Although it wasn't originally Intel's intent to be just a supplier of streaming media technology, the role it now finds itself in now is arguably what it should have been from the beginning. However they got to this point though the new role may prove to deliver long term benefits. While the Verizon deal was an outright purchase rather than an equity partnership, Intel may still be asked to provide settops as Verizon grows its video service.
But beyond Verizon there are many other operators around the world that will migrate to video over IP and presumably Intel can supply similar server and settop technology to them as well. This market is much, much larger than just Verizon.
Really? Despite the overwhelming feedback for 18 months and forcing the public through multiple half-attempts begrudgingly made to correct tile world, Microsoft comes back to the desktop?
Maybe this is just too simple for Microsoft to comprehend but why don't they give the user the ability to choose how it operates based on the type device they have?
Heads-up. Yahoo is reporting its email account holder's usernames & passwords were stolen but they're not saying how many. Be on the alert and take precautions.
Let's hope since the guy joined in '92 and came up through the ranks he remembers how well Microsoft grew cooperating with Intel instead of backstabbing it, and maybe he can do something about the arrogance that permeates Microsoft.
I agree with you and I hope Intel & Microsoft are working on prototypes of a portable Windows smartphone at this very moment. I don't mind offering some encouragement for these guys to build a product that consumers would want because sometimes their actions defy rational thinking.
If Intel & Microsoft have issues with each other they need to put those aside right now for the sake of getting this done. This is the product that can change the direction of the mobile industry.
A specific BOM would require information not publicly available today, including the price of Intel's 14nm products. As a proxy one might look at the BOM of a Dell VP 8 that even includes MS Office with a $299 MSRP and can be purchased for $199. The VP 8 only has some of the necessary parts so the cost of additional components would need to be included. The important point is that it's unlikely the hardware to support Windows is a gating factor. Microsoft is another matter.
Nor would a such a phone need to match the price of low-end Android phones. A smartphone supporting a portable Windows desktop is not the same kind of smartphone, just as Microsoft's Surface Pro is in a different performance and user-model category compared to low cost Android tablets.
I can say this, I would easily justify paying as much for a Windows-enabled smartphone that fits in a pocket as a Microsoft Surface Pro. There simply wouldn't be a single portable device a person could carry that would be as useful for business & leisure as this. And that type of convenience normally carries a premium.
A full Windows smartphone in desirable form factor, battery life, speed etc probably begins at 14nm.
Intel's winning strategy for smartphones is NOT to simply to continue competing on SoC benchmarks with the aim of making a better Android phone. Android & iOS is the battlefield ARM chose and because of this ARM has the high ground and all its advantages. Intel should apply the wisdom of Sun Tsu and move the battlefield where it gives them advantage.
To accomplish this Intel needs to redefine smartphone expectations by giving users meaningful value they don't already have, can't get elsewhere and is hugely beneficial to their work & leisure life.
That something is full Windows desktop portability in a smartphone with MS Office to go and docked when at home, office or elsewhere. Desktop portability might also be achieved while mobile using an Intel WiDi-like wireless technology transmitting to a future version of Google's glasses for display, combined with voice & gesture for control. With the Intel-Windows smartphone one might always be within reach of their familiar desktop along with their professional & entertainment apps. The possibilities are endless.
Microsoft should beg Intel and its partners to make this product because it would give Microsoft and Intel a huge strategic advantage and allow them to move the smartphone battle to their turf, and very likely change the future of the smartphone industry.
The question is what would it take to convince the public to switch from the smartphone they use today to a new Intel-based smartphone? There are currently no features in development compelling enough to make me switch. Local voice commands, more storage or a higher resolution display isn't going to do it. Those would just deliver the same user experience with modest change.
However, I would switch in a hearbeat if my smartphone would allow me to carry my Windows desktop and run my apps at home or office while docked. This feature would be a tektonic change in the smartphone industry and value and usefulness to the user.
We are already beginning to see a taste of desktop portability with the new 7-8" Windows tablets, which is why Windows tablets will breakout from Android-only tablets in the marketplace.
Intel needs to stay in the smartphone space to deliver the product that is unique to x86 & Microsoft with the features & user-benefits no ARM vendor can ever replicate.
It especially makes sense for Intel to continue to push the envelope for Windows tablets and dual-boot hybrids as these offer users access to all their desktop apps in a small easy-to-carry package and are extensions to their PC. Intel will push the envelope for Android tablets as well but Windows tablets (with MS Office and docking) is a different market sub-segment than Android-only tablets.
Every product that's shipping is outdated relative to products still in development. Intel is refreshing its products at a much faster pace than ever before to increase its competitiveness. This is a win for everyone except maybe the ARM ecosystem.
Basically that would be an x86 CPU designed & optimized for Linux (including Android). It's technically feasible but not clear the gain is meaningful either from a performance or cost perspective. Compilers will select the most efficient CPU components to execute modern code and volume manufacturing may make the cost to include legacy support nominal.
This would be the CPU equivalent of what Microsoft did with RT. Intel should probably float the idea to convince Microsoft to officially kill the RT abomination.
There was a time when AMD said they would get 50% of the server market. That never happened.
There is an interesting irony to AMD's PR for their ARM server CPUs. Being able to make x86 CPUs makes AMD unique as the only second source x86 supplier and this contributes greatly to AMD's valuation and growth story.
If AMD now believes ARM servers are going to take 25% of the server market then AMD's valuation should be taken down to reflect a loss of the size of the x86 franchise of which they are a part. Moreover, AMD will compete against everyone in the ARM server market, whereas with their x86 CPUs they only need to compete against Intel. This might be interpreted as a back-handed compliment to Intel that they'd rather compete against an entire industry than compete against Intel alone.
AMD is a company that has developed more skill selling their David & Goliath investment speech to the endless supply of novice investors than building actual product.
Anandtech shows some of AMD's slides. They are entertaining. Who can forget the infamous event when AMD published benchmarks for their new flagship Barcelona processor that they touted would crush Intel's best only to find out the benchmarks never existed but were mere simulations. That one event explains AMD's entire history.
I can't say if Merrifield will be in that Tizen phone or not but the post underscores the importance of factors that can weigh on a design win. Samsung very much wants to eliminate it's dependency on Google and Intel's partnership on Tizen could be strategically beneficial. Of course there is price, availability and a zillion other factors than can weigh on Intel's success.
AE seems to subscribe to the view that nothing else matters but SoC specsmanship. Business decisions are rarely so simple or monolithic in the executive suite.
"If they close the process gap"? Well, there's the rub because everyone knows that process advancements that push the limits of known technology takes years and massive capital investment.
This is where the Android-only market is headed. Device has 1GB RAM, 8GB storage with microSD slot, 800x400 7" display. $89 will get the device with a 9" display.
The problem for Android-only tablets is that they are not used to make money. If it's not a tool for revenue generation it becomes a price-sensitive consumer device. Hence the race to the bottom.
Intel's partners are in an enviable position to deliver office productivity and leisure activity into a single device.
That was my "if", not Wally's. I only used "if" because the feature is a to-be-delivered capability in portables and other wearable devices. While I have confidence Intel will deliver I don't equate company announcements with shipping products.
The distinction between local voice processing and cloud based voice processing is particularly relevant from a privacy perspective. Any cloud operator that interprets one's voice command is also going to data-mine the speech and make a voice signature too to associate the person with the data collected. This makes the data the cloud operator intends to sell more valuable to third parties.
If Intel delivers this level of capability your voice commands never leaves your own phone. Definitely a step in the right direction.