Imagination Technologies Share Discussion Threads

[dealy] 14/9/2017 06:31

Surely this lattice rejection makes a Canyon offer extremely likely now

[twatcher] 13/9/2017 23:04

Whether or not Apple is to believed is certainly a debatable point but if Apple states that they are not paying a dime to IMG for the A11 because they aren't using anything belonging to IMG in it, there is nothing that IMG can do about it.

They are trying to sell the company, and don't have enough money in the coffers to even write a pretty please legal letter, never mind do anything remotely serious legal wise.

Anyone buying IMG will have to determine who they beleive, IMG, who would clearly want the value of continuing Apple royalties to be dialed into the price, or Apple, who are saving 50c tops per A11 by saying it's not IMG. And on the assumption the buyer believes IMG, they have to decide A) they want that fight and the associated cost of it and B) are prepared should the fight go against them.

Winning continuing royalties/ punitive damages from Apple is hardly a slam dunk situation for a prospective buyer. It is definitely a complicating scenario, and probably one that was not expected to surface pre-sale.

[sweenoid] 13/9/2017 22:30

Trump just KILLED the Canyon takeover of Lattice :-)

That's the news I was looking for and expected , Canyon were willing to spend $1.3billion on Lattice, they are bound to have finished due diligence on IMG and the fact that Apple are still using IMG GPU foundations in A11 surely increases the chances of a bid, starting to get exciting

Sorry Rob - you are wrong here, this is still belt and braces IMG IP, BUT WHO CARES IF A BID COMES THATS ACCEPTABLE , LET THE BIDDER FIGHT IN THE PATENT COURTS



:-) :-)
S

[hammerd2] 13/9/2017 21:35

A11 is on 10nm process vs 16nm for A10 of course so it's not comparing apples with apples. If I'd just reinvented the wheel I think I'd want it to roll more than 30% faster, especially if I'd built it out of my own design golden carbon fibre inlaid with special sauce.

Node change and standard design evolution can explain much of the power consumption reduction if you're retaining the same performance. Previous generations have usually doubled performance with the same power consumption.

I digress - this is all so much rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic. Let's just have a bid mo-fo's.

COYI ⚒

[boleyn] 13/9/2017 21:28

5 knuckle boy

[rob_evans] 13/9/2017 21:17

Watching the presentation again, I noticed the A11 GPU designed by Apple can have 30% greater performance than the IMG IP A10, or half the power consumption for the same performance.

The 30% performance increase is no great shakes, but to reduce the power by half over the previous class leading design is some going.

There shouldn't be any great surprise that Apple have their own GPU - they had a former Vivante GPU architect working on their own design from Feb 2013 (

Four and a half years seems plenty to get their own design done.

[sweenoid] 13/9/2017 16:53

I guess when we get to see the new SDK things become much clearer.

I will say what I said yesterday and when I restarted posting ( purely on the basis of a 20000 punt) there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that Apple could have designed their new processor without it being squarely based on IMG IP PERIOD

those that jumped in yesterday with doom and gloom, believing the Apple hype can believe what they like.royalties will not be stoping for at least a year on the iPhone.
My sincere wish over and above me running a 'winner' here , is that IMG know what's going on and are waiting to be 'armed' with the tear- down and examinatiyof the A11 along with its SDK and then at last going to patent court. If the beast is IMG TBR based I can't see many patent judges finding in Apple's favour.

That's all I am saying till we get an official RNS from IMG ( it must be coming unless the acquisition is at a critical state of negotiation) or we get a bid

S

[hammerd2] 13/9/2017 14:35

Having read the GPU Family 4 Metal Feature Set Table - - it doesn't really strike me that the new "Apple design" features a hell of a lot more than the old ones that Apple "didn't" design. I can't find any new SDK, but maybe it's not public domain yet, but it seems that there are extensions to Metal in the new GPU for Image Blocks and some new tile shading work. These seem more like new bits that Apple may well have designed in to add onto the base architeture - that is IMG.

It's no secret that I am by no means an expert in these things but this doesn't look like a new architecture (which is what they license from IMG) to me.

I'm calling "shenanigans" !! Now, someone put a bid in before I lose my rag 😇

[borromini1] 13/9/2017 11:32

TechInsights not only do the analysis from system to atomic level but also provide numerous IP related expert services such as evidence of use (of patents) in components, they claim these directly assist in providing evidence for the pursuit of patent infringement claims in negotiations or court action. Presumably they don't come cheap.

