So let me get this. US prints worthless toilet paper (USG bonds), uses them as payments for all the high-tech stuff that China builds for them (whilst exporting 25% Of their own carbon emissions and energy usage). Then, when a Singaporean company (you know, a different country) from a free market, is trying to buy an American company, the master puppet uses national security as a scapegoat to protect US interests against Chinese spying. Somehow I didn't properly graduate the course on psychedelic-psychotic logic it seems. I just don't get this. I wish holders of USG debt would just dump them, after all, they're toilet paper in the end...
None of that makes sense. Singapore, like China, sells a lot of stuff in the US. The government buys T bills to stop their currency appreciating and because T bills are seen as a safe investment
That scheme of buying US dollar denominated assets, mostly T bills, was something the Japanese invented in the 80's and it's been copied by China and Singapore.
Now the US does pretty well out of this scheme it's true. It can run a budget deficit because the T bills are government debt. It can run a trade deficit because it has a current account cash surplus. On the other hand Singapore does pretty well too - it can run a trade surplus with the US. China, Japan, Taiwan all do this.
On the other hand the US isn't obligated to allow foreign firms to buy into its telecommunications companies. Huawei for example is very closely tied to the Chinese government and it's reasonable to assume that Chinese companies spy for the Chinese government much like US companies spy for the US one. Selling Qualcomm to Broadcom opens up the possibility that China might just buy Broadcom.
Was worried that Broadcom/AVGO would instantly sell the crucial assets and sell off the patents and discard the licensing business by selling and finish that massive debt of $100+Bn. Glad that It had happened, US finally got hold of how CN is leading in the Semi industry, look at TSMC's recent projects and they build the A series chips, Nvidia chips on 12nm FFN and 3nm is in their pipeline while GoFlo (Arab corp owned) is bleeding due to EUV investment, Samsung's dominance over Intel (NA corp), only other player left for NA is WD+SanDisk and Toshiba's fab, along with Xilinx.
Also Intel's mulling over the Broalcomm was too dangerous. So is the new Chinese Huawei's dominance in tech communication sector. They followed Apple on blasting Qcom, because they had the leverage from MOFCOM for the NXP deal & Apple has $900Bn marketcap over these puny companies, Intel has $244Bn, Qcom+AVGO will have more than that. Also yesterday's Xi of CN's PRC voted for indefinite term for presidency that's far far like Mao's era. CN is a danger, the totalitarianism had to be put in check, with the 10% advantage of 5G essential Patents from Huawei (no IP infringement on CN grounds will ever be favorable for the rest of the world companies so no one challenges them, look how Apple bends to their will, the latest iCloud data was given to the CN's GCBD and the VPN ban. Tim Cook fleecing their customers) their dominance would have hindered one of the greatest American jewel of innovation. Apple is the highest beneficiary if this deal went through because Broadcom has strong ties with Apple and the IP business going down will allow them to buy massive tech and undermine the competition.
Centriq ARM processor division would have died immediately and instantly and for Android userbase the SoC's prized Adreno, X50 advancements, CAF would have been diluted. Similar to the Broadcom's & LSI's divisions being cut off I know that Qcom is involved in predatory practices but the Apple's one was far far more dangerous. Read about the Infineon deal and Wimax on the iPhone 2G with Qualcomm's forced STP involvement (the price that Apple should pay was clear than ever, because Qcom invented and paved way for the CDMA LTE that Verizon and Sprint use along with 18 Month lead in this sector, Intel XMM 8k series now started to begin thus Apple attacked Qcom, not new to Apple considering the poaching and abandonment of the Imagination Tech, GTAdvanced and Dialog Semi. Apple always sneaks off silently perhaps due to their sheer performance in stocks, that Berkshire Hathaway's Mr. Warren is now a BOD). Broadcom's M&A business model would instantly make a massive hole in the R&D role that Qualcomm plays and reaps benefits. After Broadcom and Brocade's loss this was going to be huge to AVGO.
Really glad that happened. Nov 2017 to March 2018. the bloody battle ends now, of course the toll was Mr. Paul Jacobs stepping down from his own company which is father Irwin Jacobs founded.
Reason I root for Qcomm despite the evildoings because after TI's OMAP left the field and Exynos shutted it's doors past SGS III there's no one in the Android SoC industry reaching to that mark, Qualcomm did unfair practices like killed the Nexus 5's SD800 Vulkan driver release and stopped it's advancement (Google's CTS mandates for Android v7) due to multitude of reasons. All of the CAF advancements would have been drained off, Exynos, Kirin don't stand a chance against the developer friendly Snapdragon platform.
I know there are a lot of reader's that hate Intel here, but I believe the best thing that could happen to this industry is for Intel to purchase QUALCOMM. This would eliminate the possibility of a foreign company especially in China purchasing QUALCOMM which would be extremely bad for the telecommunications.
