By: Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com), February 3, 2013 6:06 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 2, 2013 10:19 pm wrote:
> And x86 simply may not be able to compete in this space. But if it is a profitable market
> to manufacture for, that will not stop Intel because they have other options.
It's notable that you've argued this length without ever a) presenting any
numbers at all; and b) suggesting what Intel's hypothetical vastly profitable
product might look like. You have faith. But nothing to back it up.
> > Not just revenue, but gross profit. Selling 100M Medfields at 0% margin wouldn't
> > help ... selling 100M Medfields with $2 margin on each wouldn't help much.
>
> Ah, you've cottoned on to high revenue and high gross profit, finally.
100M Medfields at $2 profit wouldn't be "high gross profit" compared to Intel's
x86 products. 100M Medfields at $10 profit would start to get interesting.
But that is implausible because very good smartphone chips are selling at < $20
now, and still rapidly getting cheaper.
> And x86 simply may not be able to compete in this space. But if it is a profitable market
> to manufacture for, that will not stop Intel because they have other options.
It's notable that you've argued this length without ever a) presenting any
numbers at all; and b) suggesting what Intel's hypothetical vastly profitable
product might look like. You have faith. But nothing to back it up.
> > Not just revenue, but gross profit. Selling 100M Medfields at 0% margin wouldn't
> > help ... selling 100M Medfields with $2 margin on each wouldn't help much.
>
> Ah, you've cottoned on to high revenue and high gross profit, finally.
100M Medfields at $2 profit wouldn't be "high gross profit" compared to Intel's
x86 products. 100M Medfields at $10 profit would start to get interesting.
But that is implausible because very good smartphone chips are selling at < $20
now, and still rapidly getting cheaper.