Aaron Spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on August 17, 2014 4:24 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on August 17, 2014 2:35 pm wrote:
> >
> > There is an evident interest for ARM products. OEMs and others want ARM to win,
> > as mentioned in the slide that you deleted. One of the reasons why they want ARM
> > is because it has the possibility to be powerful and cheaper (check the slide).
> >
> And if only interest meant anything close to what you think it means. There
> is interest in Sparc, there was interest in Alpha, there was interest in MIPS,
> there was interest in PA-RISC, there was interest in Power, etc.
>
> OEMs and others don't care if ARM wins or loses. They really don't. They simply want
> leverage. There was all this same hoopla about AMD at one time too, and yet even those
> that basically built their own servers just used it to get better prices from Intel.
>
> And yes, I deleted a marketing slide. You have this massive habit of trying to use marketing materials
> as evidence or authority. If a 10% of what was on marketing slides was actually true, the industry would
> be totally different, but marketing slides are marketing. That's all they are. Relying on them to have
> anything approaching fact is rather ignorant of the industry and marketing in general.
>
> As far as ARM having the possibility to be powerful and cheaper, that's unlikely in any sustainable way.
> For one, all the potential competitors except one have the issue of having to support 50% greater margins.
> And its unlikely that any competitor is going to be able to sustain any more performance than Intel.
>
> And I won't even go into the historical for the industry to actually switch architectures.
> Suffice to say, ARM doesn't actually bring anything new to the table.
>
> > Many people care about x86 monopoly, from console makers to goverments.
> >
> No one really cares about any so called x86 monopoly. Neither from console makers to governments. If they
> actually cares, Sparc and Power would sell significantly more. Alpha would still exist, and MIPS would
> be competitive. No, they buy the best product they can for the lowest cost they can negotiate.

A lot of companies really do care and would like to be rid of Intel. But they are the ones making the computers rather than the ones buying the computers and they are in a competitive market. The most they can do is try out alternatives. If an alternative works they will be happy to go with it, there will be no loyalty to Intel. However the barriers to an alternative working are pretty large, Intel has served the customers well over the years and they aren't going to go to something new without a great deal of convincing. To paraphrase what used to be said about IBM, no one gets fired for buying Intel.