My bet in this speculative discussion is on Intel too. They desperately need an out into the mobile market; and with ARM infringing on the server market it makes sednse for Intel to use its cash to do with MIPS as they see fit. The question is, is there a tight fit between MIPS and Intel strategies? For a company that capitalized on a radically different RISC architecture developed by current Stanford U. president J. Hennessy MIPS might be just what Intel needs to counter the ARM-based mobile juggernaut.
With China's recent commitment to a national silicon standard (ISA), a Chinese firm (newly created, established, or government) makes perfect sense as a purchaser. I suspect that any regulatory and security concerns can be negotiated.
Good and interesting calls on Microchip and Intel, which we did not include in our runners and riders list.
Perhaps we should have.
BUT I still feel they would fall foul of the "don't compete with your customers" rule.
How could Microchip license microAptiv for use in microcontrollers successfully when it is sells so many microcontrollers?
How could Intel license high-end and mobile MIPS cores when it is trying to sell Atom and Ivy Bridge into the same sectors?
Intel+Marvell would be even better. Marvell is an ARM licensee and has several cores so Intel could quickly compete in the ARM market. IIRC, a chunk of Marvell used to be an Intel division, so that's another synergy. OTOH, it's possible that the ARM license wouldn't transfer to Intel, or that ARMH would make Intel pay dearly for it. Intel would have to use 25-33% of its cash to buy MRVL, however, so it probably won't happen.
Buying MIPS would just be pocket change for Intel, however. They have $15B in cash&investments, mostly short term, and MIPS market cap is only $0.353B. Even with a 40% takeover premium, the cost to Intel would be about 0.10 per share, less than half the quarterly dividend. Intel already has one of its best engineering teams in Israel, so there is synergy there as well. If Intel has any plans to acquire an ARM license, owning the MIPS IP could prevent ARMH from trying to extract too much from Intel. And Intel certainly has enough lawyers to monetize MIPS' patents and just reassign their engineers if they can't make a go of applying the MIPS architecture to mobile devices. But I very much expect that Intel could utilize the MIPS architecture for that as easy as they could do so with ARM. Especially with the latest Google developments.
But really, who wants MIPS? What has MIPS done for us or themselves lately (the past 5+ years)? And like all these suffering companies, what makes the next guy better at making it work than the last string of CEO's or owners? If you don't have real synergy, it's just going to keep withering. And how many other companies will MIPS take down with it when the architecture stalls (further)?
I'm guessing MIPS is way over-pricing themselves thinking they've got great value, when really they've just got a lot of companies by the short hairs. But they're 10 years over the hill. If nobody blinks, MIPS will be on Craigs List in another couple years.
I wouldn't put much stock in some super-secret computer-generated patent-rating algorithm (does it run on a MIPS processor?). I'd rather have two critical patents than 2000 frivolous ones.
I'm not seeing any big wins here, but potential for some big losses, with a domino effect to other IP companies. Tensilica, Ceva et al. maybe but MIPS may be too much woman for those boys to handle. Maybe ARM - or even Intel - buys MIPS just to milk them while snuffing them out.
Someone, please surprise me!
The Chinese want MIPS bad but the U.S. government won't allow it. My money is on Qualcomm, Synopsis, or Rambus. All of them are IP companies so it would make sense for them to acquire MIPS since it fits with business models. Qualcomm already uses MIPS and Synopsis would rather use MIPS than ARC because of the MIPS software ecosystem. The worst buyer would be Broadcom, that's the company which helped run MIPS into the ground.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.