Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #32846
| From | Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Why Intel will fail in mobile |
| Date | 2011-06-14 16:17 +0200 |
| Organization | mail2news@reece.net.au |
| Message-ID | <8e9a94022d7c00c7bf7dba917ccf0bef@ecn.org> (permalink) |
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...
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web