Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on January 30, 2023 11:51 am wrote:
> anonymous2 (anonymous2.delete@this.example.com) on January 30, 2023 10:15 am wrote:
> > > I'll chime in that it was something else and really stupid on Intel's part. And
> > > it happened twice before Apple told Intel where to place their generous offers.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Intel wanted too much control?
>
>
> I don't know what the real answer is (and I don't know why Groo is dropping hints rather
> than outright saying what he means, given that this is 15+ years ago now) but knowing
> Intel I wouldn't be surprised if they want to maintain ownership of the IP so Apple would
> be permanently dependent on Intel as the only foundry to make their SoCs.
>
> The last thing they wanted is what happened, that Apple built upon the IP they developed for the
> iPhone and their own design expertise to the point they no longer need Intel for the Mac line.

My recollections are that Intel didn't want to meet Apple's requirements for a custom chip at the cost Apple wanted without major volume commitments, and they didn't believe it would sells in high volumes... Intel probably also threw in some other arrangements about not giving up the IP and pushing x86 over ARM, or even tying PC chip single sourcing guarantees, who knows what was said. In the end, organizational myopia / lack of leadership killed it, whatever flavor it comes in.