The growth in the third party keyboard market demonstrates that many that purchased a tablet still want a keyboard to make the device more useful. Might as well buy a device that's designed that way from the start and have the entire package operate smoothly.
Correct about contra revenue. Intel's first objective was to make tablets consumers liked and wanted to buy. That was accomplished. Now it's time for Intel to leverage their scale and experience to make it profitable.
Huge advancement in storage with the potential to change user models and lessen the need on cloud services for expanded storage. Local storage is faster, more reliable and definitely more secure.
This is a great trend.
My concerns with Windows 10 aren't so much performance related but with Microsoft's approach to consumer privacy & security. W8.1 forces one to create and login to a Microsoft account just to use the Metro apps (which are fairly lame to begin with) and they make it extremely difficult for the consumer to disable OneDrive's settings that essentially grabs every file and Windows setting by default and move it into their cloud. Nearly everyone concerned about security complains about this.
While a user can, with some effort, configure a Windows tablet with only a local account it makes the device nearly useless as a tablet because desktop icons are often too small to use combined with Microsoft's insistence that Metro apps run exclusively with a Microsoft account.
This is not a technical issue, this is a Microsoft business model & ethics issue and ever since W8 they've been moving in the wrong direction.
Please tell us that Metro apps work without a Microsoft account, or at least allows the user to use a Microsoft account only if & when they want to use Microsoft's cloud services.
In a head-to-head competition of TeraFlop ratings the Phi may not win against the latest graphics cards but the advantage of this design is that it's a standalone system requiring no host and that it doesn't take an expert programmer to hand code the algorithm to achieve peak performance. Optimizing algorithms for highly parallel computer designs is what often takes the longest time in solving a problem. Phi mostly circumvents that and offers supercomputer power without the complexity and for a fraction of the cost. Further, even if one's focus isn't scientific computing there's still 72 complete x86 cores to handle general purpose business tasks.
Priced right, Phi could lend itself to a lot of business tasks.
Really, that's not a fair characterization. While Otellini did crush AMD's assault on Intel's traditional business with the Core architecture he had no viable strategy for mobile whatsoever and the company had lost its focus. Today, Intel is far more focused. They are finally making progress in mobile, at least tablets, and they are well positioned in emerging markets such as IoT and wearables. Today instead of the high-end PC market getting Intel's latest process improvements mobile products now get the latest advances. This is a big shift in the company's approach.
Smartphones are still a work in progress but this is not too surprising given how much ground they had to makeup. What's coming out of Intel now looks very encouraging.
I might accept that spending multiple billions now is necessary for Intel to catch-up but in the decade prior they actually didn't sit on the sidelines. They spent billions upon billions of dollars pursuing every incorrect strategy for wireless including going on a multi-year technology buying spree, selling most of those companies at a loss and championing WiMAX & Clearwire as a way to get into mobile.
In fact, Intel tried every possible incorrect strategy for wireless except the only thing that really mattered which was to build better mobile parts than ARM. Now they get the picture, and yes they're slowly getting traction but it has cost shareholders dearly.
Better graphics, better battery life, wireless charging and wireless docking offer huge advantages to mobile device users. And unlike benchmarks which are too often misrepresented, the charging and docking features are easy for consumers to understand. The device either has it or it doesn't.
Since Warren East made that claim, Intel has made far more progress encroaching on ARM's core markets, particularly tablets, than ARM has made capturing Intel's core markets, PCs & servers. In new markets for silicon like IoT and wearables, Intel will be involved from the start.
It is inevitable. We already have tablets barely larger than some phablets that run full Windows. Soon you'll be able to buy an Intel HDMI stick running full Windows that will fit in your pocket. The trend for smartphones has always been aggregation of features, absorbing and sometimes displacing devices in the ecosystem. It doesn't take much of a leap to say, "lets have that smartphone absorb the Intel HDMI stick and carry one device instead of two.
Most smartphones are becoming commodities and ASPs are plunging. Manufacturers need to find ways of adding value to the product and this is a really great one with a very large Windows community waiting for it.
This is not an issue. Supposedly they both perform the same when used as a smartphone. However, one could also offer a desktop when docked. Call the Intel version Windows Phone Plus and the other just Windows Phone.
But what is not rational is hobbling the more flexible Intel product to make it no more capable than the less flexible ARM product. Microsoft may be stupid enough to repeat the ARM-RT fiasco but even for Microsoft there are limits to stupidity.
A dual mode Intel Smartphone should be pretty easy to explain. In smartphone mode it's touch only. When docked you get a desktop to an external display and everything you're familiar with already. That's pretty simple.
Also consider that running full Windows while a smartphone is docked doesn't need to use the smartphone's display at all. The full Windows instance can be driving an external 24" display and not conflict with MS's current screen-size policy. Besides the policy is simply a business decision easily changed, and will be.
It should be screen resolution, not physical size that matters and smartphones already have screen resolutions that match desktops. It is not necessary that the desktop portability be offered on the smartphone's screen anyway, it's beneficial enough to have the desktop when the smartphone is docked and using an external monitor, or perhaps in the future when accompanied by a wearable display. Today though, docking would be just great.
There are now many posts by users on different forums asking for this device. Maybe these are the technically inclined for now. But it is inconceivable MS would ignore the one feature that could give them the greatest competitive advantage.
I've been a champion of the smartphone that runs full Windows (while docked) for some time. Further, a Windows/ARM-based smartphone is nothing more than a "me too" solution that's considerably behind its competitors.
However, that all changes when one can buy a single device that is a smartphone with true desktop portability when docked. The convenience, advantages and cost-savings of one-device-to-carry, manage, secure and maintain is so compelling it trumps nearly every other concern for those that use Windows on the desktop.
I've seen people say it won't happen because MS said they wouldn't offer full Windows on devices with small screens. Nonsense. MS is offering Windows on 7" screens already and they will be offering it on cheap Intel HDMI-sticks with no screen at all. How much smaller a screen can you get?
The reason this device will get made is because; 1). There is a compelling need for it, 2). There are clear advantages to users, 3). It's arguably the most important feature MS could incorporate in a smartphone to leap ahead of its smartphone competitors, and 4). It's a feature that neither Google nor Apple can easily replicate. But most importantly, Microsoft needs it and users want it.
I say the sooner the better.
Ars Technica reports that Tag Heur, Intel & Google announce smartwatch that feels like a normal watch. These devices are hybrids that combine the best of existing time-keeping technology with new smart features. Why does this make sense? Current quartz-movement analog watches can last four years on a single battery making them exceptionally reliable, accurate and convenient. It is a huge step backward to have a smartwatch that has to be charged every couple days just to perform its primary function.
The intelligent hybrid though is the right way to get this market started. One gets the same reliability for their timepiece as always along with new smart features. What would be interesting is if the watch maker created an open architecture module allowing others to add different functionality.
So Microsoft is going to create the same confusion in smartphones that they created in tablets by calling RT Windows. Like that worked so well.