Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #32846 > unrolled thread

Why Intel will fail in mobile

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Why Intel will fail in mobile Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> - 2011-06-14 16:17 +0200
    Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 10:32 -0700
      Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 10:34 -0700
        Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2011-06-14 19:46 +0100
          Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-06-16 15:48 -0500
        Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-14 22:23 +0100
          Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 22:24 +0000
            Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 16:01 -0700
          Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 16:07 -0700
            Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-16 00:26 +0100
              Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> - 2011-06-16 00:17 -0700
                Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-16 09:29 +0100
            Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-06-16 15:54 -0500
      Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2011-06-14 19:39 +0100
        Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2011-06-14 23:16 +0100
          Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot! "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2011-06-15 21:32 +0200
            Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot! Chris <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-15 22:52 +0000
              Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot! "Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> - 2011-06-17 16:12 +0200
    Re: Why Intel will (NOT) fail in mobile "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 13:55 -0400
    Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> - 2011-06-14 19:35 +0100
      Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchmail.com> - 2011-06-14 14:53 -0400
    Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2011-06-14 19:54 +0100
      Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2011-06-14 17:14 -0400
        Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile Clog_-_wog (®) <clog_-_wog@anonimous.eu> - 2011-06-15 17:11 +0200
          Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 21:45 +0200
            Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile flatfish+++ <flatfish@marianatrench.com> - 2011-06-15 15:48 -0400
            Re: Why Intel will fail in mobile JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2011-06-16 15:48 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#32846 — Why Intel will fail in mobile

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm

Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're 
contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick 
x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick 
an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will 
gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper? 
Exactly right: ARM.

That's the reason Intel doesn't stand a chance in mobile. Manufacturers 
want choice so there will be real competition, a cheaper price and more 
profit for them. The same reason allowed the Wintel monopoly to 
flourish in the early 1980's. Businesses didn't want Apple because 
didn't want to be dependent on a single vendor, even though they knew 
Apple's Macintosh was far superior to MS-DOS and the PC-architecture 
(with the decrepit x86 architecture).

Ergo: Intel is dead-as-a-doornail

The same fate awaits Microsoft...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32938

On Jun 14, 5:17 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>
> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
> contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
> x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
> an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
> gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
> Exactly right: ARM.

WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
difference.  You really think ARM is open source?

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32942

On Jun 14, 8:32 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 5:17 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>
> > Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
> > contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
> > x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
> > an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
> > gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
> > Exactly right: ARM.
>
> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?
>
> RL

I'll also point out that ARM is cheaper because it's the new kid on
the block.  These things happen early on in a company's life with a
new product.  Once the product becomes popular, supply pressures force
price increases, as well as more bureaucracy and mouths to feed.

ARM is cheaper than Intel--for now.  That will change if ARM's
processors become more popular.

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32972

RayLopez99 wrote:
> I'll also point out that ARM is cheaper because it's the new kid on
> the block.

"New kid on the block"? ARM is almost three decades old and completely 
dominates the low power, mobile and embedded CPUs market.

> These things happen early on in a company's life with a
> new product.  Once the product becomes popular, supply pressures force
> price increases, as well as more bureaucracy and mouths to feed.
> 
> ARM is cheaper than Intel--for now.  That will change if ARM's
> processors become more popular.

Complete nonsense!

Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33366

On 2011-06-14, Lusotec <nomail@nomail.not> wrote:
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> I'll also point out that ARM is cheaper because it's the new kid on
>> the block.
>
> "New kid on the block"? ARM is almost three decades old and completely 
> dominates the low power, mobile and embedded CPUs market.

...it also started out as a "desktop" processor back in the day.

I could get into an ARM equivalent of an ION nettop. Intel kit tends to
generate too much heat. So do nvidia parts. Both my IONs and Macs have
to run their fans pretty hard to deal with the heat they tend to generate.

[deletia]

However, I would not bother with ARM on any machine I wanted a decent CPU on.

