Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#71

Post by ksec »

ywvcbk wrote: post #69
ksec wrote: post #68

Only mentioned it abut two weeks ago [1] it would be great if Qualcomm buy it as whole and not certain parts. And two months [2] ago about Intel being attractive as an acquisition target. Qualcomm currently has close to zero Server revenue. And they have already failed twice to enter that market. Intel on the other hand has plenty of expertise and network. Potential synergy with GPU for a top to bottom mobile to data…

> There isn't a single GPU vendor who does that currently Nvidia technically? Of course Switch/Tegra is extremely outdated but they are developing a replacement.

Nvidia isn't in Smartphone. Although yes arguably Tegra in Switch and their self driving unit.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#72

Post by icedchai »

Dalewyn wrote: post #64
icedchai wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know agreements can be amended, right? Nothing is set in stone when big money is involved.

Whoever wants to buy out Intel needs to convince both Intel and AMD that the subsequent arrangement will be better than the monopoly-but-not-a-monopoly they enjoy today. I'm willing to bet AMD would sooner spend money bailing Intel out to keep that going first before entertaining thoughts about sharing their cake.

Intel isn’t in bad enough shape to need a bail out from their main competitor.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#73

Post by rbanffy »

0x000xca0xfe wrote: post #41
Onavo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pray that doesn't happen, Qualcomm's software and driver story is generally known as "go fuck yourself" and "my way or the highway".

Maybe they want to improve? They seem to be willing to upstream Linux drivers for their laptop chips.

We'll believe it when we see first-class Linux support actually happening.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#74

Post by rbanffy »

brigadier132 wrote: post #32
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?

That has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.

Letting go staff has everything with the owner though.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#75

Post by rbanffy »

Dalewyn wrote: post #20
synergy20 wrote: post #14

Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of them.

It's not happening though, an acquisition of Intel means the end of x86 due to cross-licensing terms between Intel and AMD which stipulate they all terminate upon either party being acquired. Granted, Qualcomm has interests in ARM so this might actually be what they want: Embrace, No Extending, Extinguish.

> an acquisition of Intel means the end of x86 due to cross-licensing terms between Intel and AMD which stipulate they all terminate upon either party being acquired

I believe Intel's licenses to AMD's IP would terminate, but not the other way around.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#76

Post by pasttense01 »

brigadier132 wrote: post #32
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?

That has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.

Wrong. A substantial number of advertisers dropped X.com because it isn't brand safe (for example their ads are located next to racist or Nazi or pornographic content). A substantial number of the staff let go were involved in keeping the site brand safe.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#77

Post by mark336 »

Qualcomm's recent issues include their contract with Microsoft to provide chips for the Co-Pilot+ pcs ends in November. And CoPilot PCs with Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite chips have serious performance issues playing games. See my tech news site about this: https://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads?p=20008 and https://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads?p=10006

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#78

Post by etc-hosts »

bdcravens wrote: post #27
ryoshu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.

Aren't the two disconnected? The revenue lost is a result of advertisers not wanting to be connected to Musk's politics. Downsizing isn't what caused that.

I'm starting to see ads during Great Replacement and Kill The Brown People threads on Twitter. It's not pushing me towards buying a product or clicking an ad.

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#79

Post by aleph_minus_one »

etc-hosts wrote: post #78
bdcravens wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't the two disconnected? The revenue lost is a result of advertisers not wanting to be connected to Musk's politics. Downsizing isn't what caused that.

I'm starting to see ads during Great Replacement and Kill The Brown People threads on Twitter. It's not pushing me towards buying a product or clicking an ad.

My stance on this rather is: the advertiser should like it if viewers consider the product advertised to be better than the tweets around it. :-D

(I hope I didn't give Elon Musk a bad idea concerning how to pitch his agenda to advertisers ;-) ).

Re: Qualcomm Approached Intel About a Takeover in Recent Days

#80

Post by nadist »

pasttense01 wrote: post #76
brigadier132 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.

Wrong. A substantial number of advertisers dropped X.com because it isn't brand safe (for example their ads are located next to racist or Nazi or pornographic content). A substantial number of the staff let go were involved in keeping the site brand safe.

Google also should not show x.com on search engine as its another social media platform, it has nothing to do for ranking
Post reply on HN