This would also solved any of possible legal issues between Microsoft/QUALCOMM and Intel over the emulation in Microsoft Windows 10 for ARM (QUALCOMM) Plus look at benefits that this would bring to that system. Intel could update the compatibility of these system 10 fold with actual core logic.
Think of benefit that it gives Intel in the one market they are struggling with - which is the mobile environments Phone and tablet industry. Battery life also would be increase.
I think AMD, Qualcomm, and Intel should all stay independent and compete against each other. Qualcomm can compete in the low power/Ultrabook space and AMD in the higher wattage parts. AMD and Qualcomm are also getting into the server space, so the market should be interesting if they're all still independent.
This sound like Intel Hater comment and not a realistic. In reality AMD is much lesser competitor of Intel than Qualcomm. Oddly for emulation modes Qualcomm is barely a competitor to Intel's Atom - unless you are planning on using Windows 10 S mode Qualcomm tablets - it not a real factor in the Windows 10 low power/Ultrabook space.
One thing that it interesting is late Intel/Microsoft has release working patches for Meltdown/Spectre issues and also even though AMD and in lesser extend ARM has stated they had no issues - they had to redraw that comment.
The package is more than capable for 95% of computer users. And as a package way more efficient than any thing Intel will be able to produce (unless Intel can figure out how to place unused cores in sleep mode). So for the short term it is a clear advantage for ARM. May be the sleep mode is in works and the reason why Intel got Microsoft to handicap their arm support.
How could that possibly have been an "Intel Hater comment"? Seems more like you're trying tomake it too easy for yourself by simply labeling someone who disagrees as "hater".
I agree people can disagree - but ever time some one makes a comment in favor of Intel, they always bash with AMD. I been actually thinking of getting a Dell 15 XPS 2in1 because i like the numbers on it - and also long battery life. But I deeply concern about it having AMD GPU - primary because how users of AMD treat people that like Intel.
Qualcomm is different case, it find for .net applications - but when it comes to emulation - are they really serious.
What you read here and elsewhere in the comments & forums is a vocal minority. Sometimes definitely unfair, but don't punish AMD for that. Personally I've had a few AMD systems as well as several Intels, yet don't sympathize with any "hardcore fandom".
Useless comment. Throwing Meltdown/Spectre in as if they're the same thing (they're not) is a giveaway as to your intentions here. Meltdown is Intel only.
"Useless comment. Throwing Meltdown/Spectre in as if they're the same thing (they're not) is a giveaway as to your intentions here. Meltdown is Intel only."
This is where people are wrong. For one thing Intel has fix any issues and even though it is less severe - It not just Intel.
Shot yourself in the foot much? First you completely disagreed with him, the you confirmed that AMD doesn't have Meltdown issues. WTF?!? You are also wrong that Spectre is more severe. While you can get any data with both viruses, the way you get about it is far more difficult with Spectre and less likely to be done remotely. Meltdown as far as i can tell just reads the memory before an Intel CPU performs a security check, which may have been skipped to ensure faster execution. Maybe if AMD did the same they'd be more competitive. Which one do you prefer, the fast one or the secure one?
I disagree with HStewart but for slightly different reasons.
Companies have their own culture, and hostile takeovers will not end well for the company that gets bought and the people that work for them. Broadcomm also has lots of overlapping product lines with Intel. So they'll be buying a company that's greater than their own net worth for possibly few patents.
That makes it a seriously financially stupid decision for Intel. They should put little more effort to make their own solutions rather than spend 300 billion dollars(which will be the cost of acquisition after you account for share appreciation) buying a company that doesn't want to get bought.
What came to my mind after seeing this comment is, if Intel buys Qualcomm, it might discontinue the snapdragon line of processor and will convince the OEMs to use x86-base solutions instead.
Of course, it doesn't make sense to do so, given that the popularity of Snapdragons nowadays.
You really think so - with Intel struggling in the phone market - and QUALCOMM doing well - it most like would that both x86 and QUALCOMM would share benefits from each other.
That what I would do if I was Intel - but then again I am not.
Yes, when companies buy competitors they never tank their product, they just double the R&D spending and work on both (in case you didn't get it that was sarcasm). If Intel gets Qualcomm it will patent troll everyone and force them to use an x86 CPU if they wan't to use any other patented mobile tech from their portfolio. Best case scenario, they will just kill the snapdragon line and everyone will make a switch to mediatek or some other basic ARM implementation without consequences.
They should all stay independent. Competition is good. At least when AMD\Intel decide to get into the SoC game and Qualcomm decides to make a real push for HPC, competition will be good.
A Broadcom merger would mean less competition in the radio, networking and controller space. I'm not a huge Qualcomm fan (they often refuse to license IP in effect cockblocking competition, lately have shown some trollish behavior with their patents, and have been caught doing under the table shenanigan deals with vendors.)
