3 ms·

Once Intel stops wrapping a $50 bill around every Android tablet chip they sell, why would device makers or consumers choose Intel-powered tablets over anything

by personZ 12y ago

Once Intel stops wrapping a $50 bill around every Android tablet chip they sell, why would device makers or consumers choose Intel-powered tablets over anything else? Why wouldn't they is the real question. Previously they wouldn't simply because platform support was mediocre to non-existent, and third party apps didn't support it or ran miserable. It was an ARM party. x86 was a non-starter. Intel would have zero buyers if they sold at normal prices for what was destined to be a second-rate experience. Now Android fully supports x86 (and very soon x86-64), and while many third-party apps explicitly support x86 (the NDK makes it a simple extra flag, and of course fully managed apps already fully support it), those that don't still run superbly. Regularly here on HN we see people who are actually in this industry who don't even realize that Intel and x86 have become serious competitors. That devices they might have used are running it. Android tablet SoCs are a commodity market with many players Qualcomm has seen exploding revenues, now pushing $30 billion per annum and great profit margins. It is anything but a "commodity" market, and a few makers are making gangbusters.

wmf 12y ago
You're saying that Android on Intel works, but that isn't saying much. It isn't better, it isn't cheaper (once subsidies expire), and it doesn't have the diversity of dozens of different SoCs to choose from.
- personZ 12y ago
  It isn't better, it isn't cheaper (once subsidies expire), and it doesn't have the diversity of dozens of different SoCs to choose from. Are you actually basing this assessment on actual facts? Further, as to diversity, Qualcomm 80x absolutely dominates the Android sphere. Vendors aren't making designs with some abstract SoC that they plug in on delivery day -- they are specifically designing devices around a given SoC. Meaning they choose a 805, or K1, or Atom Z3560, and design the product and release it.
mrpippy 12y ago
Qualcomm has seen exploding revenues, now pushing $30 billion per annum and great profit margins. It is anything but a "commodity" market, and a few makers are making gangbusters. That is almost entirely from sales for Android smartphones. Qualcomm's leading-edge baseband tech (and monopoly on 3GPP2/EvDO networks) has made them the clear market leader for phones. This is why both Intel and NVIDIA purchased cellular baseband technology (Infineon/Icera), tried to compete in phones for a year, and then pulled back to focus on tablets while they continue to develop basebands. Without a requirement for cellular, the tablet market is wide open. Like you said, these chips all run the exact same software and users can't tell the difference. It's a commodity market, and is Intel going to compete on price with NVIDIA, Samsung, Qualcomm, Marvell, MediaTek, Allwinner, etc? Not while making 65% gross margins.

by personZ 12y ago

wmf 12y ago

You're saying that Android on Intel works, but that isn't saying much. It isn't better, it isn't cheaper (once subsidies expire), and it doesn't have the diversity of dozens of different SoCs to choose from.

personZ 12y ago
It isn't better, it isn't cheaper (once subsidies expire), and it doesn't have the diversity of dozens of different SoCs to choose from. Are you actually basing this assessment on actual facts? Further, as to diversity, Qualcomm 80x absolutely dominates the Android sphere. Vendors aren't making designs with some abstract SoC that they plug in on delivery day -- they are specifically designing devices around a given SoC. Meaning they choose a 805, or K1, or Atom Z3560, and design the product and release it.

mrpippy 12y ago

Qualcomm has seen exploding revenues, now pushing $30 billion per annum and great profit margins. It is anything but a "commodity" market, and a few makers are making gangbusters. That is almost entirely from sales for Android smartphones. Qualcomm's leading-edge baseband tech (and monopoly on 3GPP2/EvDO networks) has made them the clear market leader for phones. This is why both Intel and NVIDIA purchased cellular baseband technology (Infineon/Icera), tried to compete in phones for a year, and then pulled back to focus on tablets while they continue to develop basebands. Without a requirement for cellular, the tablet market is wide open. Like you said, these chips all run the exact same software and users can't tell the difference. It's a commodity market, and is Intel going to compete on price with NVIDIA, Samsung, Qualcomm, Marvell, MediaTek, Allwinner, etc? Not while making 65% gross margins.