Sure their engineering team is centred around ARM, but, the point stands. They just released the M4 lineup which has significantly better performance than even the M3 series, in the realm of like 20% for the M4 Max vs the M3 Max, which is something you rarely, if ever, see in the x86 space anymore. But Intel has been having business problems for quite a while now...and it doesn't seem to have changed under Pat returning either.

All I'm saying is that Intel needs serious help, and I feel that with how much effort Apple has put into their consumer chips, that they would stand to benefit if Apple were to acquire them.

^^THIS^^

The Apple M series is a phenomenal feat of engineering even if it doesn't play nicely with some of the apps we PCMR enthusiasts enjoy. However, I will say that it seems unlikely that Apple would provide products to the Windows DIY world or want to license x86 to other companies. They would be most interested in the fabs and some of the IP.

 

[AnotherReader]

I significantly disagree with this. Apple makes outstanding consumer chips, and they make really good products that billions of people have bought. Obviously you don't have to agree with everything Apple does, but they are no doubt one of the best performing companies on the planet in terms of financials. And whatever they might do, if they were to actually acquire Intel, almost certainly wouldn't be worse than what has already been going on at Intel, especially with them making chips that literally perform worse than their products in previous generations. If anything, I'd argue that Intel stands to benefit if they were to be acquired by Apple, especially considering the fact that their silicon engineering team is literally one of the best in the industry. Sure their engineering team is centred around ARM, but, the point stands. They just released the M4 lineup which has significantly better performance than even the M3 series, in the realm of like 20% for the M4 Max vs the M3 Max, which is something you rarely, if ever, see in the x86 space anymore. But Intel has been having business problems for quite a while now...and it doesn't seem to have changed under Pat returning either.

All I'm saying is that Intel needs serious help, and I feel that with how much effort Apple has put into their consumer chips, that they would stand to benefit if Apple were to acquire them.

Apple's expertise doesn't extend to running fabs and that's where Intel has stumbled lately.

 

[evelynharthbrooke]

Apple's expertise doesn't extend to running fabs and that's where Intel has stumbled lately.

They have the means and the revenue to create a fab team, so that's not a huge issue. And it would benefit their vertical integration strategy as well as reduce their reliance on TSMC for manufacturing chips. Especially with the fact that the U.S. wants more production to be in the country rather than having it all be done overseas.

 

[lexluthermiester]

rumor

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

 

[evernessince]

Its funny why both Apple and Qualcomm would be interested in Intel when their ARM based SOC are doing well. I personally don't feel that they are after the foundry business because it is not really in a good state at this point. The acquirer will have to foot the hefty bills for the foundry business until they can somewhat turn it around.


When it is not under financial distress, it is possible that regulators may block it, especially if the acquirer is not a US company. But at the current state, the nation will have to either be the acquirer (i.e. a takeover if Intel goes under), or they need to merge it with another US company to avoid having to throw taxpayers' money to keep it running.

Probably more about eliminating competition. Neither of them should be allowed to acquire Intel give the power such a company would wield.

 

[freeagent]

Intel and AMD just switched spots again.. it happens. They will bounce back.

 

[Daven]

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

You really don't understand the role of the federal government. Do you not know how many military industrial complex companies over the last century have come and gone or get bought by another company? Just because a company sells to the US military doesn't somehow exclude it from normal capitalistic activities. I don't know how this 'conventional wisdom' got started but the US government does not have a list of companies that can never under any circumstance be bought or sold or go bankrupt. It doesn't work like that. It never did.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You really don't understand the role of the federal government. Do you not know how many military industrial complex companies over the last century have come and gone or get bought by another company? Just because a company sells to the US military doesn't somehow exclude it from normal capitalistic activities. I don't know how this 'conventional wisdom' got started but the US government does not have a list of companies that can never under any circumstance be bought or sold or go bankrupt. It doesn't work like that. It never did.

There are so many problems with this.

 

[Daven]

Intel and AMD just switched spots again.. it happens. They will bounce back.

When did AMD make more revenue and have a larger market share in any market in the past? As long as I've been tracking market figures, I have not seen such a thing happen so I'm not sure what you are referring too.

Again, we are not in any situation in the past. In the very, very beginning of tech (let's say 1960's to 70's) no players were very well established and chips were just being considered for different applications. As things played out, Intel and Microsoft rose to domination from the mid 80's to the mid 2010's. Now for the FIRST time since the unestablished beginnings of the tech market, there are numerous powerful players (some with market caps over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!). Intel's entire business strategy was based on unchallenged market dominance. Intel executives do not have the requisite skills to navigate an ever-changing competitive landscape. It's the very reason why we are having this conversation. It's the very reason these rumors are getting spread (some true, some false). Intel' future is uncertain and it's currently on the wrong path.

There are so many problems with this.

Nice vague reply. I guess I'm just not familiar with the US governmental power that says Intel is forever free from acquisition. But please send me the law, constitutional clause or regulation that gives Intel such powerful protections. I would really like to read it.