Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Clearwire Corporation (CLWRD) Message Board

  • mstx_will_soarsoon mstx_will_soarsoon May 3, 2013 12:34 PM Flag

    Intel considers buying competitor AMD

    Sources say

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • party like its 1999

    • Why just post that?.. why not add something relevant to the mobile convergence that is taking place?
      Over ten years ago when WiMAX had not been formed yet, I wrote an article called "Clash of the Titans, Qualcomm versus Intel" that posited that the next age of mobile would change the landscape to converge the desktop and mobile environments in ways that would throw these two companies/spheres into a clash of markets. Google was just a search company and Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. had not been created.

      What is forcing the clash? 1) Maturity of the IC industry in general. 2) The higher integration including analog/digital circuits combined with 3) the rise of scalable licensed processors, chiefly ARM but also others including MIPs, picoChip and licensed protocol stacks. 4) The basic fact that SmartPhones and Smart Devices force a change in orientation to put processing into billions of 'distributed' devices that make use of cloud content and applications. That compels a distributed architecture from the ground up. What's important about that is that it runs against the mainstay monolithic 'WinTel' PC architecture both because that makes more efficient use of resources and because low power must be achieved in portable devices. Most people don't know it, however, when the PC was first developing, there were two architectural approaches: a) distributed processing, b) monolithic WinTel processing. Many at Intel actually wanted the distributed approach.. it was theoretically better. Microsoft/Bill Gates pushed for monolithic.. because that locked everything under one bloatware blob. It had many desirable benefits. Apple also adopted that approach. If you want to control of markets, that's how you do it.. locking out innovation while creating more 'single point of failure' mechanisms.