Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 2, 2013 6:41 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 1, 2013 6:57 pm wrote:
> > Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 1, 2013 10:11 am wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 1, 2013 9:36 am wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well I believe it is you who do not understand. Their dominance is in manufacturing.
> > > > They achieved that dominance in logic mfg with their x86 market, certainly. From there,
> > > > they have been able to plunder much of the RISC and Unix server markets, which were
> > > > absolutely not x86 dominated, and are actually notoriously adverse to change.
> > >
> > > Well, not *that* adverse to change.
> >
> > But apparently you think the Android market is :)
>
> Not at all. I think the Android-based device market is absolutely open to change,
> to whatever is either a) "good enough and cheaper" *or* b) "the same price but much
> better". I think Intel wouldn't like approach a), because losing high-margin x86
> business and gaining low-margin Android business would hurt them. And it's not
> clear that they can deliver b) - as others have commented, now that the Android
> software has matured, it delivers a pretty good experience on a dual-core 1.5GHz ARM,
> together with all-day battery life, and the people who want a premium product
> are mostly buying Apple and Samsung, neither of which would want to deal with Intel
> in a way which yielded big profits to Intel.

Anyway, Intel can get in on the high end ARM market if it becomes profitable, end of story.

> >
> > In fact RISC/UNIX servers are *far* more resistant than the Android market.
> >
> > > The "RISC market" that Intel plundered from
> > > 1995 on didn't even exist in 1985. Change doesn't happen overnight, but it
> > > certainly does happen over 5-10 years. And the increasing use of open-source
> > > software has made it much easier to switch to a different ISA.
> > >
> > > And for the relative importance of manufacturing vs design, you could look at
> > > iAPX432 or i860 or Itanium, all products which had access to Intel's
> > > manufacturing but either vanished without trace, or limped along without
> > > ever establishing dominance.
> >
> > None of them had the correct volume/profit ratios, it's not a real mystery. It's not
> > a magical "intel manufacturing advantage steamrolls everything" effect. It is "intel
> > has been the best at competing in, and has the best manufacturing technology to suit
> > large volumes". Besides, they were also significantly competing against Intel x86.
>
> They didn't have the correct volume/profit ratio because the designs sucked. As does
> Atom, with a similar result at the moment. iAPX432, and later Itanium, were supposed
> to end up on everyone's desktops. They just didn't make it.

No, it is because the markets were not suitable. Their x86 designs also sucked in the early days compared with RISC designs at the time.

>
>
> > Yes, I keep repeating myself. If the market changes and smartphone becomes significantly
> > high volume and high revenue to matter for Intel, then they will be competitive there and
> > entry to ARM market really is not as big a problem as you're trying to make out.
>
> Yes, you do keep repeating yourself. You have a ridiculous level of faith in

I have to keep repeating myself because you keep repeating yourself and not addressing what I write (e.g,. with respect to revenue and gross profit vs unit volume).

> Intel's ability to pull a world-beating product out of their sleeve just when
> they need it. If you'd ever tried writing vector routines for the i860, as I have,
> you would probably be more aware that their products are of *ahem* variable
> quality, and their success outside x86 is not a foregone conclusion.

No, I do not have faith in Intel's *design* teams to pull a world beating product. ARM and Apple clearly have better low end designs than Atom. But my position is not predicated on that. They can fab for Apple and license ARM cores from ARM, if that's what it takes.

I have "faith" that their manufacturing capability can be turned to the markets we are talking about *IF* they turn into a high grossing market. And there, they'll be able to compete pretty well.