Apple rumored not to renew contract with NVIDIA for graphics chips
If the two companies cannot reach an agreement, NVIDIA would continue to provide chips for models that currently use NVIDIA, but Apple would be likely to drop NVIDIA chipsets in updates to their product line, particularly in iMacs and MacBooks currently based on Intel's Nehalem architecture.
A significant factor in the disagreement is the way NVIDIA handled the graphics failures of MacBook Pros carrying the GeForce 8600M video chipset, which had a tendency to overheat and eventually stop working. Apple had to extend the warranty on MBP
The relationship between Intel and NVIDIA hasn't exactly helped, either. Both businesses filed opposing lawsuits over NVIDIA's license to make mainboard chipsets with their own internal memory controllers. If Intel wins, NVIDIA could not make another chipset like its GeForce 9400M model that supports Core i7 processors, and would oust NVIDIA from Macs by exclusion.
Neither Apple nor NVIDIA have publicly spoken on the matter so far. Apple does have a history of severing relationships almost without warning, as they dropped ATI (now AMD) from Power Mac G4s after the company revealed Apple's plans ahead of a Macworld keynote address. However, if Apple does indeed drop NVIDIA, they may have to return to AMD in order to maintain their current graphics standard.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joachim Bean said 11:52AM on 7-02-2009
This picture is a Intel desktop CPU, not a NVIDIA graphics chip.
Reply
Joachim Bean said 12:13PM on 7-02-2009
That's more like it :) Thanks, sorry to be so picky, no hard feelings, don't worry.
strang said 12:05PM on 7-02-2009
What would Apple use then? The Intel solutions still stink. AMD's new Radeon 4200 based chipsets? I thought those would be AMD-only.
Reply
Brooks said 12:11PM on 7-02-2009
A fine and interesting article until the last sentence. Apple would have to go back to AMD? Really? That's not at all a foregone conclusion. Keep in mind that Apple has $30B in cash. Of the top of my head, other options that Apple could realistically pursue:
1) Acquire NVIDIA outright. Apple's got $30B in cash, NVIDIA's market cap is about $6B. At a 40% premium, we're talking $8.4B, or less than a third of Apple's cash reserves.
2) Switch to Larrabee, Intel's upcoming GPU. Apple's strong relationship with Intel coupled with the huge design/PR win that the switch would be should give Apple a very, very strong bargaining position with Intel.
3) Develop something in house, using and building on some of their hardware acquisitions. This is long lead time, so it's not something you do for the next Macbook... unless it's been in the pipes for a while, which is unlikely but not impossible.
Reply
dagamer43 said 12:23PM on 7-02-2009
All of these choices are quite silly. If anything, Apple is going to strongarm Intel into playing fair since they are single-handedly their most powerful client. Reasons you're scenarios would never happen:
1) The business of making computers is very different from the cutthroat graphics card business. I don't see how that would help, considering the enormous amount of time and energy it takes to make sure your company doesn't flounder. It would be a bigger "bag of hurt" than Bluray ever would be.
2) No professional in their wildest nightmare is going to buy a laptop with a graphics chip made from a manufacturer that hasn't released a useful GPU in YEARS if not DECADES. There's no faster way to kill your business. Plus, Larrabee is a desktop GPU, not a laptop one.
3) Takes years to make a GPU from scratch, and the drivers to support it, especially with little guarantee that it will be better than other solutions out there.
The way I see this resolving, Apple declares an ultimatum to allow nVidia to use make Nehalem chips or Apple will probably help file suit against Intel for monopolizing the market.
Joseph said 2:11PM on 7-02-2009
Intel makes Graphics Chipsets, in fact, until recently they provided apple with their macbook and mac mini chipsets. Larrabe wouldn't be a far stretch.
Bootes said 2:20PM on 7-02-2009
The point was useful. Intel does not make GPUs that don't suck and I will never buy a computer with anything equivalent to what Intel has out now.
Joshua Meadows said 12:48PM on 7-02-2009
Really, this would be a stupid idea. Intel graphics solutions are a joke, and AMD has been behind Nvidia for years.
Reply
Cash said 4:14PM on 7-02-2009
Really? My 4890 HD card, which runs just a tick behind nVidia's top of the line cards for a hundred dollars less, would beg to differ.
As for this whole story, I find Apple accusing *anyone* of being arrogant extremely amusing. Kettle? I call you black.
Joshua Meadows said 4:17PM on 7-02-2009
Your card is welcome whatever opinion it would like. :P It can't argue with benchmarks though.
