Unclear what Intel will do with mobile, but one thing is for sure.
Intel will not cannibalize itself with Atom based products, smartphones,
or the latest Quark chip products.
Intel will, as it has done so many times before, at least maintain a strong
PC sales base of somewhere between $33 Billion to $38 Billion.
They will certainly grow their server sales due to the ever lasting need for
powering up the internet and strengthening it to be able to serve the growing products
that are mobile and network based.
All the other stuff, such as tablets (Android or Windows based), smartphones, and so called
"internet of things" Quark chip sales, are all extra revenues for Intel that very few are or were expecting.
We're talking anywhere in the neighborhood of $5 Billion to $10 Billion extra revenue in 2014.
And this part of Intel's revenue will only grow for the foreseeable future. Once Intel gains traction in an area,
there's no stopping their growth until they at least dominate the market.
I love the logic that people use such as it's bad of Intel cannibalizes PC sales with the Atom processor. The logic is flawed in the sense that there is a market for people spending $800 on a laptop with a Core processor who will suddenly be happy to spend half as much on an Atom.
These same people will say that ARM is grabbing sales at this lower range and "eating Intel's lunch." They go on and on about the PC era being dead. The way I see it is that many people are in my shoes. They have a laptop that is old and yet still works fine. They would like to buy a new one but can't justify spending $800 on an Utlrabook or something else they'll use infrequently. But, if there is a $300 solution then it's an easy justification, and while we're at it, pick up a couple of the kids. If I have a serious mobile need where I need power and performance on the road I'm moving up to a $1000 laptop.
I see the Bay Trail line as a means of Intel picking up new business it's not getting from ARM. I don't look at it as cannibalizing Intel's own sales as much as it's stealing ARM's sales away from devices like an iPad.
I remember when a decent desktop was around $2000.
Now, desktops that are probably a hundred times better, with
Terabytes of memory, huge multitasking capabilities, and come with
a very desirable 24" LED screen, go for as cheap as $500 with core processors.
I like having a laptop for travel, but would prefer desktops in the house.
I already have 2 desktops in one of my houses. Plan on getting at least one desktop
in my vacation house. And am buying a house that I plan on equipping with 2 more desktops
since the house seems to have been built to house 2 desktops.
Due to the ease of use, there will always be a need for desktops as there will be for laptops.
So there will be a solid base for desktops and laptops for the foreseeable future.
If anything will replace the form factors of desktops and laptops, it's not a tablet.
Tablet is purely for entertainment on the go. Like a giant smartphone.
The cannibalization threat is overrated. Bay Trail is smaller than Clover Trail and Merrifield will be smaller than Medfield so profit will be better on these than any cheap big die Core Celerons they replace. Between the Silvermont variants and the Haswell-Ys Intel can now profitably compete and well in any part of the new mobile arena. There are more opportunities than dangers, what has to happen though is that the existing Ivy Bridge Core/Celeron inventory needs substantial replacing by the Haswells and Silvermonts but once that happens revenue and profits will resume their upward path.
One obvious way to differentiate Atom and Core and Xeon is using product package type which sets limits on pins. The other way is to artificially constrain address lines exiting the chip. Atom constrains the address lines an therefore maximum memory addressed. Intel will probably stratify products using addressable memory.
4gb in a PC is what I would consider "low end".
A pair of Patriot 2gb sticks is $23 at Fry's.
In addition to the amount of memory supported they are also differentiated on the storage interface and type of storage used, such as SATA vs EMCC. Currently SATA supports far faster reads and writes than EMCC memory.