Rumor: Microsoft interested in purchasing AMD

[ballowers100]

Rumor: Microsoft interested in purchasing AMD

All of the details of information here.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/anton-shilov/microsoft-is-interested-to-buy-advanced-micro-devices-source/

Seems true in a way. Unclear details, but seems true.

The only other company I can see purchasing AMD is either ARM or Samsung. There was a rumor I think about Samsung wanting to purchase AMD in 2014 unless I'm mistaken.

 

[GuyNwah]

MS could buy AMD for what amounts to petty cash. The question is, whether and why they would want to. AMD has no leadership in any market segment that is a driver for Microsoft. Game consoles are no more than a sideline. Discrete GPUs aren't of interest to them at all. What they need are ultra low-power, high performance-for-power devices for tablet computing and servers. This is a segment where Intel is the nine hundred pound gorilla.

I think AMD will be acquired. I'm just not convinced that MS is the buyer that would be interested.

 

[volsung]

No offense but this is garbage. The "source" is unknown, it states MS approached AMD (oh wow) but they have no idea what about.

Not saying it's a lie, because there is no information whatsoever about anything. But this type of journalism is rubbish.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

It's not enough that MS still impose Windows tax, such kind of deal would be much worse.

PC hardware being a hostage to a company which built its whole business on lock-in and "embrace, extend and extinguish" will create a very sick market. This deal should be simply forbidden by the antitrust law.

 

[ballowers100]

It's not enough that MS still impose Windows tax, such kind of deal would be much worse.

PC hardware being a hostage to a company which built its whole business on lock-in and "embrace, extend and extinguish" will create a very sick market. This deal should be simply forbidden by the antitrust law.

Oh come on already. Microsoft is not that bad (evil).

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Oh come on already. Microsoft is not that bad (evil).

That's what they claim, "see how much better we are today". But I still don't see computers from major manufacturers being sold without Windows (try Lenovo, Asus, Dell etc.). I still don't see MS stopping their lock-in nastiness and actually participating in open standards (Vulkan, OpenDocument, you name it) and I still don't see them dropping their massive patent racketeering. So they may be got a new coating, but they are still evil enough.

And don't forget the rest of the nasty stuff (their backing of APIs copyrightability and other general support of bad copyright practices).

 

[ballowers100]

That's what they claim, "see how much better we are today". But I still don't see computers from major manufacturers being sold without Windows (try Lenovo, Asus, Dell etc.). I still don't see MS stopping their lock-in nastiness and actually participating in open standards (Vulkan, OpenDocument, you name it) and I still don't see them dropping their massive patent racketeering. So they may be got a new coating, but they are still evil enough.

You know Microsoft is part of the Khronos Group for stuff like WebGL right?

I still don't see Microsoft as a bad company.

Eh, whatever I own stock in Microsoft 10 shares that is and I'm perfectly happy with Microsoft.

 

[GuyNwah]

The extreme intricacy of the cross-licensing between Intel and AMD pretty well ensures that AMD's licensing business will survive without being slurped up by Intel. Intel becoming the monopoly supplier of CPUs is a much greater antitrust concern than Microsoft becoming the owner of intellectual property that Intel depends on.

AMD's most profitable lines are semi-custom (which has not just the game console chips but also several other design wins) and licensing. The GPU segment may be one they can sell for a good profit, though they deny they are planning anything of the kind. They want to focus on rebuilding the enterprise server line where they were once strong competition for Intel. They will need capital to do this.

 

[ballowers100]

The extreme intricacy of the cross-licensing between Intel and AMD pretty well ensures that AMD's licensing business will survive without being slurped up by Intel. Intel becoming the monopoly supplier of CPUs is a much greater antitrust concern than Microsoft becoming the owner of intellectual property that Intel depends on.

AMD's most profitable lines are semi-custom (which has not just the game console chips but also several other design wins) and licensing. The GPU segment may be one they can sell for a good profit, though they deny they are planning anything of the kind. They want to focus on rebuilding the enterprise server line where they were once strong competition for Intel. They will need capital to do this.

^ THIS. Exactly this. Intel is way too far ahead of AMD in processors and AMD is not doing so good.

Microsoft purchasing AMD can possibly boost AMD's Research & Development (R&D) and maybe possibly compete with Intel.

Microsoft has enough money to invest in AMD yes? To compete with Intel. Samsung is the other company who can do it as well.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

You know Microsoft is part of the Khronos Group for stuff like WebGL right?

They do participate in open standards... when they already lost the competition battle. WebGL is about browsers, and MS lost the browser wars. Another recent example is their participation in standard container format. Kind of surprising? Not really, MS have no edge in container market where Docker and others are way ahead. So MS show off as "good guys". But in the markets where they have a strong presence? Good luck waiting for their participation! That's why you don't see MS in OpenDocument and Vulkan working groups.

 

[ballowers100]

They do participate in open standards... when they already lost the competition battle. WebGL is about browsers, and they lost the browser wars. Another recent example is their participation in standard container format. Kind of surprising? Not really, MS have no edge in container market where Docker and others are way ahead. So MS show off as "good guys". But in the markets where they have a strong presence? Good luck waiting for their participation! That's why you don't see MS in OpenDocument and Vulkan efforts.

