I agree with someEmbeddedGuy, but not for the same reasons. An Intel buyout is a longshot because ARM is on the upswing, and they will ride this wave of success to the peak if they are smart. Buyouts happen when business starts to wane or at moments between successes not during them.
Jon - http://www.evosite.co.uk/
The MicroMan has a very good point - to an extent. The typical consumer really doesn't care what processor is under the hood. They just want it to work and keep working. To many consumers, there isn't "Word", "Excel" and other applications. They just use Windows. To A large segment of the PC using public, all of these names and terms have no more meaning than does "Turbo Encabulator."
To counter that is the brand. People but Pepsi or Coke because they are loyal to the brand. Not because they have an understanding of the ingredients. When you look at a diet soda, people do understand the benefit there. Thus if Linux/Android/ARM noteboook makes can demonstrate a clear technological advantage, they can sell against Intel with that. If not, then they will have to spend gobs of money to create meaning in their brand with the consuming public.
It is interesting how the industry works. A normal consumer would not be thinking about all these things going on in the background when he shops for a phone or device, but the war to stay afloat and ahead of competitors is very real and one wrong step could lead to a company having a monopoly in controlling the prices and supply.
While we are not trying to replicate in these filters, [url=http://www.google.com/]google[/url] the FSE topology allows equalization beyond the Nyquist frequency of half the symbol rate, hardening the system to aliasing effects.
There is a Dallas, Texas. Nobody would argue whether it was also in the United States. Why the beef about Cambridge?
An acquisition of ARM by Intel would be a disaster. ARM is an IP licensor(er?). Intel punches out expensive chips. Intel ejected its hand in ARM when it sold off (most of) its interest in XScale. True, Intel would like to eliminate its competition.
Consumers don't give a darn what operating system is in their electronic gear. What's running your set-top box? If it works, and it is easy to figure out, people will buy. Nobody would miss a bloated bag of software that crashes. Or they're used to it enough on one platform that they'll accept it from another. And if it sells for $200 rather than $300, they'll buy even more.
As a blogger you should be looking at Google Trends to see what the latest trends are going to be. Google Trends has always been useful to everyone. Google Trends is sometimes a wonderful metric for finding out just how illiterate our citizens are, and showcasing the lack of intelligence on their part ? recently, one of the top searches on Google Trends was for the word austere. If you had to look up austere, go get some payday loans for a dictionary ? and then either drop it on your head, or get a lawyer and sue your school district, because you didn't get your money's worth!
Your points about the inertia associated with the incumbent (Intel-Microsoft) are well made.
However, one thing you don't discuss though is the role of different manifestations of Linux such as the Chrome browser and the Android operating system, which could quickly be very acceptable to the consumer. Is it not arguable that these days Google is more entrenched than Microsoft these days?.
As to the price crunch on laptops...i believe some people would pay a PREMIUM to have a smaller computer that they can carry around without hurting their back and with a battery-life that lasts all day.
Of course they might miss the big screen, but they can't use a big screen conveniently on the road, on the plane...and perhaps they can link up to a bigger screen when they get home...or get to work...if they need to.