[Says the guy who uses his Fantasy Island Ouija board to make his investment decisions. Oh, that's right - you don't trade. Big mouth, no trades.
But yeah, sentiment is one part of making an investment decision along with many other factors. What do you use to evaluate IoT potential - I mean, other than concluding "who has had a good run"?]
Another way is to look at the actual chips and design wins...
put together a whole bunch of inferior low performance chips, to make 1 big fast chip. Its a flawed concept and a wasted effort IMO, but they'll keep trying.
You talking about the 64-core “Mars” processor?
But from an Intel chip selling perspective, how will the Qualcomm expansion help?
Also, if they are only selling outside the US, Europe and China, how will they get volumes?
Latin America is a pretty small market.
Sorry, was replying to the wrong post. Qualcomm won help. FYI, Latin America isn't that small, still hundreds of millions of units.
No, they don't and you know that.
Yes, they do, they have expanded the ZenFone 2 brand with QCOM powered phones.
ocked into one supplier
This is still true. Their entire ARM software effort is miniscular.
Comedy Steve, nice one:)
Because, it's not that simple to change your corporate psyche. They always dictated terms to their developers. They built that relationship that way with full intention because Gates was a control freak. Once they got their devs #$%$ off, they had to go into damage control so they spent some money. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I am struggling here, I admit it. You must be trolling, because if you honestly believe this, then you clearly have never worked with developers. The idea that a developer will think "better" of the MS "betrayals" simply because they supported ARM, is well delusional! MS had no choice but to support ARM, it's only been the last couple of years where there has been any alternative (but then you are locked into one supplier - do you think MS wants that?). Look at the effort MS has gone in windows 10 (with things like universal apps, continuum etc) - we're at the point where bugs in windows 10 are the same for both 'phone' and 'desktop' versions. You do not do all that *hard effort* to please a user group. You only do it if it supports your strategic objectives.
For a few billion dollars, they bought back their lost sympathy. That's a small price to pay when we're talking about corporate image. Look at Coca Cola, look at Apple. Look at how severely they pursue image building
So let me get this right. You are suggesting that MS spent "a few billion" to buy back sympathy which was lost because of developers had an issue with WinTel? You think that supporting ARM gives them that "sympathy"? Why not just simply stop messing with the developers in the first place (ie, stop changing and breaking API's)?
Re: Developer sympathy
(Note: This is boring for me, since it's pretty obvious)
Developers were #$%$ with with the Wintel monopoly
Hence the strong undercurrent of Linux support.
ARM = !Intel
Sorry if it's boring for you. Have you ever written any code before using MS's toolchain?
So, let me get this right, you think developers were #$%$ with with the Wintel monopoly, so to solve this, MS decided to pretend to play with ARM, spending billions of $ in the process?
Don't look at the investment, which is pretty small.
Look at the potential payoff, which is very small.
They knew they were going up against well entrenched Google and Apple and could only hope for a symbolic role in the smartphone space until they came out with the integration. You're missing the forest from the trees. Supporting ARM gives them much needed developer sympathy. That's the value prop.
I am sorry, Steve (?), but this is utter rubbish on so many levels.
Are you really serious regarding the developer sympathy comment? How on earth does that work in practise?
As for Google/Apple, MS's 'phone' efforts pre-dates both...
They spent peanuts on Windows Phone on ARM.
They had this vision several years ago,
But, they also knew it would take Intel time to change horses and ride the low power trail.
Are you being serious? If so, you really need to get a grip on how much invested MS is into the ARM ISA over the years. Look at the RT failure, how much did that cost, even before all the engineering effort? You only have to look at the effort they have put into Windows 10 regarding *continuing* support for that ISA - why bother with all that if you have an alternative plan?
As I see it, that's been Wintel's goal all along. It's just taken longer than they had hoped. So, forget about ARM. They don't really matter. They were just a prop.
Well, if it's been part of MS's plan, they could have saved themselves a lot of cash by embracing this vision several years ago:)
Not necessarily if everyone understands that the Surface brand is now associated with superior x86 software capability otherwise why not just call it Lumia-Uber-XXXX etc. I see no other reason to call it a Surface Phone unless MSFT want everyone to make the software connection with its now all-x86 Surface tablets.
Remember the dancing student adverts for Windows 8 and RT?:) MS had better be crystal clear with the differentiation, or they will fail. They will just confuse their customers.
At this stage I wouldn't read to much into the 'Surface' brand as it might be the case that the Lumia brand is kicked to the curb along with everything else Nokia related.
[I'd suggest that you look at the RT experience. ]
I agree with you. MS would be nuts to have 2 classes of devices.
I think you're missing the point when you say they have to dump ARM.
ARM doesn't figure in this context at all.
MS/Intel are going for the kill with a pocketable full desktop experience which *could* be a game changer.
So, what are you suggesting? No MS phones using ARM?
I'm not saying MS will kill its ARM phones. But I am confident that policies MS proposed two years ago will be quickly changed if they feel it is in their interest to make a Surface branded phone running full Windows in 2016.
Er, it wasn't 2 years ago, more like 6 months ago:)
Let's imagine that MS launches a top end 'Lumia' as shown in their existing demo's (probably driven by the QCOM 820), and lets say they also launch a 'Surface' phone that can run legacy applications, driven by Intel's latest and greatest. Both devices can connect to larger displays, and can run office applications (as they are universal apps), but only one can run the traditional desktop. In short, it's RT all over again, MS will confuse the customer base. Is the device running real windows 10, or pretend windows 10 etc etc.
In my view, if MS do go down this road of full windows on a phone with the legacy UI and API's, they have to dump ARM.
[You're being churlish. The phone is a great idea and likely to happen. All your reservations and denials are meaningless. Yes, it could have different specs when it does happen. If so then you can come back and be churlish some more and tell us that you told us so.]
*yawn* these rumors talk about a windows 10 "mobile" device, no "real" windows. You can ignore that bit of the rumor all you want, but even if you do, it still doesn't change the FACT that MS still isn't allowing full windows on that class of device.
Their "previous announcement" was already superseded by MS's own actions. Originally they said that full Windows wasn't going to be available on any device with a display smaller than 8". But today there are not only 7" Windows tablets, those tablets are upgrade-able to Windows 10. Now we also have Windows HDMI sticks with no display at all.
No. MS explained the exceptions (sticks and existing tablets that would be upgradable etc etc).
Look, at the end of the day until MS formally support this idea of real windows on a phone, it's not going to happen. As far as I am aware, MS is still sticking to their original segmentation plans for Windows 10. Feel free to show me where I am wrong.
Now, the reality is that MS phone plans are all over the place, so I certainly admit that it's a possibility that MS will kill ARM on Windows phone and go full x86 (to stop consumer confusion and allow the legacy desktop etc etc). There is however, no evidence of this.