Intel

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#11
(20-01-2013, 12:23 PM)wee Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 12:06 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Thanks.
Can you elaborate on the savings and maintenance bit? why would it make a huge difference if one day Apple shifts its desktop to ARMs based platform?

Intel and arm are two different CPU architectures. The software codes for the driver layer to the hardware peripherals are different. The codes that are written for ARM cannot be used for Intel.

For applications like browser and simple games, the codes can be the same and they just need to recompile them for different platform. But, for applications that require performance tuning, they may have to rewrite part of it for each platform.

In short, the company will need more software developers and resources to handle two different CPUs.

By reducing to a single CPU platform for all products, the company can reduce manpower requirements and maintenance requirements. With less code to maintain, there will also be less bugs to resolve and less headache over patching the software codes in two different software branches.
Reply
#11
(20-01-2013, 12:23 PM)wee Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 12:06 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Thanks.
Can you elaborate on the savings and maintenance bit? why would it make a huge difference if one day Apple shifts its desktop to ARMs based platform?

Intel and arm are two different CPU architectures. The software codes for the driver layer to the hardware peripherals are different. The codes that are written for ARM cannot be used for Intel.

For applications like browser and simple games, the codes can be the same and they just need to recompile them for different platform. But, for applications that require performance tuning, they may have to rewrite part of it for each platform.

In short, the company will need more software developers and resources to handle two different CPUs.

By reducing to a single CPU platform for all products, the company can reduce manpower requirements and maintenance requirements. With less code to maintain, there will also be less bugs to resolve and less headache over patching the software codes in two different software branches.
Reply
#12
One of the key differences between iOS and Windows platforms, is the openness. iOS is a closed platform, open only to Apple selected partners. But for Windows platform, almost anyone can download their API (application programming interface) and develop application on top of it. The difference depends on Microsoft and Apple, rather on Intel.

As yeokiwi point, ARM and Intel use different CPU architectures, one is RISC (ARM) and another is CISC (Intel), which is quite different, down to instruction (machine) code level.
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#12
One of the key differences between iOS and Windows platforms, is the openness. iOS is a closed platform, open only to Apple selected partners. But for Windows platform, almost anyone can download their API (application programming interface) and develop application on top of it. The difference depends on Microsoft and Apple, rather on Intel.

As yeokiwi point, ARM and Intel use different CPU architectures, one is RISC (ARM) and another is CISC (Intel), which is quite different, down to instruction (machine) code level.
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#13
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

It is not that chipset adapts to os, rather than os adapts to chipset. Currently ios can only install on apple's own chipset. I doubt that you can install ios on other arm chipset such as those chips from Qualcomm, Samsung.

it is up to apple to decide whether they will use Intel x86, Intel itltself will not choose arm architecture since atom is getting competitive even better than arm chips.

Google's Android supports both arm & x86, so is windows 8. When Intel gains enough traction in mobile chipset, apple will adapt, just like it chooses Intel x86 for its mac lines.

In term of manufacturing technology, in the semiconductor industry, no one can compete with Intel. Intel is going to produce 22nm in high volume later half this year and transit to 14nm next year.

In terms of R&D investment, in 2012, Intel spent around US$10 billion in R&D, among ARM camp, the best of them, Qualcomm, the revenue from its chips was around US$10 billion, how much can it spend on R&D alone? Another problem with ARM camp is that a lot of R&D are redundant. Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung & Nvidia all spent some of their R&D to solve similar problem.

In the longer term, it is not wise for Apple to continue to manufacture its own chips. Just like Macbook, the volume is simply too low for IBM to continue to make power chips for Macbooks. Eventually, when chip availability is no longer a problem, it is difficult for Apple to keep a high margin just because it has its own chips. While Apple is spending time and money on its own chips as well as phone manufacturing and marketing, many other phone manufacturers such as Nokia/HTC/RIM/Moto/Sony/Lenovo/Huawei/ZTC will spend most of their time and money on phone manufacturing and marketing only, and leave most of chip jobs to Intel, Qualcomm, TI etc.
Reply
#13
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

It is not that chipset adapts to os, rather than os adapts to chipset. Currently ios can only install on apple's own chipset. I doubt that you can install ios on other arm chipset such as those chips from Qualcomm, Samsung.

it is up to apple to decide whether they will use Intel x86, Intel itltself will not choose arm architecture since atom is getting competitive even better than arm chips.

Google's Android supports both arm & x86, so is windows 8. When Intel gains enough traction in mobile chipset, apple will adapt, just like it chooses Intel x86 for its mac lines.

In term of manufacturing technology, in the semiconductor industry, no one can compete with Intel. Intel is going to produce 22nm in high volume later half this year and transit to 14nm next year.

In terms of R&D investment, in 2012, Intel spent around US$10 billion in R&D, among ARM camp, the best of them, Qualcomm, the revenue from its chips was around US$10 billion, how much can it spend on R&D alone? Another problem with ARM camp is that a lot of R&D are redundant. Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung & Nvidia all spent some of their R&D to solve similar problem.

