anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 2, 2013 10:14 pm wrote:
> Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 2, 2013 5:05 pm wrote:
> > Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxxx.xx) on February 2, 2013 4:05 pm wrote:
> >
> > > No, they can do that integration for anything they can develop and fabricate
> > > in house, provided it generates enough revenue to sustain the R&D.
> > > Ie, they can't do that integration for a ARM core from ARM, but they can do it if they develop their own.
> >
> > They can tune the circuit and microarchitecture to the process for anything,
> > with enough effort. They can't simultaneously tune the process to be optimal
> > for two different purposes. So it would be unreasonable to expect the same
> > level of global optimization that they can apply to their main business, x86.
> >
> > > But Intel's ability to f**k up does not show they can't compete outside x86.
> >
> > anon has been arguing that Intel's manufacturing excellence (which I don't
> > dispute) will make success in the smartphone/tablet inevitable.
>
> No I haven't. Jeez, are you serious?
>
> I said they will be able to compete there if the market's
> profile becomes favorable to their manufacturing model.

And, if I must spell it out again, I did not say some absolute that even if their manufacturing model suits it, success is "inevitable". You mused that you did not foresee any way for Intel to retain dominance if this occurs. But based on what has happened in the past (e.g., in server market), Intel traditionally does very well. Given that the ARM market has not obviously greater barrier to entry than the server market and there are several obvious ways in, this is a very realistic route that Intel can go.