GDMS said: Intel [said] that they were an 800lb Gorilla that could not be trifled with.
I do not have any insider knowledge and this is pure speculation, but I suspect that it's the x86 division within Intel that's the 800lb Gorilla, and any up-start alternate architecture within Intel that the x86 division saw as a threat was stomped on, or else hamstrung so as not to compete with x86 -- which meant that it couldn't compete with anyone else's products either.
You see this a lot with big companies: the "cash cow" division sets the rules, and rule #1 is "no competition from elsewhere in the company". However, when the "cow" starts running dry, it means there's not a strong alternative to help out. I've read that there was a promising tablet group at Microsoft a decade or so ago, but the Windows fiefdom prevented it from getting anywhere, so Microsoft had nothing that could compete with iPad or Android.
Interesting thoughts @GSMD...I never understood why Intel was aquiring new companies or technologies...or was quiting some products lines that were doing reasonably well...my theory is that if you are that big main product line and people running it just kills amd muddies everything else...right now the best move for Intel would be to start manufacturing ARM based devices for smart phone makers...you got to fill their very advanced and expensive fabs with something...just few comms processors will not do...Kris
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.