Regarding an earlier revenue comment, I tend to agree that comparing ARM revenue to Intel revenue is no useful comparison. What woukd seem to be closer comparison would be comparing intel revenue to ARM revenue PLUS all of revenue from ARM licensees like Qualcom and ARM-specific revenue from chip foundry like TSMC, Samsung. Anyone have an estimate on that? I can guess the number is almost impossible to get accurately from public data
Intel isn't going to disappear quietly. They are going to be the desktop monopoly provider for many a year yet.
Only thing is they seem to be holding back introducing some technologies and the motive mainly seems to be profit.
They seem to be a bit slow on the optical interfaces side of things.
If Altera can do an fpga demo with integrated optical interface (with help from avago and IBM), where is Intel's cpu with onboard optical interface ?
ARM certainly seems to be winning the press wars lately, but I don't see a huge risk to Intel. I agree that ARM seems to be cleaning up in the 32 bit low-power world, but again, I don't see that as a huge risk.
PC and laptop product lines will lose some customers to tables because there are some people for whom any kind of full PC or laptop is overkill. Those people will use tablets and smart phones to do their computing. However, tablets and smart phones will be incremental sales over PCs more than replacements.
A decade from now, I'm not so sure. As phones get more and more powerful, they will become more and more capable of replacing a full PC. You don't need to worry about syncing applications and data if it's all in your pocket.
At that point, wireless docking stations will abound and conventional PCs will become more and more, specialized niche products.
Warren East, CEO of ARM, told me recently that ARM does not want to design cores that compete with Intel's, since ARM cores would then have to add memory-managemnt units and other on-chip resources that consume a lot of silicon. ARM is instead concentrating on lean, ultra-low power cores whose software is consistent across all models, making their choice a "no brainer" for embedded designers. In that sense, ARM has won the processor war it has chosen to fight, by virtue of its numerous design wins, but according to ARM's own CEO it is not even trying to take on Intel ( yet :)
The core matters less and less only if: You can ever have "just enough" of anything/everything needed. For your given application.
In the context of this article I think you would be sorely wrong.
The article speaks towards processors that run / can run user-friendly operating systems. Unless, you're insinuating, that your 2m flash Atmel MCU could compete with anything ARM, let alone Intel in this playing field.
On other grounds I would beg to differ also. Just like a programming language is a tool. With many different languages that are better suited for various jobs. There comes a time when various MCU's / CPU's are better for a given job as well.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.