I remember at the onset of handheld devices, Intel was behind, oddly, in FLASH memory technology. At that time, Intel made a huge push to become the number 1 supplier in FLASH....that didn't seem to materialize. Then Intel purchase DEC's computer architects. That didn't seem to work out so well either as Intel sold the goods. Wonder if this will be the next chapter in Intel's big adventures?
Intel dedicated a rather larger CES booth to promoting the message of combining graphics & CPU -- "the beauty and the brains," according to the hired actress -- on a single die. Every time you walked by their booth you heard that message, and thought "so what?" If I'm a gamer, I'm not using your graphics anyway, and if I'm not a gamer, why do I care whether the functions are integrated or on two separate chips?
Not much hype about the Atom and what Intel is doing to reduce power so it can compete with ARM. I think they missed an opportunity.
Perhaps Intel should offer huge discount to complete with ARM and cater low end market. Or enter the foundary business and manufacture ARM based chips.
Other than these, I don't see how Intel can beat ARM.
Intel hasn't even beaten AMD yet. Who can seriously suggest Intel being competitive, let alone dominate in the mobile market when they have had failure after failure anytime they step outside the x86 market.
The claims by Microsoft that they will be able to run their bloated, buggy, poorly performing and expensive operating systems on ARM are laughable. Microsoft's buggy bloatware will hardly run on a 3 GHz dual core PC with multi-gigabytes of ram. It certainly won't run on a mobile platform. Microsoft has been slapping together faux "Windows" such as WP7 in their typically deceptive approach to marketing. Such attempts have failed badly and Microsoft doesn't have the culture or ability to develop a real low footprint capable mobile operating system.
But even the concept that Microsoft would port their buggy bloatware to ARM is laughable because the second most significant benefit of ARM, after the low power aspect, is the low cost. Why cut 25 cents or even 5$ in processor cost when the buggy and security hole ridden operating system from Microsoft costs hundreds of dollars? It's laughable. Microsoft has released more vaporware than any company in history. They're soon going to be completely irrelevant rather than just comical.
Intel has succeed in establishing itself as the solid-state disk leader in the industry - that's outside the core processor. Intel succeeds when the target product is clear. AMD had an integrated memory controller first - Intel is ahead. AMD created 64 bit x86 first - Intel is ahead. AMD proposed integrated graphics cores first - Intel is ahead.
Why analyst think Intel is going to win the War? It is because Intel has more cash than ARM and all its partner combined. Has Intel ever succeed any major product lines outside core microprocessor business?
In order to win this war, Intel needs to change its business model and its arrogance as #1 in semiconductor world. Otherwise, this will soon become one of many Intel's failed attempts to diversification into other market segments.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.