This is a good, but unsurprising, move by the white house. Honestly, no administration would likely let a merger of this caliber go forward.
"They should all stay independent. Competition is good."
not for the capitalist. that's why they buy each other at the first opportunity. or change law to support monopoly. Disney got copyright extended to near infinity just to make more money: "When the Copyright Act was first enacted in the United States, the copyright duration was only 14 years. Today Copyright duration can last over a century in some cases. Why such a drastic change? Some say it is all due to a cute little mouse named Mickey." here: https://atp.orangenius.com/how-mickey-mouse-keeps-...
Only the stock holders with their eyes at their feet were even considering it, hence the proxy vote to install Broadcom nominees to the Qualcomm board. If investors weren't always chasing the profits for JUST next quarter, they would make more informed decisions. I hate this administration and would like to see every single member in a jail cell, but for one time in his miserable life, this purported "business genius" actually made a smart business move on behalf of American workers.
Emulation won't work so M$ must start trying harder & ensure native and equal ecosystem or they can vanquish as much as I am concerned. Not a single regular ever will give it's approval to a deal that would totally monopolise market as Intel purchase of QC/BC. Broadcom takeover by all means whose Apples try to get it by a third side they have control of. QC made a mistake not buying Imagination & ruining Apple, which by the way is now in Chinese hands (which is a good thing). Intel do need to wake up quickly & buy bunch of fables semiconductor manufacturers in the same time expanding its IP and product portfolio rapidly alongside with foundery business as the ship is sinking fast. Only increase if Intel did make takeover would be a price increase, uncompetitive practice & monopoly of the worst kind. We got stuck hire for 30 years because Intel used all of that so that X86 is dominant & proclaiming how many core's is something we don't need. Now they can't neither block nor neglect RISC which always whose better & will become dominant one way or the other.
The full scale China semiconductor take over will happen sooner or later no matter how much effort someone (we know who) tries to block it & critical moment for that to happen is rather closing fast as semiconductor is beginning to collapse as Mors low is at the end of life & they can't provide significant enough advances to the new product so that consumers could justify buying them. Take over will made one time extension of the Mors low (two years period) simply by cutting prices in half. Any how takeover won't resolve anything it may buy enough time for DUV development that will extend it for one more cycle, then again all around gate combined with SOI wafers culd do a cycle more. Anyway China takeover is better than collapse of semiconductor industry and you can bet that banker's whose money is in it won't care much of the politics when it comes that they ensure that the things remain as they are & that they are in control. All of this will happen in next 10 years. At the end let me explain something; having fab in China & Chinese worker's in it doesn't mean someone can put something into your valid design, it's not a f***ing drink. Sure it opens the door to China & it's government and pretty much everyone else (historical backed) to make what ever they need or want bricking the last technology holy grail that whose monopolised for a long time as the other two (nuclear & space/inter ballistic) one's doesn't stand for quite some time. So at the end it's all about might & power as always & never in the good manner.
This would basically give Intel a monopoly on ARM SoCs. This is a plainly bad idea. This benefits Intel, in theory, but they've not exactly executed well in the ultra mobile space... suffice to say. This doesn't benefit Qualcomm very much at all.
It's very important for consumer pricing that Intel, Qualcomm and AMD stay separate. In fact, it's imperative.
"This would basically give Intel a monopoly on ARM SoCs. This is a plainly bad idea. This benefits Intel, in theory, but they've not exactly executed well in the ultra mobile space... suffice to say. This doesn't benefit Qualcomm very much at all."
Ok lets look at this logically, Intel does have any ARM - but you state if Intel buys Qualcomm then they will have a monopoly on ARM. This of course means Qualcomm always has a monopoly - and with Microsoft Windows for ARM only working on Qualcomm - that could be possibly. Or by stating that Intel will create monopoly on ARM, does that mean under Intel direction does this mean other ARM's including Apple's would also no longer exist.
To me the assumption that Intel will create monopoly is a very bias and inaccurate statement. Intel even though I like them for x86 products does not have a foot hold in the ARM market.
Yeah, that's exactly what the world needs..Intel spreading it's criminal monopolism over to the most critical area of semiconductor technology(ULP chips)
I think you forget, that 4% of the world's population do NOT the whole Anandtech readership make. The rest of us, you know 96% of us, would just like to trade freely.
I'd be fine with Intel buying Qualcomm. Mainly because Qualcomm provides horrible support for their SoCs. Qualcomm provides two years of driver updates for a SoC after it's release, meaning that getting an OS update for your phone is a nightmare. Intel, on the other hand, supports a chip for four or five years. Maybe even longer, Intel just release microcode updates for 2011's Sandybridge parts. Speaking purely as a consumer, I'd rather buy from Intel then Qualcomm.