-- 

   Unauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That      ||| 
particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be    / | \ 
cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you   
can be and alienate potential fans.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33007

On Tuesday 14 June 2011 18:34 RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Jun 14, 8:32 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 5:17 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>>
>> > Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>> > contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
>> > x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
>> > an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
>> > gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
>> > Exactly right: ARM.
>>
>> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
>> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
>> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
>> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?
>>
>> RL
> 
> I'll also point out that ARM is cheaper because it's the new kid on
> the block.  These things happen early on in a company's life with a
> new product.  Once the product becomes popular, supply pressures force
> price increases, as well as more bureaucracy and mouths to feed.
> 
> ARM is cheaper than Intel--for now.  That will change if ARM's
> processors become more popular.

New?
Just how "new" do you think ARM is, Ray?

- and just for a laugh, how many ARM chips do you think are manufactured per 
annum, compared with Intel?  i.e. what do you think ARMs market share is, by 
vulume?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33022

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:23:37 +0100, bbgruff wrote:

> On Tuesday 14 June 2011 18:34 RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 14, 8:32 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 14, 5:17 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>>>
>>> > Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>>> > contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you
>>> > pick x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if
>>> > you pick an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers
>>> > which will gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will
>>> > be cheaper? Exactly right: ARM.
>>>
>>> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
>>> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
>>> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
>>> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?
>>>
>>> RL
>> 
>> I'll also point out that ARM is cheaper because it's the new kid on the
>> block.  These things happen early on in a company's life with a new
>> product.  Once the product becomes popular, supply pressures force
>> price increases, as well as more bureaucracy and mouths to feed.
>> 
>> ARM is cheaper than Intel--for now.  That will change if ARM's
>> processors become more popular.
> 
> New?
> Just how "new" do you think ARM is, Ray?
> 
> - and just for a laugh, how many ARM chips do you think are manufactured
> per annum, compared with Intel?  i.e. what do you think ARMs market
> share is, by vulume?

You're asking someone who lives to spew FUD to supply actual facts. FUD 
and facts are inconsistent with one another. Ray Lopez is clueless about 
ARM, but that won't keep him from FUDding about them.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33219

On Jun 15, 1:24 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're asking someone who lives to spew FUD to supply actual facts. FUD
> and facts are inconsistent with one another. Ray Lopez is clueless about
> ARM, but that won't keep him from FUDding about them.

Why do you say that?  Have you ever dealt with ARM like I have?  No.
You just play with your 'puter.

Go home little boy and yank on your 'puter.

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33221

On Jun 15, 12:23 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> New?
> Just how "new" do you think ARM is, Ray?
>
> - and just for a laugh, how many ARM chips do you think are manufactured per
> annum, compared with Intel?  i.e. what do you think ARMs market share is, by
> vulume?

You misspelled "volume" Bozo.  And I'm not talking embedded devices
fool, but netbooks.

Go home like your other pal in this thread and yank on you 'puter.

BTW, I threw out my Linux Pentium Two today, bought in 1996 or 1997,
in the trash, after busting with a sledgehammer the Seagate 2 GB (yes
two!) HDs and the 48 MB RAM.  I found out how the RAM was configured,
after all these years:  four sticks--I kid you not--of 16x2 and two
sticks of 8x2 = 32 + 16 = 48 MB.   LOL.

And it ran fine Windows 2000.  But it had a hard time running Linux
(among other things the CD-ROM was hard to mount).

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33231

On Thursday 16 June 2011 00:07 RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Jun 15, 12:23 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> New?
>> Just how "new" do you think ARM is, Ray?
>>
>> - and just for a laugh, how many ARM chips do you think are manufactured
>> per annum, compared with Intel?  i.e. what do you think ARMs market share
>> is, by vulume?
> 
> You misspelled "volume" Bozo.  And I'm not talking embedded devices
> fool, but netbooks.
> 
> Go home like your other pal in this thread and yank on you 'puter.
> 
> BTW, I threw out my Linux Pentium Two today, bought in 1996 or 1997,
> in the trash, after busting with a sledgehammer the Seagate 2 GB (yes
> two!) HDs and the 48 MB RAM.  I found out how the RAM was configured,
> after all these years:  four sticks--I kid you not--of 16x2 and two
> sticks of 8x2 = 32 + 16 = 48 MB.   LOL.
> 
> And it ran fine Windows 2000.  But it had a hard time running Linux
> (among other things the CD-ROM was hard to mount).

