3 ms·

> The only mystery to me was why Intel never just sucked it up and made a low-margin x86 chip to compete directly with ARM. Culture. Some companies are willin

by adekok 10y ago

> The only mystery to me was why Intel never just sucked it up and made a low-margin x86 chip to compete directly with ARM. Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't. A low-end, low-power, low-margin x86 system would cut a huge swath thru Intel's margins. The trend of "upgrade to newer! better! faster!" CPUs would be hard-hit. Even Apple is seeing that now with slowing iPhone sales. The phones are powerful enough that upgrading doesn't get a lot of benefit. So people aren't.

jonstokes 10y ago
I think you're right on both counts.
gfody 10y ago
> A low-end, low-power, low-margin x86 system AMD A-Series?
- r00fus 10y ago
  Intel was complicit for a decade or longer for essentially undercutting AMD by bribing the manufacturers like Dell. There were quarters where Intel's "marketing budget" were all that kept Dell and other manufacturers in the black. [1] AMD has no impact on the overall market because it's not a serious option for the big box manufacturers. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/07/dells-shame-intel-payola-propped-up-companys-earnings-sec-says/60447/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/07/dells-...
klodolph 10y ago
> Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't. At least historically, Intel was. Remember what happened to Intel's SRAM and DRAM in 1981?
smitherfield 10y ago
>> The only mystery to me was why Intel never just sucked it up and made a low-margin x86 chip to compete directly with ARM. > Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't. Exactly. A tale as old as time; IBM is addicted to high-margin mainframes, ignores low-margin minicomputers, gets their lunch eaten by Digital. Digital is addicted to minicomputers, ignores PCs, lunch eaten by Apple, Commodore and, quelle ironie, IBM. Microsoft is addicted to the desktop platform, ignores web and mobile, left in the dust by Google and (irony again) Apple. Sometimes it's not even so much a margin thing as simply being unable to visualize alternative ways of making revenue. Missing link in the previous paragraph is Microsoft eating IBM/Apple/Commodore's lunch when they failed to see that software was an even greater profit opportunity than hardware. Xerox famously ignored the steady stream of insanely lucrative guaranteed mondo profit cash cows produced at PARC because management didn't understand any business besides selling copiers. Excite turned down a chance to acquire Google for $700,000.

by adekok 10y ago

jonstokes 10y ago

I think you're right on both counts.

gfody 10y ago

> A low-end, low-power, low-margin x86 system AMD A-Series?

r00fus 10y ago
Intel was complicit for a decade or longer for essentially undercutting AMD by bribing the manufacturers like Dell. There were quarters where Intel's "marketing budget" were all that kept Dell and other manufacturers in the black. [1] AMD has no impact on the overall market because it's not a serious option for the big box manufacturers. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/07/dells-shame-intel-payola-propped-up-companys-earnings-sec-says/60447/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/07/dells-...

klodolph 10y ago

> Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't. At least historically, Intel was. Remember what happened to Intel's SRAM and DRAM in 1981?

smitherfield 10y ago

>> The only mystery to me was why Intel never just sucked it up and made a low-margin x86 chip to compete directly with ARM. > Culture. Some companies are willing to sacrifice today's revenue for tomorrow's growth. Intel isn't. Exactly. A tale as old as time; IBM is addicted to high-margin mainframes, ignores low-margin minicomputers, gets their lunch eaten by Digital. Digital is addicted to minicomputers, ignores PCs, lunch eaten by Apple, Commodore and, quelle ironie, IBM. Microsoft is addicted to the desktop platform, ignores web and mobile, left in the dust by Google and (irony again) Apple. Sometimes it's not even so much a margin thing as simply being unable to visualize alternative ways of making revenue. Missing link in the previous paragraph is Microsoft eating IBM/Apple/Commodore's lunch when they failed to see that software was an even greater profit opportunity than hardware. Xerox famously ignored the steady stream of insanely lucrative guaranteed mondo profit cash cows produced at PARC because management didn't understand any business besides selling copiers. Excite turned down a chance to acquire Google for $700,000.