Amusingly over the weekend there was a rumor that Intel was considering buying Broadcom as a strategy to prevent the Broadcom-Qualcomm merger. It would have kept Qualcomm independent and thus something Intel could have defeated in the open market. Only reason Intel was looking at Broadcom to purchase was that Intel would have had a better chance of this passing through regulators even though buying Broadcom would have been a $110+ billion dollar deal.
NO... NO... Broadcom purchasing Qualcomm would be serious BAD for Intel. This basically means that Broadcom/Qualcomm would basically have a monopoly in telecommunications market and also more importantly that it would be foreign own - which is primary reason the government step in.
They can't because it would be anti-competitive I.E. not allowed by the regulators. Had Broadcom acquired it, then Intel actually would have a chance to negotiate.
Funny how people had the same concerns when Intel bought Altera, famous for FPGA, thinking that it would atrophy research and development in FPGA. That hasn't happened. Altera is now Intel FPGA and is still doing quite well in the market and still giving Xilinx a run for their money. (Watch, AMD will see this comment and purchase Xilinx. ;-) j/k )
I don't see R&D atrophy in Qualcomm's future if Intel purchases them. In fact, I see Thunderbolt 3 and Qualcomm Quick Charge having some sort of fusion and compatibility with USB-C interoperability, if they merged.
From what I can figure out, based on very little information, the issue here wasn't that Broadcom isn't an American company. After they redomicile they will be as American as any other global corporation. They are made up of spin offs of American companies and mergers with American companies. I have read that the board members are mostly American citizens. I think the fact that they are domiciled in Singapore currently was used as a way of blocking the merger for another reason.
That reason is most likely that Broadcom planned to operate Qualcomm in a different manner than Qualcomm has been operating. Broadcom proposed to cut various R&D expenditures to increase margins. The U.S. government seemingly became concerned that such a cut in R&D could affect America's influence and ability to securely rely on future mobile technology. They are worried that the U.S. government, military, and industry would have to rely on technology from Huawei, based in China.
So the government has stepped in to encourage Qualcomm to operate in perhaps an inefficient way, or at least in a way against the free market, because they fear the situation could have future national security and macroeconomic repercussions. I gotta say I have mixed feelings on that. It seems like a rather speculative move, and I'm convinced that in the long run, a multitude of decisions made like this would be a bad thing.
I am not sure of this assessment, though, because from what I read it sounded like Broadcom wanted to cut R&D projects on things like neuromorphic computing, and not R&D towards Qualcomm's core businesses such as mobile technology.
I'm agreed with the broad premise here - that the reason given for blocking the merger is not the true reason. I also think it's a good idea. In the EU this would be blocked for anti-competitive reasons so the US has found a way to do effectively the same.
I believe government step is not related to computer industry directly. It appears from the following link that Qualcomm and Government has contracts including home land security contract. So the president is correct that Broadcom acquiring Qualcomm would be potential natural security.
I share your ambivalence toward this interference in the free market. Then again I am annoyed by the short term milking vision that seems to be behind the take over - that doesn't benefit the industry or customers or, indeed, the US.
In addition they would either have to terminate Qualcomm government contract pertaining to security or at minimal make sure foreign assets do not have access to the information.
if intel bought qualcomm, then intel will almost have a monopoly on modem chips (wifi- 4g- 5g) and this would be bad for the industry. and i don't get what is the big issue of Boradcomm buying qualcomm as "national security threat". US based companies have bought so many companies from around the world and none stop it as a national security threat.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
Back to Article
Wardrive86 - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
This is fantastic news!svan1971 - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
America 1st.Zingam - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
United Soviets of a'Murricahalcyon - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
So let me get this. US prints worthless toilet paper (USG bonds), uses them as payments for all the high-tech stuff that China builds for them (whilst exporting 25% Of their own carbon emissions and energy usage).Then, when a Singaporean company (you know, a different country) from a free market, is trying to buy an American company, the master puppet uses national security as a scapegoat to protect US interests against Chinese spying.
Somehow I didn't properly graduate the course on psychedelic-psychotic logic it seems.
I just don't get this. I wish holders of USG debt would just dump them, after all, they're toilet paper in the end...
RagnarAntonisen - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
None of that makes sense. Singapore, like China, sells a lot of stuff in the US. The government buys T bills to stop their currency appreciating and because T bills are seen as a safe investmentLooking here Singapore has about $125B
http://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
That scheme of buying US dollar denominated assets, mostly T bills, was something the Japanese invented in the 80's and it's been copied by China and Singapore.
Now the US does pretty well out of this scheme it's true. It can run a budget deficit because the T bills are government debt. It can run a trade deficit because it has a current account cash surplus. On the other hand Singapore does pretty well too - it can run a trade surplus with the US. China, Japan, Taiwan all do this.
