Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 1, 2013 6:41 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 1, 2013 5:56 am wrote:
> > Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 1, 2013 4:26 am wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 1, 2013 1:47 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure, probably you can. But what you are seeming to say is there is a large amount of gross profit
> > > > in the ARM markets that can be invested to rival Intel design and manufacturing. That may be so,
> > > > but then you assert that Intel cannot take any of that market share, which is just wrong.
> > >
> > > I didn't say they can't take that market share. I said they can't take it without a
> > > fight, i.e. without building a really good product (which they've been trying to do
> > > for some years, without success) *or* accepting low prices to gain share (which
> > > doesn't give you much of the profit).
> >
> > They have been trying with x86, not ARM yet.
> >
> > You seem to be saying that other companies could make good profits, but Intel inherently cannot.
> >
>
> Intel already *was* an undisputed world champion of ARM application processors back when smartphones/tables
> were still called PDAs. They *could not* convert their lucrative position into good profits.
> What's different now?

1. Volume of market now significantly more favors Intel's preference of spending high fixed costs to reduce variable.
2. Power efficiency is among the primary concerns at every level of d+m now.