All very interesting, Ray - especially the configuration of the computer 
that the "self-made millionaire" was using at the time (a few months ago) 
that he was asking advice about:-
 - Whether he should use WD40 rather than buy a new CPU fan!
 - Whether WD40 would keep his case fan going, rather than replace it!
 - Preferred, instead of that huge outlay, to leave the side
    off his computer, and point a domestic fan at the innards!

Now, are you going to answer my questions, or don't you know the answer?

1.  How long do you think ARM has been around?
2.  How many processor chips are ARM compared with Intel?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33260

On Jun 16, 2:26 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Now, are you going to answer my questions, or don't you know the answer?
>

You answer to me boy, not the other way around.  Now go crawl back to
your cubicle before I fire your ass and put you back on the dole.

RL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33264

On Thursday 16 June 2011 08:17 RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Jun 16, 2:26 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Now, are you going to answer my questions, or don't you know the answer?
>>
> 
> You answer to me boy, not the other way around.  Now go crawl back to
> your cubicle before I fire your ass and put you back on the dole.

I see.
So you were absolutely ignorant about ARM when you made your comments, 
you've since then googled a bit, and now you see how ill-advised your post 
was.
You really don't need to bluster like this Ray.  A simple "I don't know" 
would have sufficed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33364

On 2011-06-15, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:23 am, bbgruff <bbgr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> New?
>> Just how "new" do you think ARM is, Ray?
>>
>> - and just for a laugh, how many ARM chips do you think are manufactured per
>> annum, compared with Intel?  i.e. what do you think ARMs market share is, by
>> vulume?
>
> You misspelled "volume" Bozo.  And I'm not talking embedded devices
> fool, but netbooks.
>
> Go home like your other pal in this thread and yank on you 'puter.
>
> BTW, I threw out my Linux Pentium Two today, bought in 1996 or 1997,
> in the trash, after busting with a sledgehammer the Seagate 2 GB (yes

    The key problem here is going to be "modern software". This box won't
run any commercial OS that is currently supported. Such an OS won't support
any current commercial apps. Such a machine can probably run modern Linux
without GNOME or KDE. 

    I've run boxes like that myself.

-- 

   Unauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That      ||| 
particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be    / | \ 
cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you   
can be and alienate potential fans.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32967

RayLopez99 wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>>
>> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>> contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
>> x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
>> an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
>> gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
>> Exactly right: ARM.
> 
> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?

No one, except you, made any reference to "open source" in this subject!

Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33020

In reply to Lusotec who posted:

> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> Anonymous wrote:
>>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>>>
>>> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>>> contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
>>> x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
>>> an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
>>> gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
>>> Exactly right: ARM.
>> 
>> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
>> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
>> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
>> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?
>
> No one, except you, made any reference to "open source" in this subject!

Do ALL the wintrolls have reading/comprehension problems? IS it a
requirement of being a wintroll?


-- 
Windows Breakthrough: It finally booted on the first try.
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33173 — Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot!

"William Poaster" <wp@induh-vidual.net> schreef in bericht 
news:263lc8-37a.ln1@linuxnetwork.alpha.org...
> In reply to Lusotec who posted:
>
>> RayLopez99 wrote:
>>> Anonymous wrote:
>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>>>>
>>>> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>>>> contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
>>>> x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
>>>> an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
>>>> gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
>>>> Exactly right: ARM.
>>>
>>> WTF?  You crazy?  ARM controls all licensing out of their northern
>>> California office, with revenues flowing back to England.  The fact
>>> that dozens of manufacturers have signed up to this license makes no
>>> difference.  You really think ARM is open source?
>>
>> No one, except you, made any reference to "open source" in this subject!
>
> Do ALL the wintrolls have reading/comprehension problems? IS it a
> requirement of being a wintroll?
>
The Dumb William Poaster (Willy Boaster) liar
This complete loser is a waste of internet bandwidth for he has surely 
deprived several villages of their village idiot. He has never even 
attempted to make a post that requires any thought or insight. He is a 
unemployed janitor so the biggest decision he's ever made is whether the 
toilet paper roll needs replacing. Each and every one of his posts fall into 
one of two categories:

1) "I didn't read that 'trolls' post because my filters blocked it." - The 
typical COLA head-in-sand approach of not seeing or reading what you're 
afraid to see.

