[felix_t]

Well, I think it would make much more sense for IBM to take over AMD. They have an entire history together, they've shared/are sharing multiple technological solutions and don't forget the mountain of rumors surrounding the possibility of an IBM/AMD merger http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IBM+AMD&btnG=Se...

As for my personal experience with AMD, I have had only pleasant encounters. I believe they've made quite a performance with beating the bytes out of INTEL in the 2001-2005 interval. I think that's an important achievement for AMD, being able to stay extremely competitive for that period of time + the fact that they were a small fraction of the INTEL's presence. But the big mistake AMD did was that they dedicate all there power (money and labor) on retouching the K8 (which was basically an enhanced K7) architecture. They should, really, have invested in an alternative solution (maybe an early big project with IBM?) contrary to the strategy they've embraced. Just my opinion.

[jm4]

I'm not so sure it makes sense for IBM to buy AMD either. If they are already sharing technology what incentive does IBM have to acquire AMD? Why buy the cow if you can have the milk for free?

I guess they could get into the desktop chip market, but I'm thinking if they were interested in that they would have put more effort into making Apple happy a few years ago. Would an acquisition buy them anything that would improve their position in the server market?

It seems like a struggling chip maker that's years away from having a top product again is more a liability than an asset. I don't think anyone is going to touch them with a ten foot pole. Besides, the companies out there with the money and the know-how to take over a chip manufacturer will most likely be able to get what they want- technology deals, engineers looking to jump off a sinking ship, etc.- for a far smaller price than that of an acquisition.

[Tamerlin]

IBM isn't "getting the milk for free" from AMD. IBM and AMD are sharing a lot of R&D costs, along with most of the major semiconductor manufacturer's out there (like Samsung, TSMC, UMC, Chartered Semi, etc). IBM and AMD are also trading technologies; IBM provided AMD with low-K semiconductor technology, and AMD provided IBM with automation technology for IBM's fabs.

And don't forget that IBM WAS in the desktop chip market. They even had an x86 license that allowed IBM to design x86 processors, as well as manufacture them.

They tried to get back into that market with the G5, and both AMD and Intel pretty much steamrolled it -- because IBM launched the G5 while AMD and Intel were hot on each others' heels (AMD lead performance at the time, Intel lead price).

IBM didn't make Apple happy because IBM couldn't afford to. Back then, IBM's semiconductor division was losing (each quarter) approximately AMD's annual operating budget. IBM wasn't willing to invest in a fresh design for the G5, so they went with a cut-down implementation of POWER4, which doesn't work so well without the massive caches and buses that POWER systems get.

IBM is good at makeing cost-no-object systems like POWER (which only make money because the systems and services for IBM's servers are so lucrative), and custom jobs like Gekko, Cell, and Xenon. MS and Sony have 2nd sources for Xenon and Cell (Chartered or UMC, I forget which, and Toshiba respectively), because IBM's not so good at making high-volume chips at reasonable cost.

Would it be worth for IBM? It's hard to say, particularly since IBM is also one of Intel's biggest OEM's, and IBM no longer sells PC's.

[mojuba]

Regardless of the readiness of IBM or any other monster in the field to take over AMD, we are talking about scenarios that make more sense. As a consumer, do you care about IBM and what they are doing? I don't.

Now, some basic facts: Apple needs (and presumably wants) to be independent; Apple's software will run nicely on AMD; AMD got 64-bitness right even before Intel; own video card would be a big bonus for Apple. And this is probably not all.

[felix_t]

Well, why would Apple have gone with Intel in the first place? The Apple/Intel relation is far more deeper then it looks or one understands. http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/06/13/apple-and-in...

And the fact is that AMD is quite large (especially considering the acquisition of ATI) and even that it's market share dropped significantly it's still a hard buy to digest. I personally don't thing that Apple would make such a risky buy knowing what the ATI acquisition made to AMD itself.

And also a fact is that AMD did very well on the server market. A buy would mean for IBM a win/win situation. What could possibly stand in IBM's way of reentering the mainstream market? One lesson I've come to learn is that as bigger is one's portfolio of good products as better is for one's income. Don't you agree?

[gwniobombux]

Would Apple sell AMD chips to other Manufacturers or would you only be able to get them in Apple hardware? I don't think Apple is interested to start selling chips. And I wouldn't want Intel to basically be the only chip manufacturer for non-Apple hardware. As a consumer I care about competition and I think IBM would be more likely to be able compete with Intel than Apple.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to buy AMD since they ([Apple]; correct me if I'm wrong) seem to put more emphasis on mobile processors, and there Intel is ahead of AMD now and probably for the foreseeable future.

[Tamerlin]

Why does Apple need to be independent? How would be in Apple's best interests to take on the massive overhead of being a CPU manufacturer?

I'm not even convinced that it would be in Apple's best interests to be in the graphics hardware business either, but at least that doesn't entail owning a fab. Neither nVidia nor ATI fabricated their own chips, they contracted that work out to foundries like Chartered and UMC. Owning a fabless graphics hardware developer might work out for Apple, but I'm a bit skeptical about that. I'm also not convinced that it was a wise purchase for AMD though.