On the other hand the US isn't obligated to allow foreign firms to buy into its telecommunications companies. Huawei for example is very closely tied to the Chinese government and it's reasonable to assume that Chinese companies spy for the Chinese government much like US companies spy for the US one. Selling Qualcomm to Broadcom opens up the possibility that China might just buy Broadcom.
Quantumz0d - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
Indeed.News of the year !
Was worried that Broadcom/AVGO would instantly sell the crucial assets and sell off the patents and discard the licensing business by selling and finish that massive debt of $100+Bn. Glad that It had happened, US finally got hold of how CN is leading in the Semi industry, look at TSMC's recent projects and they build the A series chips, Nvidia chips on 12nm FFN and 3nm is in their pipeline while GoFlo (Arab corp owned) is bleeding due to EUV investment, Samsung's dominance over Intel (NA corp), only other player left for NA is WD+SanDisk and Toshiba's fab, along with Xilinx.
Also Intel's mulling over the Broalcomm was too dangerous. So is the new Chinese Huawei's dominance in tech communication sector. They followed Apple on blasting Qcom, because they had the leverage from MOFCOM for the NXP deal & Apple has $900Bn marketcap over these puny companies, Intel has $244Bn, Qcom+AVGO will have more than that. Also yesterday's Xi of CN's PRC voted for indefinite term for presidency that's far far like Mao's era. CN is a danger, the totalitarianism had to be put in check, with the 10% advantage of 5G essential Patents from Huawei (no IP infringement on CN grounds will ever be favorable for the rest of the world companies so no one challenges them, look how Apple bends to their will, the latest iCloud data was given to the CN's GCBD and the VPN ban. Tim Cook fleecing their customers) their dominance would have hindered one of the greatest American jewel of innovation. Apple is the highest beneficiary if this deal went through because Broadcom has strong ties with Apple and the IP business going down will allow them to buy massive tech and undermine the competition.
Centriq ARM processor division would have died immediately and instantly and for Android userbase the SoC's prized Adreno, X50 advancements, CAF would have been diluted. Similar to the Broadcom's & LSI's divisions being cut off I know that Qcom is involved in predatory practices but the Apple's one was far far more dangerous. Read about the Infineon deal and Wimax on the iPhone 2G with Qualcomm's forced STP involvement (the price that Apple should pay was clear than ever, because Qcom invented and paved way for the CDMA LTE that Verizon and Sprint use along with 18 Month lead in this sector, Intel XMM 8k series now started to begin thus Apple attacked Qcom, not new to Apple considering the poaching and abandonment of the Imagination Tech, GTAdvanced and Dialog Semi. Apple always sneaks off silently perhaps due to their sheer performance in stocks, that Berkshire Hathaway's Mr. Warren is now a BOD). Broadcom's M&A business model would instantly make a massive hole in the R&D role that Qualcomm plays and reaps benefits. After Broadcom and Brocade's loss this was going to be huge to AVGO.
Really glad that happened. Nov 2017 to March 2018. the bloody battle ends now, of course the toll was Mr. Paul Jacobs stepping down from his own company which is father Irwin Jacobs founded.
Reason I root for Qcomm despite the evildoings because after TI's OMAP left the field and Exynos shutted it's doors past SGS III there's no one in the Android SoC industry reaching to that mark, Qualcomm did unfair practices like killed the Nexus 5's SD800 Vulkan driver release and stopped it's advancement (Google's CTS mandates for Android v7) due to multitude of reasons. All of the CAF advancements would have been drained off, Exynos, Kirin don't stand a chance against the developer friendly Snapdragon platform.
HStewart - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
I know there are a lot of reader's that hate Intel here, but I believe the best thing that could happen to this industry is for Intel to purchase QUALCOMM. This would eliminate the possibility of a foreign company especially in China purchasing QUALCOMM which would be extremely bad for the telecommunications.This would also solved any of possible legal issues between Microsoft/QUALCOMM and Intel over the emulation in Microsoft Windows 10 for ARM (QUALCOMM) Plus look at benefits that this would bring to that system. Intel could update the compatibility of these system 10 fold with actual core logic.
Think of benefit that it gives Intel in the one market they are struggling with - which is the mobile environments Phone and tablet industry. Battery life also would be increase.
Someguyperson - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
I think AMD, Qualcomm, and Intel should all stay independent and compete against each other. Qualcomm can compete in the low power/Ultrabook space and AMD in the higher wattage parts. AMD and Qualcomm are also getting into the server space, so the market should be interesting if they're all still independent.HStewart - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
This sound like Intel Hater comment and not a realistic. In reality AMD is much lesser competitor of Intel than Qualcomm. Oddly for emulation modes Qualcomm is barely a competitor to Intel's Atom - unless you are planning on using Windows 10 S mode Qualcomm tablets - it not a real factor in the Windows 10 low power/Ultrabook space.One thing that it interesting is late Intel/Microsoft has release working patches for Meltdown/Spectre issues and also even though AMD and in lesser extend ARM has stated they had no issues - they had to redraw that comment.