[jamesrowe] 13/9/2017 11:02

Good point

[pottsey] 13/9/2017 10:55

Its not just IMG IP that Apple have to worry about. Now Apple GPU's are no longer protected by IMG patents other GPU company's can take Apple to court over patent infringement. We have already seen the start of this and it could get much worse for Apple.

[orkney] 13/9/2017 10:17

just by using the gpu process name, TBDR, raises questions. You would have thought Apple would have given their 'new Apple designed gpu' a completely new, totally different process name to state their supposed total gpu independence from img!

[hammerd2] 13/9/2017 10:12

Not sure how far that gets you these days in terms of proof - a transistor is largely a transistor.

I prefer the "if it's got a long neck, lives in Africa, has big brownish spots and the most 'to die for' eyelashes in the animal kingdom, you can call it 'Geoffrey' all you like, but it's still a giraffe" method of proof. :-))

Potential bidders knew what they were getting themselves into already in terms of litigation at some point, the only difference now is a potential loss of £40-60m.

[borromini1] 13/9/2017 09:45

IMG, potential bidders and others presumably reaching out to the likes of TechInsights/Chipworks to pre-order a comprehensive X-ray analysis of "Apple designed" GPU.

[hammerd2] 13/9/2017 09:39

There was no such expectation of IQE from anyone who knows anything about IQE - there were never any rumours of VCSELs being in anything but the top end iPhone, the markets just got an excuse to cool things down a little over there after the "late" shipping dates were announced. Like a few weeks amounts to anything more than a hill of beans.

Well, IMG are still definitely full royalty suppliers to Watch (all), iPhones SE, 6S, 7, 7+, iPads (all) and Apple TV (all). That's a few quid at least for another 18 months.

I'm very pleasantly surprised at how restrained the share price drop has been today. Market maturity or indifference due to how little anyone thinks about little old IMG these days ?

Hopefully the Chuckles' have got the IP gurus poring over the limited publicly available info. Or are camping outside potential bidders' HQs chanting "Sign the deal ! Sign the deal !" :-)

[borromini1] 13/9/2017 09:20

Market reaction so far = 6% drop, 30m GBP reduction in market cap. Compare to IQE drop of 6%, maybe with IQE there was an expectation of all three new iPhones having facial recognition?

[hammerd2] 13/9/2017 09:07

James those facial ID system demos were available at the last AGM HY was at - it's not new stuff for IMG, but 'no-one' ever used it .....IIRC it was sorting out faces in a supermarket.

Interesting to think that this 'Apple GPU' could have been built since HY was turfed out.

Stop K, stop. You are only interested in a takeover - don't get sucked back in to giving a fig.

[jamesrowe] 13/9/2017 08:56

Didn't IMG recently announce at a conference that they had some great new stuff related to AI or neural nets coming out soon?? Doesn't the iPhone X contain a "neural engine"?? Hmmm.... All the little snippets in yesterday's release bring to mind the difference between forging a grand master versus just copying his style.

[evil_doctor_facilier] 13/9/2017 08:53

That's a great point James, what a ingenues move by Samsung that would be.

[jamesrowe] 13/9/2017 08:50

LoC - that depends on whether the acquisitor wants IMG as a going concern or just for its technology i.e. will they license IMG IP in future or just use it for themselves. Someone like Samsung would I presume mainly want it so that they could use IMG IP in their own designs (although they would surely also love to sue their largest competitor and prevent sale of their products!).

[life of crime] 13/9/2017 08:42

Mr Market obviously takes Apple's claims with a liberal pinch of salt! It is clear though, that Apple is distancing itself further from IMG and I expect a buyer will want to see the new iPhones pulled apart to have a view on potential infringements before finalising an offer, at least I would.

[evil_doctor_facilier] 13/9/2017 08:38

hammerd2 similar situation here, rather surprised to be able to drop two 7.5ks at the open for 143, had feared the worse.
You now know a bid will come promptly in change relief into despair don't you? .;)

[jamesrowe] 13/9/2017 08:35

I also sold two thirds of my holding and now wishing I had sold more....

[jamesrowe] 13/9/2017 08:33

I guess that one reason that one company might want to recruit another companies staff is to reduce the number of key staff who would be available with detailed knowledge of their patenets together with who said what when in case of future litigation.