mpx (mpx.delete@this.nomail.pl) on May 13, 2013 1:34 am wrote:
> RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on May 12, 2013 6:41 am wrote:
> > So apparently Intel agrees with me that large
> > numbers of hardware threads aren't particularly useful for desktop/laptop
> > systems.
>
> What you are trying to say is that Intel has no viable business plan on desktop/laptop market segment.

I think Intel has a plan: they've put considerable effort into tools for creating
apps with more parallelism, and they would love to see more apps using more cores.
It just hasn't been an adequate plan. They've also - wisely, I think - moved
functionality on-chip so that they can keep selling bigger chips at high prices.

The recent trends in PC and tablet market suggest that the plan isn't working
well enough. But I don't really have a good alternative suggestion for Intel -
a move from $1000 laptops (with Windows) to $250 tablets (with Android or iOS)
is bound to be rather disruptive for both Intel and Microsoft.

Maintaining high volumes *and* high margins in a rapidly changing market is a rather
huge challenge for any dominant company.