In the longer term, it is not wise for Apple to continue to manufacture its own chips. Just like Macbook, the volume is simply too low for IBM to continue to make power chips for Macbooks. Eventually, when chip availability is no longer a problem, it is difficult for Apple to keep a high margin just because it has its own chips. While Apple is spending time and money on its own chips as well as phone manufacturing and marketing, many other phone manufacturers such as Nokia/HTC/RIM/Moto/Sony/Lenovo/Huawei/ZTC will spend most of their time and money on phone manufacturing and marketing only, and leave most of chip jobs to Intel, Qualcomm, TI etc.
Reply
#14
cant help but feel intel this time round will face some stark reality. its a good value stock but it could be a value trap. the great hedge fund managers are exiting this in december.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#14
cant help but feel intel this time round will face some stark reality. its a good value stock but it could be a value trap. the great hedge fund managers are exiting this in december.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#15
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busti...-analysis/

Intel's clover trail vs Nvidia's Tegra 3. Intel is beating ARM-based Tegra 3, which is the chip supplier of Nexus 7.

With Android supporting x86 and Intel's better power efficiency and performance, Google to use Intel chips for next tablet is not really a dream.

Next? Maybe IPad from Apple?
Reply
#15
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busti...-analysis/

Intel's clover trail vs Nvidia's Tegra 3. Intel is beating ARM-based Tegra 3, which is the chip supplier of Nexus 7.

With Android supporting x86 and Intel's better power efficiency and performance, Google to use Intel chips for next tablet is not really a dream.

Next? Maybe IPad from Apple?
Reply
#16
i think its not a dream and Intel is teaming up with Lenovo for the China market. I think the chances of Google working with Lenovo after LG, Samsung and HTC are there.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#16
i think its not a dream and Intel is teaming up with Lenovo for the China market. I think the chances of Google working with Lenovo after LG, Samsung and HTC are there.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#17
To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

Berkshire Posts 25% Intel Gain by Shunning Buy-and-Hold
By Noah Buhayar - Sep 14, 2012 9:53 PM GMT+0800

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) locked in a gain on its Intel Corp. (INTC) bet by selling its stake less than a year after making the investment, shunning the buy-and-hold strategy favored by Chairman Warren Buffett.

Berkshire’s Geico unit accumulated 11.5 million shares of Santa Clara, California-based Intel in the second half of 2011 for an average price of about $22 each, according to National Association of Insurance Commissioners data compiled by Bloomberg. Buffett’s firm sold the stake in the world’s largest semiconductor maker for an average price of $27.25 this year through May 8, netting about $60 million in profit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14...-hold.html
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#17
To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

Berkshire Posts 25% Intel Gain by Shunning Buy-and-Hold
By Noah Buhayar - Sep 14, 2012 9:53 PM GMT+0800

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) locked in a gain on its Intel Corp. (INTC) bet by selling its stake less than a year after making the investment, shunning the buy-and-hold strategy favored by Chairman Warren Buffett.

Berkshire’s Geico unit accumulated 11.5 million shares of Santa Clara, California-based Intel in the second half of 2011 for an average price of about $22 each, according to National Association of Insurance Commissioners data compiled by Bloomberg. Buffett’s firm sold the stake in the world’s largest semiconductor maker for an average price of $27.25 this year through May 8, netting about $60 million in profit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14...-hold.html
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#18
the question is whether will they purchase again at 21 bucks. cheaper than their average price. if they don't then u know they think the fundamentals have shifted.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#18
the question is whether will they purchase again at 21 bucks. cheaper than their average price. if they don't then u know they think the fundamentals have shifted.
Dividend Investing and More @ InvestmentMoats.com
Reply
#19
(22-01-2013, 11:10 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

WB also owns IBM, another technology stock

Why Warren Buffett Keeps Buying IBM

Big Data: Why Warren Buffett Owns 5.4% of IBM
Reply
#19
(22-01-2013, 11:10 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

WB also owns IBM, another technology stock

Why Warren Buffett Keeps Buying IBM

Big Data: Why Warren Buffett Owns 5.4% of IBM
Reply
#20
Quote:To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

Quote:WB also owns IBM, another technology stock

Intel was a purchase most likely made by todd combs, not warren buffett. WB has said before that any investment less than a billion is most likely to come from either todd or ted, and todd once owned intel in his hedge fund, castle point, prior to joining berkshire.

On the other hand, WB did come out publicly to say that he made the IBM move.
Reply
#20
Quote:To add more references to Intel. IIRC, Intel is the only technology stock WB invested.

Quote:WB also owns IBM, another technology stock

Intel was a purchase most likely made by todd combs, not warren buffett. WB has said before that any investment less than a billion is most likely to come from either todd or ted, and todd once owned intel in his hedge fund, castle point, prior to joining berkshire.

On the other hand, WB did come out publicly to say that he made the IBM move.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)