Of course Microsoft lost the browser wars, but Bing, Bing as a search engine is growing in fact I believe it was this year I read. It was about Bing and Microsoft's Surface tablets that their business profited and grew a lot more than what it grew in 2013 and 2014. Something like 7% if I read correctly.

Microsoft needs DirectX and it's because of AMD's Mantle that DirectX 12 and Vulkan exists.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The extreme intricacy of the cross-licensing between Intel and AMD pretty well ensures that AMD's licensing business will survive without being slurped up by Intel. Intel becoming the monopoly supplier of CPUs is a much greater antitrust concern than Microsoft becoming the owner of intellectual property that Intel depends on.

Yes, Intel eating AMD is a major concern as well. But MS eating either of them is also pretty bad. You aren't happy with Windows tax? At least you can install other OSes even if you lose money. With MS controlling the CPU - tough luck. It would mean no other OSes for you at all. So I can easily see antitrust kicking in there (in theory). But with the current broken legal system I wouldn't hold my breath, since Windows tax is also pretty much an antitrust violation, but it still exists.

 

[ballowers100]

Yes, Intel eating AMD is a major concern as well. But MS eating either of them is also pretty bad. You aren't happy with Windows tax? At least you can install other OSes even if you lose money. With MS owning CPU - tough luck. It would mean no other OSes for you at all.

No Microsoft purchasing AMD would not be bad at all. I am ok with the Windows tax. Microsoft needs to sell Windows copies.

I doubt Microsoft would not allow other Operating Systems (OS') to be installed on AMD hardware.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Microsoft needs DirectX

Not really. They use DirectX to enforce lock-in. There is no good need for it. They had ActiveX in the past too. But that mostly died out because of competition (only South Korea still suffers from it). They "needed" it the same way.

 

[ballowers100]

Not really. They use DirectX to enforce lock-in. There is no good need for it. They had ActiveX in the past too. But that mostly died out because of the competition (only South Korea still suffers from it). They "needed" it the same way.

We need both DirectX and Vulkan for competition.

Glide is dead and Mantle who knows what will happen with it.

If only DirectX or OpenGL or Mantle only existed there would be NO competition.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I doubt Microsoft would not allow other Operating Systems (OS') to be installed on AMD hardware.

Probably not for servers, but do you want to give them such an opportunity when they can easily abuse their already massive market power?

---------- Updated at 08:43 PM ----------

If only DirectX or OpenGL or Mantle only existed there would be NO competition.

Competition is good when there is one. But MS prevents it (I don't expect any Vulkan on Xbox). May be in the future it will happen when Vulkan will become really widespread. But until then MS will not compete on merit.

 

[ballowers100]

Probably not for servers, but do you want to give them such an opportunity when they can easily abuse their already massive market power? I wouldn't if I'd be evaluation this.

---------- Updated at 08:43 PM ----------



Competition is good when there is one. But MS prevents it (I don't expect any Vulkan on Xbox). May be in the future it will happen when Vulkan will become really widespread. But until then MS will not compete on merit.

No idea about the power abuse, but AMD really needs capital to survive and compete against Intel and Nvidia. AMD going out of business would be very bad for the GPU market and Nvidia having a bigger monopoly that it already has is bad for all of us who purchase video cards.

So I say Microsoft should go ahead and purchase AMD.

Competition is good when there is only one? What? That's a monopoly.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Competition is good when there is only one? What? That's a monopoly.

When there is competition I mean. MS doesn't like competition, that's why they like lock-in so much. I.e. the lack of Vulkan on Xbox will be an example of no competition not because DX is better, but because MS prevents it artificially.

AMD may be bought, but I doubt that by MS. Other hardware companies is a bigger possibility. Not sure who though. Intel and Nvidia aren't likely (same antitrust). Qualcomm may be? All of the potential buyers aren't pleasant, but Samsung is slightly better than Qualcomm, the later is really nasty.

 

[GuyNwah]

Good points. Samsung and Qualcomm may be the most likely bidders. Qualcomm is hyper-aggressive about acquisition and could even buy up AMD as a tactic to prevent anybody else from getting them. They could then strip everything but the patent portfolio, or alternatively keep only the semi-custom division and sell off the patents to private vultures. Samsung is the more likely one to want AMD as a going concern.

AMD's depressed market value makes them an easy target even though they are heavily in debt and have squandered their equity. A number of large companies could acquire them without taking on significant debt or diluting their equity. Intel is probably the only company that would be ineligible on antitrust grounds.

 

[GuyNwah]

Useful analysis of one of the complicated traps that an AMD buyout would spring: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/202066-samsung-may-be-mulling-an-amd-acquisition-heres-what-could-happen

In short, AMD's agreement with Intel for x86 CPUs requires AMD to remain independent, and a merger would void it. Any buyer would lose the right to the x86 line. Depending on the details, it could even bork the game console chip contracts, as these are still x86 cores, and the planned K12 and "ambidextrous" architectures.

AMD may not be as likely a buyout candidate as they look. Although there is no danger of them ceasing to be a going concern anytime soon, their long-term viability including their ability to fund Jim Keller's K12, can't be called a certainty.