And AMD cards also run significantly hotter, which is a big issue if you're shoving them into tiny laptops.
But yes, there is a special irony in Apple accusing someone else of being arrogant.
Brooks said 12:59PM on 7-02-2009
To be clear, I didn't say any of those were the most likely outcome. I just figured it's worth looking at alternatives. Apple has a lot of money and power; they're not like a consumer at Fry's who has to choose between two existing options.
To rebut:
1) Sure. It's unlikely, and would certainly never be incorporated into Apple entirely, but as a wholly-owned subsidiary, NVIDIA would guarantee Apple a lot of input into where desktop graphics are going, position them better for gaming, and put Microsoft in a difficult position vis-a-vis DirectX and Xbox. It may not be a great idea; it is positively something Apple could do that's worth at least thinking about.
2) Apple users care a lot less about GPU memory bus widths than many PC users. If Apple releases a Mac with Intel graphics that perform well, the only people steering clear strictly because of the Intel name will be overclockers and extreme geeks (I am one, BTW). That's not a market Apple is after. "Professionals", who use their computers for Internet apps, productivity apps, and maybe media purposes really don't care about the history of the manufacturer of the graphics chip. If it works, they won't care.
3) Indeed, like I said, it's pretty unlikely, and it's not a solution you'd decide to do today. But Apple is crafty, and they're making good choices at the API level with Cocoa across OS X and iPhone. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they've been working on graphics for a couple of years. Again, not at all likely, but it *is* something to consider before jumping to the "it's either NVIDIA or AMD" conclusion.
And I really don't see Apple getting into the Intel/NVIDIA dispute. Maybe they'll lean on Intel a bit, but they are so intertwined with Intel right now that I don't see them looking for government involvement (note that Apple can't sue Intel for monopoly violations or anti-competitive behavior; they'd have to petition the FTC or another government body). It would just be too damaging to the relationship.
Me, I think NVIDIA looks at Apple's recent press barrage and blinks, offering lower prices and some kind of back end protection in the event of future defects (which NVIDIA could hedge with an insurer, since a $1B hit would be devastating to them). But Apple positively has a world of options here.
Reply
Bob Aman said 3:28PM on 7-02-2009
Apple won't bother buying nVidia outright if they don't have to. It'd be better for them strategically to just buy a significant chunk of nVidia without taking a majority stake. That said, I think the status quo is still the most likely outcome.
Brooks said 4:03PM on 7-02-2009
Agreed. I never meant to suggest otherwise. And a minority stake is possible. Off the top of my head, I'd say:
74% - Status quo, contract renegotiated and it works
10% - Apple takes minority or majority interest in NVIDIA
10% - Apple goes with Intel for GPU
5% - Apple goes with AMD
1% - Apple announces Apple GPU hardware
The only reason I'm rating the Intel option that high is the potential that Intel has some cool unannounced stuff that integrates GPU/CPU/chipset with low power, high performance, low part count benefits for mobile applications.
Gwydion said 1:27PM on 7-02-2009
Charlie Demerjian, always bashing nVidia.
He also said that Dell has eliminated nVidia from all his computers
Reply
Chad Zeluff said 1:30PM on 7-02-2009
I don't see this happening, considering that ATI has had numerous problems themselves: huge delays on their cards for the high-end iMacs, overheating in iMacs, etc.
Reply
Mike said 1:40PM on 7-02-2009
"Apple had to extend the warranty on MBP models sold from June 2007 to October 2008 to three years"
I wish. But alas, no, this is not true. Apple WILL fix issues related to the GPU issue for 3 years. But my warranty hasn't been extended. Or the words from Apple's mouth that you linked already above...
"If the NVIDIA graphics processor in your MacBook Pro has failed, or fails within three years of the original date of purchase, a repair will be done free of charge, even if your MacBook Pro is out of warranty."
Reply
Joseph said 2:14PM on 7-02-2009
yeha, i got excited, followed this up.
another simple fix is to insert "the graphics card in" between on and MBP.
Luna Lovegood said 2:01PM on 7-02-2009
Apple accuses another company of "arrogance." That's rich.
Reply
joshua t said 1:35PM on 7-05-2009
i hope they build there own, so it can fail and their arrogance can finally be rewarded. above comment is completely right.
Reply
DA623 said 2:57PM on 7-02-2009
I wouldn't count on it much of them killing their nVidia contract considering Dell has had some nasty words with them too (they were hit just as hard with the 8 series mobile defects) yet their laptops still use nVidia GPUs.
Reply