Imagination Technologies Remains For Sale as No Progress Made in Dispute With Apple

Imagination insists that Apple is making "unsubstantiated assertions," as the iPhone maker has supposedly yet to present any evidence to prove that it will no longer require the British firm's technology, at least not without violating its patents, intellectual property, and confidential information.

That's not how it works. If Imagination thinks Apple is infringing its IP, then it has to prove it. Apple doesn't have to prove the reverse.

I think so, and if it does happen, with any luck Imagination will have them in British courts and Apple will find it a lot tougher to win.
I can't see how they won't steal their designs, or just use them for free, not like it's the first time Allles done this...

i really don't think this is about Apple trying to save money or not pay Imagination.
they currently license the tech for about $100million per year... in devices that brought Apple over $150billion in revenue.. like, Apple is getting a serious bargain from Imagination.. for Apple to do what's being hinted at (in house GPU design), they're going to be spending much more than they spend on Imagination in R&D costs alone.

Apple's goal, it seems to me, is to put themselves in position to continue offering users a different experience than what everyone else is doing.. and the more everyone is using the same technology, the more difficult it becomes for Apple to differentiate themselves from the pack..

it appears (to me at least), Apple is positioning itself for the next 10years (and beyond).. the last 10 years has been iOS.. the next 10 will/could likely be viewed as iOS 2.0.. the AR years.

their own GPU along with their own software (Metal) gives them a pretty serious advantage, or at least a very strong standing amongst other players, moving into the future (imo).

Apple killed them on purpose, the EU need to fine them.

Lol. So it's your theory that for some reason apple has some sort of obligation to buy imagination's technology forever?

An excellent decision on Apple's part.

Sometimes you just need to move on and go with your own tech.

I agree. They've decided that, for their own purposes, there is a better architecture than imagination's, with the added benefit that they can control it and use it as a differentiator. They are probably going to come up with their own thing that scales from watch to desktop, and provides optimized performance per watt with their own software technologies.

Apple has a long history of ending up beholden to someone else's whims and schedules, and they really don't like it - they tend to head off in another direction to get control back:

- Metroworks C compiler. If I recall correctly, a lot of big name players (like, but not necessarily including, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.) wrote their Mac software using the Metroworks C compiler and associated libraries, rather than following Apple's path, and then Metroworks cast the compiler adrift, and Apple was stuck supporting older APIs for many years because these major players didn't want to put in the effort to move to newer frameworks. This lead to iOS supporting only Xcode for a long time, and Apple working to keep Flash off the platform. Aside from Flash sucking battery life and being full of security holes, if significant amounts of software, early on, had been written that required Flash, it would have meant Apple being tied to Adobe's whims. With everyone required to use Xcode for the first few years, Apple was able to control the path the iPhone took and the speed on that path.

- CPU chips. If I recall correctly, Apple went with Motorola's PowerPC chips as an upgrade from the 68K series to gain speed/capabilities, then suffered under years of Motorola delivering underwhelming speed upgrades, then they moved up to IBM's PowerPC chips with IBM assuring them there was a lovely roadmap ahead, then IBM couldn't (or lost interest and didn't care to) deliver chips that were fast enough, or power efficient enough, so we never got that PowerBook G5. This caused Apple to jump to Intel's x86 family. And they're still not always getting what they want from Intel (and for a long time Intel really wanted their CPUs in iPhones, but Apple would have none of it). When it came time to pick a CPU for a phone, Apple went with ARM, and, more importantly, went into designing in-house variants as soon as they could. This means they, once again, were in charge of the path, and the speed on that path.

Now, Apple has been screaming from the rooftops (in their own fashion, which means that Tim Cook has mentioned it casually but not accidentally on numerous occasions) that they think AR will be big in the near future. AR requires really good GPUs (and for mobile use, they need to be very power efficient). Apple wants to control the path they're on for GPUs.

So this move into GPUs is quite obvious, Apple have shown themselves to be quite capable of building really excellent chip-level hardware, and it looks to me like one of two conditions it true:
1. It is possible to build a viable GPU without infringing Imagination Technologies' patents, and Apple will do so.
2. There is no possible way to build a viable GPU without infringing said patents. This would be a condemnation of the current state of the patent system in general, or an indication that said patents are overly broad.

As an aside, if they do eventually do an ARM-based Mac (not to replace the x86 but as an option), it'll once again be to be in control of the path. And a desktop class Apple CPU (think dozens of cores instead of 4-6) with a desktop class Apple GPU, could make for a very interesting macOS laptop - powerful but power sipping.

Oh I don't doubt that...
[doublepost=1499208685][/doublepost]

The pound dropped because of the vote so Aplle wacked its prices up, by 25%... of course the pound has recovered a fair bit but Apple hasn't dropped its prices..
And we are not xenophobic loonies, were Americans xenophobic loonies for wanting independence? Such an utterly ridiculous term used by left wing liberalist crazies or those that have no clue about it all.

The pound dropped from more than 1.6 dollars to less than 1.3, so 25% doesn't seem outrageous (especially since they can't change their prices daily)

And the U.K. had representation in the EU. The American colonies had none in England. Big difference.

So now you get to live with your vote. Have fun with that.