CheapSushi - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Stop shilling for Intel.sharath.naik - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
The package is more than capable for 95% of computer users. And as a package way more efficient than any thing Intel will be able to produce (unless Intel can figure out how to place unused cores in sleep mode). So for the short term it is a clear advantage for ARM.May be the sleep mode is in works and the reason why Intel got Microsoft to handicap their arm support.
edzieba - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
"unless Intel can figure out how to place unused cores in sleep mode"They've been doing that for decades. ACPI CPU C-states are hardly new.
MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
How could that possibly have been an "Intel Hater comment"? Seems more like you're trying tomake it too easy for yourself by simply labeling someone who disagrees as "hater".HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I agree people can disagree - but ever time some one makes a comment in favor of Intel, they always bash with AMD. I been actually thinking of getting a Dell 15 XPS 2in1 because i like the numbers on it - and also long battery life. But I deeply concern about it having AMD GPU - primary because how users of AMD treat people that like Intel.Qualcomm is different case, it find for .net applications - but when it comes to emulation - are they really serious.
t.s - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I won't buy MaCD cause I deeply concern about how MaCD user--err--eater treat people that like KFC. #dieLogicDieMrSpadge - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
What you read here and elsewhere in the comments & forums is a vocal minority. Sometimes definitely unfair, but don't punish AMD for that. Personally I've had a few AMD systems as well as several Intels, yet don't sympathize with any "hardcore fandom".Spunjji - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Useless comment. Throwing Meltdown/Spectre in as if they're the same thing (they're not) is a giveaway as to your intentions here. Meltdown is Intel only.HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
"Useless comment. Throwing Meltdown/Spectre in as if they're the same thing (they're not) is a giveaway as to your intentions here. Meltdown is Intel only."This is where people are wrong. For one thing Intel has fix any issues and even though it is less severe - It not just Intel.
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3246707/data-...
https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/speculative-execu...
AMD maybe not having any Meltdown issues, but the more severe Spectre - is documented on AMD website.
SleepyFE - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Shot yourself in the foot much? First you completely disagreed with him, the you confirmed that AMD doesn't have Meltdown issues. WTF?!?You are also wrong that Spectre is more severe. While you can get any data with both viruses, the way you get about it is far more difficult with Spectre and less likely to be done remotely. Meltdown as far as i can tell just reads the memory before an Intel CPU performs a security check, which may have been skipped to ensure faster execution.
Maybe if AMD did the same they'd be more competitive. Which one do you prefer, the fast one or the secure one?
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I disagree with HStewart but for slightly different reasons.Companies have their own culture, and hostile takeovers will not end well for the company that gets bought and the people that work for them. Broadcomm also has lots of overlapping product lines with Intel. So they'll be buying a company that's greater than their own net worth for possibly few patents.
That makes it a seriously financially stupid decision for Intel. They should put little more effort to make their own solutions rather than spend 300 billion dollars(which will be the cost of acquisition after you account for share appreciation) buying a company that doesn't want to get bought.
mr_tawan - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
What came to my mind after seeing this comment is, if Intel buys Qualcomm, it might discontinue the snapdragon line of processor and will convince the OEMs to use x86-base solutions instead.Of course, it doesn't make sense to do so, given that the popularity of Snapdragons nowadays.
HStewart - Monday, March 12, 2018 - link
You really think so - with Intel struggling in the phone market - and QUALCOMM doing well - it most like would that both x86 and QUALCOMM would share benefits from each other.That what I would do if I was Intel - but then again I am not.
SleepyFE - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Yes, when companies buy competitors they never tank their product, they just double the R&D spending and work on both (in case you didn't get it that was sarcasm). If Intel gets Qualcomm it will patent troll everyone and force them to use an x86 CPU if they wan't to use any other patented mobile tech from their portfolio. Best case scenario, they will just kill the snapdragon line and everyone will make a switch to mediatek or some other basic ARM implementation without consequences.Samus - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
They should all stay independent. Competition is good. At least when AMD\Intel decide to get into the SoC game and Qualcomm decides to make a real push for HPC, competition will be good.A Broadcom merger would mean less competition in the radio, networking and controller space. I'm not a huge Qualcomm fan (they often refuse to license IP in effect cockblocking competition, lately have shown some trollish behavior with their patents, and have been caught doing under the table shenanigan deals with vendors.)
This is a good, but unsurprising, move by the white house. Honestly, no administration would likely let a merger of this caliber go forward.
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
"They should all stay independent. Competition is good."not for the capitalist. that's why they buy each other at the first opportunity. or change law to support monopoly. Disney got copyright extended to near infinity just to make more money:
"When the Copyright Act was first enacted in the United States, the copyright duration was only 14 years. Today Copyright duration can last over a century in some cases. Why such a drastic change? Some say it is all due to a cute little mouse named Mickey."
here: https://atp.orangenius.com/how-mickey-mouse-keeps-...
Tams80 - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
Yes, competition is good.Broadcom also do less R&D than Qualcomm. Networking will move forward much slower if Broadcom buy Qualcomm and Qualcomm don't even want to be bought.
FullmetalTitan - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
Only the stock holders with their eyes at their feet were even considering it, hence the proxy vote to install Broadcom nominees to the Qualcomm board. If investors weren't always chasing the profits for JUST next quarter, they would make more informed decisions.I hate this administration and would like to see every single member in a jail cell, but for one time in his miserable life, this purported "business genius" actually made a smart business move on behalf of American workers.
ZolaIII - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Emulation won't work so M$ must start trying harder & ensure native and equal ecosystem or they can vanquish as much as I am concerned. Not a single regular ever will give it's approval to a deal that would totally monopolise market as Intel purchase of QC/BC. Broadcom takeover by all means whose Apples try to get it by a third side they have control of. QC made a mistake not buying Imagination & ruining Apple, which by the way is now in Chinese hands (which is a good thing). Intel do need to wake up quickly & buy bunch of fables semiconductor manufacturers in the same time expanding its IP and product portfolio rapidly alongside with foundery business as the ship is sinking fast. Only increase if Intel did make takeover would be a price increase, uncompetitive practice & monopoly of the worst kind. We got stuck hire for 30 years because Intel used all of that so that X86 is dominant & proclaiming how many core's is something we don't need. Now they can't neither block nor neglect RISC which always whose better & will become dominant one way or the other.The full scale China semiconductor take over will happen sooner or later no matter how much effort someone (we know who) tries to block it & critical moment for that to happen is rather closing fast as semiconductor is beginning to collapse as Mors low is at the end of life & they can't provide significant enough advances to the new product so that consumers could justify buying them. Take over will made one time extension of the Mors low (two years period) simply by cutting prices in half. Any how takeover won't resolve anything it may buy enough time for DUV development that will extend it for one more cycle, then again all around gate combined with SOI wafers culd do a cycle more. Anyway China takeover is better than collapse of semiconductor industry and you can bet that banker's whose money is in it won't care much of the politics when it comes that they ensure that the things remain as they are & that they are in control.
All of this will happen in next 10 years. At the end let me explain something; having fab in China & Chinese worker's in it doesn't mean someone can put something into your valid design, it's not a f***ing drink. Sure it opens the door to China & it's government and pretty much everyone else (historical backed) to make what ever they need or want bricking the last technology holy grail that whose monopolised for a long time as the other two (nuclear & space/inter ballistic) one's doesn't stand for quite some time. So at the end it's all about might & power as always & never in the good manner.
LordSojar - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
This would basically give Intel a monopoly on ARM SoCs. This is a plainly bad idea. This benefits Intel, in theory, but they've not exactly executed well in the ultra mobile space... suffice to say. This doesn't benefit Qualcomm very much at all.It's very important for consumer pricing that Intel, Qualcomm and AMD stay separate. In fact, it's imperative.
HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
"This would basically give Intel a monopoly on ARM SoCs. This is a plainly bad idea. This benefits Intel, in theory, but they've not exactly executed well in the ultra mobile space... suffice to say. This doesn't benefit Qualcomm very much at all."Ok lets look at this logically, Intel does have any ARM - but you state if Intel buys Qualcomm then they will have a monopoly on ARM. This of course means Qualcomm always has a monopoly - and with Microsoft Windows for ARM only working on Qualcomm - that could be possibly. Or by stating that Intel will create monopoly on ARM, does that mean under Intel direction does this mean other ARM's including Apple's would also no longer exist.
To me the assumption that Intel will create monopoly is a very bias and inaccurate statement. Intel even though I like them for x86 products does not have a foot hold in the ARM market.
HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Oops typo "Intel does have any ARM" should be "Intel does NOT have any ARM"It is really frustrating that messages can not be edited especially with stupid typos
darkich - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Yeah, that's exactly what the world needs..Intel spreading it's criminal monopolism over to the most critical area of semiconductor technology(ULP chips)halcyon - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I think you forget, that 4% of the world's population do NOT the whole Anandtech readership make. The rest of us, you know 96% of us, would just like to trade freely.Mr Perfect - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I'd be fine with Intel buying Qualcomm. Mainly because Qualcomm provides horrible support for their SoCs. Qualcomm provides two years of driver updates for a SoC after it's release, meaning that getting an OS update for your phone is a nightmare. Intel, on the other hand, supports a chip for four or five years. Maybe even longer, Intel just release microcode updates for 2011's Sandybridge parts. Speaking purely as a consumer, I'd rather buy from Intel then Qualcomm.quadrivial - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
If the president blocks the purchase by a company in Singapore, why wouldn't he do the same for a company from China or some other country?lilmoe - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
How do you tackle a monopoly? Why with a BIGGER monopoly!! Duhh!tuxRoller - Wednesday, March 14, 2018 - link
Falkor competes well even with int heavy benchmarks. Let's not eliminate the one arm hope for enterprise:)Kevin G - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Amusingly over the weekend there was a rumor that Intel was considering buying Broadcom as a strategy to prevent the Broadcom-Qualcomm merger. It would have kept Qualcomm independent and thus something Intel could have defeated in the open market. Only reason Intel was looking at Broadcom to purchase was that Intel would have had a better chance of this passing through regulators even though buying Broadcom would have been a $110+ billion dollar deal.HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
NO... NO... Broadcom purchasing Qualcomm would be serious BAD for Intel. This basically means that Broadcom/Qualcomm would basically have a monopoly in telecommunications market and also more importantly that it would be foreign own - which is primary reason the government step in.CheapSushi - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
GOODI hope an Intel buy gets blocked too, if they go for it.
darkich - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
They can't because it would be anti-competitive I.E. not allowed by the regulators.Had Broadcom acquired it, then Intel actually would have a chance to negotiate.
Taric25 - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Funny how people had the same concerns when Intel bought Altera, famous for FPGA, thinking that it would atrophy research and development in FPGA. That hasn't happened. Altera is now Intel FPGA and is still doing quite well in the market and still giving Xilinx a run for their money. (Watch, AMD will see this comment and purchase Xilinx. ;-) j/k )I don't see R&D atrophy in Qualcomm's future if Intel purchases them. In fact, I see Thunderbolt 3 and Qualcomm Quick Charge having some sort of fusion and compatibility with USB-C interoperability, if they merged.
Yojimbo - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
From what I can figure out, based on very little information, the issue here wasn't that Broadcom isn't an American company. After they redomicile they will be as American as any other global corporation. They are made up of spin offs of American companies and mergers with American companies. I have read that the board members are mostly American citizens. I think the fact that they are domiciled in Singapore currently was used as a way of blocking the merger for another reason.That reason is most likely that Broadcom planned to operate Qualcomm in a different manner than Qualcomm has been operating. Broadcom proposed to cut various R&D expenditures to increase margins. The U.S. government seemingly became concerned that such a cut in R&D could affect America's influence and ability to securely rely on future mobile technology. They are worried that the U.S. government, military, and industry would have to rely on technology from Huawei, based in China.
So the government has stepped in to encourage Qualcomm to operate in perhaps an inefficient way, or at least in a way against the free market, because they fear the situation could have future national security and macroeconomic repercussions. I gotta say I have mixed feelings on that. It seems like a rather speculative move, and I'm convinced that in the long run, a multitude of decisions made like this would be a bad thing.
I am not sure of this assessment, though, because from what I read it sounded like Broadcom wanted to cut R&D projects on things like neuromorphic computing, and not R&D towards Qualcomm's core businesses such as mobile technology.
Spunjji - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I'm agreed with the broad premise here - that the reason given for blocking the merger is not the true reason. I also think it's a good idea. In the EU this would be blocked for anti-competitive reasons so the US has found a way to do effectively the same.HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I believe government step is not related to computer industry directly. It appears from the following link that Qualcomm and Government has contracts including home land security contract. So the president is correct that Broadcom acquiring Qualcomm would be potential natural security.http://government-contractors.insidegov.com/l/8710...
jospoortvliet - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I share your ambivalence toward this interference in the free market. Then again I am annoyed by the short term milking vision that seems to be behind the take over - that doesn't benefit the industry or customers or, indeed, the US.iwod - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
I think the more important question is, how long does it take for Broadcom to move back to US.HStewart - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
In addition they would either have to terminate Qualcomm government contract pertaining to security or at minimal make sure foreign assets do not have access to the information.Just moving office back to US is not enough
aggiechase37 - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
Hey, wow! A news story that just gives the news! No partisan slant. Great work Anandtech! Seriously!FreckledTrout - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
If only this was the standard for "news".zaza - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
if intel bought qualcomm, then intel will almost have a monopoly on modem chips (wifi- 4g- 5g) and this would be bad for the industry. and i don't get what is the big issue of Boradcomm buying qualcomm as "national security threat". US based companies have bought so many companies from around the world and none stop it as a national security threat.MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - link
That's because anything against short term US profits is nowadays a "national security threat".