anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 31, 2013 6:47 pm wrote:
> > They would need a product with
> > compelling advantages - which hasn't happened yet even though they've been trying
> > for a while;
>
> It has not happened with x86. The "compelling advantages" bar for x86 is far higher than it is
> for ARM. If they had a 10% performance or power advantage with ARM, they could take market.

I'm not sure about that. Intel's marketing and sales doesn't seem very well
attuned to the realities of the highly competitive phone/tablet market.
But assuming they could get that right, I think the truth is that *if* they
had a 10% performance or power advantage *and* they were willing to sell at
the same price as the competition, then they could take share.

Because that's how it works: for a new entrant to displace the incumbents,
it has to offer something noticeably better at the same price, or something
good enough at a lower price. Up to now Intel hasn't achieved the "noticeably better";
and they haven't seemed willing to pursue the "lower price" approach. Maybe
they *could*. But they haven't.

> > and they would need to sell it at a healthy margin - which is awfully
> > difficult when there are several competent suppliers already in the market.
>
> Other competitors also need to sell it at a healthy margin if they are supposed to generate
> enough gross profit to be able to invest in competing with Intel in mfg and design.

Qualcomm and Samsung are doing pretty well.