Zibb

Ann Steffora MutschlerWhat's happening behind the scenes in the semiconductor manufacturing industry? Read this blog by Senior Editor Ann Steffora Mutschler to find out - and chime in with your thoughts and questions.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Blog

Thursday, January 24, 2008

If Apple won't buy AMD, how about IBM?

Jan 24 2008 10:30AM | Permalink |Comments (25) |


AMD’s stock was up this morning temporarily with rumors that surfaced late yesterday that IBM might be considering a “deeper partnership” with the microprocessor challenger or even an outright merger. But alas, by noon eastern time, things had settled down and stock was trading at about $7.50/share. Surely the daytraders had fun with this one.

In November, another rumor circulated temporarily regarding Apple acquiring AMD, but it was short-lived. 

While that one seemed only somewhat plausible, thinking seriously about IBM rescuing AMD makes more sense for AMD from one perspective alone: cash.

AMD would definitely be stronger under Big Blue’s umbrella, and has definitely had cash problems, partially helped by the $622 million infusion from Abu Dhabi in November.

The companies have done R&D on strained-silicon transistor technology going back to 2004, designed to augment processor performance and power efficiency. 

In November 2005, the companies broadened the scope of their technology alliance through 2011 to include early exploratory research of transistor, interconnect, lithography, and die-to-package connection technologies.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based AMD, along with partner IBM, has a large presence in upstate New York and in 2006 was lured by almost $1 billion in incentives to build a $3.2 billion fab there, as part of the Albany NanoTech at the State University of New York's University at Albany, which is an R&D collaboration between the university and dozens of semiconductor partners such as IBM, Philips, Tokyo Electron and AMD.

Also in 2006, IBM said it was using AMD chips in five incremental servers for mainstream business applications.

IBM and AMD are not commenting.

What are your thoughts? Chime in with comments.

--Ann Steffora Mutschler, Senior Editor


Reader Comments



at 1/24/2008 12:29:10 PM, neural said:
IBM...please buy AMD; I need to recover my $14/share stock purchase.



at 1/24/2008 12:31:51 PM, TC said:
The odds of IBM buying AMD are somewhere between zero and none. IBM wants to emphasize services because they make much better margins.
The last thing they want to spend money on is acquiring hardware companies that compete in consumer electronics markets with huge capital expenses.
LOL!




at 1/24/2008 12:44:05 PM, lane mason said:
No, Samsung should buy both AMD and IBM Micro. IBM has been trying to get out of chips for a decade, and here's a chance to throw it overboard 'to a good home'. IBM also has had long-term development partnerships with both companies for many years. AMD needs more critical mass...money. Samsung needs to diversify from memories and would like to capture the #1 chipmaker spot from Intel. Samsung's System LSI business is growing slower than Jerry Sanders' asparagus. IBM could never get enough horsepower together to challenge Intel. Maybe S-A-I could.



at 1/24/2008 12:45:42 PM, HC said:
Agree with comments above. IBM is not longer in the hardware business but more profitable service business.



at 1/24/2008 12:52:18 PM, Carl said:
A TSMC acquisition of AMD could be a win-win for both compaines. AMD probably realizes that they will lose competitiveness against Intel unless they find a fab partner.

Since AMD's products are quite specific, TSMC will not be view as a threat to it's other customers, at least, in the near term. It also gives TSMC an opportunity to expand in Asia.



at 1/24/2008 12:52:22 PM, Carl said:
A TSMC acquisition of AMD could be a win-win for both compaines. AMD probably realizes that they will lose competitiveness against Intel unless they find a fab partner.

Since AMD's products are quite specific, TSMC will not be view as a threat to it's other customers, at least, in the near term. It also gives TSMC an opportunity to expand in Asia.



at 1/24/2008 12:56:15 PM, CYI said:
From a cash perspective, I don't see why IBM makes more sense than Apple. IBM is carrying about $16B in cash on their balance sheet. Apple has about $15B.



at 1/24/2008 1:00:45 PM, Rahul said:
It does not make strategic sense for IBM to merge with AMD or to buy it. Semiconductor solutions/chip making is not how IBM markets itself. IBM is a software/services company. This just ain't going to happen.



at 1/24/2008 1:03:39 PM, MarkO said:
IBM sold their Hard Drive Division to Hitachi. Their PC Manufacturing Division to Lenovo. So now they want to buy AMD (and ATI), Yea, Right..