2) A "Me too" response to Kent, Schestowitz or anyone else who lies about 
"lienux." These morons will post any sort of ridiculous claim or insult and 
Willy Boaster will make a worthless post in order to show how he's "one of 
the boys" and how he agrees with them. This liar is "owned" by a reasonable 
poster named "Hadron Quark" and for some reason the psychotic Willy Boaster 
finds it necessary to mention Hadron at least once in every post he makes.

He is a worthless idiot. The only purpose his posts have is to show just how 
stupid a linux advocate can be. Really folks, if you ever see anything other 
than a "my filters..." or a "me too...." post from this moron then it'll be 
the day that the earth plummets into the sun. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33224 — Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot!

Am Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:32:40 +0200 schrieb Clogwog:

> He is a worthless idiot. The only purpose his posts have is to show just
> how stupid a linux advocate can be. Really folks, if you ever see
> anything other than a "my filters..." or a "me too...." post from this
> moron then it'll be the day that the earth plummets into the sun.

But how do you determine him to be a "linux advocate" when he alledgedly 
never writes anything to advocate linux?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33519 — Re: Dumb Willy Boaster,: a village idiot!

"Chris" <chrisdhaag@googlemail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:itbd3g$j88$1@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de...
> Am Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:32:40 +0200 schrieb Clogwog:
>
>> He is a worthless idiot. The only purpose his posts have is to show just
>> how stupid a linux advocate can be. Really folks, if you ever see
>> anything other than a "my filters..." or a "me too...." post from this
>> moron then it'll be the day that the earth plummets into the sun.
>
> But how do you determine him to be a "linux advocate" when he alledgedly
> never writes anything to advocate linux?


Dumb Willy determines himself to be a "Linux advocate".
How he got this idea is beyond me.
Yes you are right, he never writes anything to advocate Linux.
Follow his posts and you'll see. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32951 — Re: Why Intel will (NOT) fail in mobile

"Anonymous" <cripto@ecn.org> wrote in message 
news:8e9a94022d7c00c7bf7dba917ccf0bef@ecn.org...
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
>
> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
>
> Ergo: Intel is dead-as-a-doornail
>
> The same fate awaits Microsoft...
>

Clearly even you don't believe this nonsense for one second.

If you did you would have posted this with your usual nym instead of using 
an anonymous remailer like some coward.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32964

Anonymous wrote:
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_25/b4233041946230.htm
> 
> Let's say you're a manufacturer of mobile phones and you're
> contemplating between x86 or ARM, which one would you pick? If you pick
> x86 you only have one vendor to choose from (Intel), OTOH if you pick
> an ARM-based processor you have DOZENS of manufacturers which will
> gladly sell you their wares. Which one do you figure will be cheaper?
> Exactly right: ARM.
> 
> That's the reason Intel doesn't stand a chance in mobile. Manufacturers
> want choice so there will be real competition, a cheaper price and more
> profit for them. The same reason allowed the Wintel monopoly to
> flourish in the early 1980's. Businesses didn't want Apple because
> didn't want to be dependent on a single vendor, even though they knew
> Apple's Macintosh was far superior to MS-DOS and the PC-architecture
> (with the decrepit x86 architecture).
> 
> Ergo: Intel is dead-as-a-doornail
> 
> The same fate awaits Microsoft...

The *main* reason why Intel CPUs have a poor market share in mobile devices 
is uncompetitive power consumption, not uncompetitive pricing and not lock 
in fears. ARM CPUs performance has improved significantly in the last few 
years and is surpassing Intel's low power CPUs performance. This also has 
put Intel's mobile offers under more pressure.

Even so, Intel is putting significant effort in improving their CPU's power 
consumption and I would not declare them dead just yet.
 
Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web