[theblueredmonk: I recall that just last week you were very down on this one!]
I was down on the claim that Russ was making that new memory would drastically increase battery life. This is plainly false (given how little battery is used by RAM).
I have no doubt that Intel is working on new memory technologies.
[How many times have you said, "Intel (currently) does not have..." to later find that Intel does have. You are the poster boy for slow learner. ]
I've said it a few times and I can't think a time when I was wrong:)
The fact remains that Intel does not have the CPU/IP to compete in this $1 market. Quark and family are much, much to large.
thebrm: You should know by know that much of journalism, more so Internet blogging, has to do with sensationalistic and provocative headlines than solid content. If you don't, I really don't know what to say.
I pointed out that even I wasn't sure if I 'believed' the content. Although you don't like these guys, they do have more credibility than (say) Russ. Intel quitting mobile has been advocated by many Intel longs on other forums and is a legitimate argument.
Intel will not quit mobile. As "will_amd_yu" pointed out, the market has been commoditized and Intel, either directly or through Rockchip/Spreadtrum type of partnerships or both, will play a role in these markets. Intel's mantra is being paranoid which Paul Otellini ignored during his tenure.
"will_amd_yu also claims Intel wont play in this market. So what does will_amd_yu actually think?
So, explain to me again, why would Intel quit mobile?
As BK said, "We will not continue to accept a business with multi-billion dollar losses."
[Just for the record:
1.) I'm not going to repeatedly explain the workings of accounting/finance to you.
2.) Nor will I do your internet research or due diligence.
Now stop being an azzzhat if you can manage it.]
Says the guy who can't work out a percentage...
Intel (currently) does not have a CPU it can use in this space, which means it can't produce these $1 chips...
You can find them.
The china deal and Nokia deal are common knowledge and others will be announced.
A company does not spend over 5 billion dollars to get into phones and then drop out right when it is about to make huge gains.
I suggest you do some more DD on these 'deals'. SoFIA, is an interesting example and will be interesting to see how many devices it ends up in...
[Apparently no one ever taught you that revenue comes from price times volume. The volumes in the IoT will dwarf anything else in technological history. They will make smartphone volumes look like rounding errors.
After you take the junior college class on the Internet, try one on Beginning Finance and Accounting. And stop beating your wife.]
I was asking will_amd_yu to explain his contradiction.
But, as we're flirting again, do you think Intel want's to play in the $1 SoC market? What CPU do you think they will use?
Question: will_amd_yu thinks Intel doesn't want to play in the commodity phone market. What do you think?
In fact, it is just about to break into phones in volume in the next 6 months with a series of major deals which include China and companies there.
You want to list these deals?
Whatever dude... It wasn't Intel but that's where the industry was headed with the Chinese. Intel just accelerated the process.
That's more like it...
Actually, this market has always been very aggressive in pricing but what has changed recently is a rise in the middle/bottom end of the market.
Anyway enough of this nonsense. On to the next battle of IoT.
Do you know that the prices for IoT SoC's are much less than the for smart phones/tablets?
If Intel doesn't want to play in a $5 market why would they want to play in a $1 one?
Absolutely. The money that they spent is a drop in the bucket to them. Intel is not in the biz of selling commodity chips. PERIOD.
Oooohhhh. Given the billions of chips shipped (app processors, base bands etc) a year I'm surprised that it only took 40 million chips from Intel to change everything.
No. Intel did not fail. Intel succeeded ma man. That was the goal of commoditizing mobile.
So, let me get this right. You are saying Intel wanted this outcome? Basically blowing 4 billion a year with little to show for it?
Of course they are, selling $5 chips. Intel doesn't want to be in that business.
So are you agreeing with Paul then?
Actually Intel has won. Tablets are a commodity and smartphones are fast becoming one. Good luck to Qualcomm and Mediatek. Only Apple is making $$ in this field.
I think you'll find that Qualcomm and Mediatek are making money.
Mobile now is wearables and IoT.
[thebrm: The article is from sewerwiki (also known as semiwiki). You could have mentioned that this guy writes for sewerwiki, would have saved a few minutes of everyone's time....]
Indeed. You can see elsewhere on the net that others share his sentiment. We should have clarify from Intel soon enough.
[Provocative title just for Wallis. I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment below]
"Intel Quits Mobile by Paul McLellan
It happened today. As I have predicted for over a year, Intel would not be successful in mobile and would be forced to exit the market. Last quarter they lost $1B on revenues of $1M (as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up, that M is not a typo). They ship "contra revenue" with their chips for the tablet market, meaning that instead of just showing a huge loss on a reasonable amount of revenue, they take the marketing subsidy off the revenue line meaning that there is basically no revenue."
Wallis, since we seem to be.. well, you know...we're getting all intimate... Can I whisper something in your ear? Intel's, got a nice design win in the new Nokia tablet. Perhaps, you could tell the board about it?
[Well, you say that but the constant rumors of you having abused your wife must be taking their toll.]
What can I say? I must be very resilient.
How are you bearing up under all the allegations of wife-beating?]
Very well actually. How you doing?
[Headline: BlueredMonk Denies Beating Wife.
Are you getting the picture yet or shall we continue?]