Even their "Global Services" division is having issues, according to Robert X. Cringely:
Lean and Mean: 150,000 U.S. layoffs for IBM?
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_002027.html
and
The Final Daze: More on IBM's global restructuring
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070511_002058.html





at 1/24/2008 1:27:12 PM, I doubt it said:
First, I doubt AMD would go to TSMC since Chartered is provisioned on their process (not TSMC). Second, IBM once tried the MCP game, failed, then quit. Why would they do it all over again? Not when they could just keep developing the process tech and licensing it to the likes of AMD, NXP, etc... people don't like to compete with Intel directly if they don't have to. I think AMD should just go the Airbus route and just get French subsidies to help them compete. That would take care of the cash problem.



at 1/24/2008 2:26:07 PM, SamsungOrChartered said:
It makes strategic sense for Samsung or Chartered but IBM. I don't think they want to lose that much money.



at 1/24/2008 3:38:59 PM, steve said:
Why? IBM's previous attempts to get into (merchant) semiconductors has been a disaster. They have good technolgy, good as a foundry, but not so good at designing and marketing useful ICs.

As an Intel advocate, it would be okay if IBM acquired them, because they'd probably finally put them 6ft under where they belong.



at 1/24/2008 6:00:37 PM, Stayin' Alive said:
Why would IBM buy a loser to start a bloodbath with Intel?



at 1/24/2008 6:26:19 PM, C said:
Whatever




at 1/24/2008 11:41:06 PM, Jyri P said:
What about Intel acquiring AMD - Get extra engineers and also get rid of competition?



at 1/24/2008 11:58:47 PM, richard said:
How about SUN...then they could open source the AMD chipset. This is what is needed to compete with Intel.



at 1/25/2008 11:26:45 AM, MeggaMan said:
IBM used re badge Cyrix chips way back in the 90's so IBM are not afraid of taking on Intel at this level. We have sold thousands of both types of chips and really only one decision making rule emerges - power/price and AMD frequently have the edge - I think Intel realize that.



at 1/27/2008 4:27:27 AM, Sree said:
\i dont think there is any thing to panic , \amd will be back wiht in due time....



at 2/4/2008 7:26:21 AM, chris said:
This comment refer to Cyrix & old PowerPC stuff.

IBM is #1 semiconductor supplier for ASICs and supplying semiconductors for all three game stations.

>>IBM's previous attempts to get into (merchant) semiconductors has been a disaster.

I don't think it makes sense for IBM to buy AMD.




at 2/15/2008 12:06:04 PM, Noel said:
AMD will never be a good purchase for any company, specifically taking Intel head on.



at 3/3/2008 6:24:10 PM, Andy said:
Samsung clearly makes the most sense. Only a memory guy would view the processor business as MORE appealing.



at 4/4/2008 12:51:05 AM, Scott said:
An Apple purchase of AMD doesn't make any sense now that Apple has switched to Intel CPU's. Anyone who bought stock based on those rumors needs to have their head examined. Samsung or Sun might reasonably consider acquiring AMD.



at 4/26/2008 5:58:26 AM, Vito said:
I would much rather see AMD buy the IBM fab in East Fishkill, NY! IBM is for certain moving away from hardware and into eggheadware.

And Meggaman, FYI, (this may be another "foundry legend", but I heard it from a few different sources)those "IBM" Cyrix chips were made by MiCrus, at a fab jointly owned by IBM and Cirrus Logic. That fab now belongs to NXP.



at 1/2/2009 11:24:07 AM, Mike Bruzzone said:
First, its obvious that AMD and IBM have a process and technolgy development relationship.

AMD preparing to build a fab in New York, from the proceeds of the Intel recovery, is also well known between the two enterprises.

The prosopect of a jointly owned enterprise in the domestic Unitied States is desired by the Federal government.

Finally, x86 processors, by default, will become the production mainstay for massively parrallel systems.

IBM will begin with an AMD licence for captive manufacture.

MB, Camp Marketing














at 9/22/2009 4:02:03 AM, cable said:
HI,
I don't see anything wrong in it. They are doing business.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites