[tormeh]

Apple doesn't have the rights to design x86, and it will never* get them. Only Intel, AMD and Via can do that. Intel and AMD cross-license each other's patents. Not sure how Via got the rights, but I think a successful blind reverse engineering effort and a court was involved at some point. So Apple would either have to get licenses from Intel _and_ AMD or it would have to go the same route Via did. Both sound unlikely. At the same time, Apple has an excellent ARM architecture going.

*Never is a dangerous word

[Latteland]

Patents run out. I should be able to design something using ideas from more than 17 years ago. Companies try to block this by filing continuing new patents but the time limit should allow only using the old ideas.

[Flak153]

the old ideas aren't good enough to compete in 2018. You're going the stuff that remains patented in order to stay relevant

[Dylan16807]

Most programs aren't going to notice a lack of AVX.

[tromp]

How about Apple buying Via?

[jsjohnst]

Not possible from my understanding. The only reason Via has an x86 license is due to a successful settlement (forgot details of the case) with Intel in 2003[0] after acquiring assets from National Semiconductor and under the terms of the settlement got a 10yr license. That got extended to 15yrs and is due to expire this year last I heard.

Licenses to the x86 ISA can’t be bought or transferred via acquisition. Re: the other question someone asked about patent expiration, a patent expired version of the ISA is pretty worthless. Each new iteration gets new patents.

Update: [0] - a source for Via lawsuit: https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-via-bury-the-hatchet/

[tadah]

That would be the way to go, but why invest in x86 at the time where it mattered the least to Apple's bottom line?

ARM is the way to go.

[tfha]

Is there a reason RISC V is off the table?

[mrweasel]

As for right now, speed and features. Apple is already pretty invested in ARM and have the in-house experts. Managing and developing two processor architectures in parallel is a massive duplication of effort, just to avoid paying ARM a licens, a licens that Apple can easily afford.

In the long run, no there's no reason why Apple couldn't use RISC V in place of ARM, but not without a large upfront cost.

[AmericanChopper]

Apple actually has enough cash to buy Intel. Or AMD 10 times.

[tormeh]

AMD's licenses from Intel have some strings attached. I think they basically cannot be bought while keeping the rights to x86. A bought AMD could possibly threaten to no longer grant licenses to Intel, but I'm sure Intel's lawyers have thought of that.

Apple buying Intel could work, I guess (anti-trust might get involved), but I don't think it would be a wise investment. Apple doesn't have the volume to keep Intel busy alone.

[AmericanChopper]

I don't think they'd do it either, or that they'd even need to. I just think it's kinda funny that Apple has enough cash to outright buy both Intel and AMD.

[rasz]

Apple doesnt need x86, almost nobody needs it anymore. Buy AMD, keep AMD64, throw away 32bit.

[scotty79]

Apple could buy Intel for the tech, AMD just to close it. Then stop selling CPUs or licences altogether. Just ramp up selling Mac's. Then PC dies. :)

[danmaz74]

That's exactly the reason why anti-trust regulations exit.

[scotty79]

Yup. It's not something that could realistically happen. But in truly free market it could.