Intel Lost Over $4 Billion On Mobile Last Year

[Lkaos]

Yeah, blame Intel for AMD's incompetence...It's the right thing to do!
Let's forget about when AMD's processors came without thermal protection, enabling computer to catch fire/explode or the way they cheated with benchmarks programs to give the impression they were faster...They are soooo cool and faultless! #facepalm#

God, the stupidity of some AMD fans is beyond belief...Again, Intel is not guilty of AMD's incompetence! Intel doesnt design and develop present AMD's crappy processors....Even having the upper hand in console market (XBox One, PS4, Nintendo) they are not able to grow a money fund...

 

[Reepca]

Yeah, blame Intel for AMD's incompetence...It's the right thing to do!
Let's forget about when AMD's processors came without thermal protection, enabling computer to catch fire/explode or the way they cheated with benchmarks programs to give the impression they were faster...They are soooo cool and faultless! #facepalm#

God, the stupidity of some AMD fans is beyond belief...Again, Intel is not guilty of AMD's incompetence! Intel doesnt design and develop present AMD's crappy processors....Even having the upper hand in console market (XBox One, PS4, Nintendo) they are not able to grow a money fund...

I don't think anyone is blaming intel for AMD's failures, I think people are blaming Intel for AMD's lack of sales. Especially in the mobile segment. Of course, some of it is more or less speculation (we don't have concrete evidence that intel has been keeping OEMs from putting AMD products in their laptops, or from putting them in *good-quality* laptops), but what is clear is that Intel is exhibiting trust-like behavior ("trust" here being used in this sense --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28business%29). The main behavior to note is "using their size to exclude competition", which pretty well describes selling products to OEMs for little, none, or negative price.

 

[Bolts Romano]

It is cheaper and more relevant for intel to rebrand the Atom into sometihng else. When people hear Atom , people will start says " Really? " Despite better performance etc etc compared to other mobile processor, when people hear atom , they will stay away.

Yes rebrand is cheaper and more make sense than bribing vendors to use atom
Who's idea is this to continue using atom brand for mobile.

 

[InvalidError]

Yes rebrand is cheaper and more make sense than bribing vendors to use atom
Who's idea is this to continue using atom brand for mobile.

Most people do not care what their SoC is called as long as it gets the job done and hits performance expectations.

Intel's biggest problems are that there is no shortage of inexpensive ARM-based chips that can do that and most of the mobile ecosystem has flocked to ARM, so Intel has to convince them that re-tooling their products for the x86 ISA is worth the trouble of locking themselves into an effectively single-vendor architecture.

Driving adoption will be an uphill battle regardless of what Intel calls the chips simply due to the single-source ISA in a market used to having a pick of 5+ designers/manufacturers or even the option of semi-custom ASICs.

 

[TripleHeinz]

Noticing how AMD has dominated the comments section: Does the x86 license allows AMD to take their products to mobile? If so why won't AMD take the train with Intel and develop an x86 product to take some of that little market share?

 

[martel80]

I just bought 1000 shares of AMD stock dirt cheap today at $2.35 a share just think if it hits $5 or maybe more by year end... If it goes down oh well if its meant to be its meant to be...

Why don't you just buy call options on AMD instead?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=AMD&date=1452816000
35 cents for an option to buy at $3.00 by JAN 2016. If it goes up to $5, you make $1.65 for each 35 cents "invested" (it's a bet, not an investment), i.e. 470% profit. And you can exercise at any time (american style), if I'm not mistaken. The downside is that you can lose 100% of the value, like an ordinary bet.

 

[InvalidError]

Noticing how AMD has dominated the comments section: Does the x86 license allows AMD to take their products to mobile? If so why won't AMD take the train with Intel and develop an x86 product to take some of that little market share?

AMD can do anything they want with their x86 license except sell or sub-license to someone else.

AMD's biggest problem is that their current lowest-power chips only go down to 4.5W, which rules them out of anything smaller than large tablets. Intel on the other hand has x86 SoCs going down to 2.5W IIRC - though most of their current SoCs have no published TDPs.

 

[f-14]

if only there was a socket upgrade path for the cpu and gpu in mobile along with storage. the execs at intel and amd are pretty damn stupid for not seeing the obvious. desktops are dying off by 300% every year while mobile is gaining 300%

 

[justonecomment]

While Intel may subsidize its lower-demanded chips, the article is slightly misleading. Much of the "paying" companies to choose its chips is Intel simply paying the cost of selecting Intel vs the much higher integrated solutions from other companies. For instance, only in the 2nd half of 2014 did Intel get its LTE game together. That means any OEM selecting atom had to pay another provider for a 3rd party LTE addon solution. Intel will resolve that in 2015, but until then had to cover those costs. That used to be true for the camera-peripheral IP (image sensor technology), and even for the other communications (3G). Now that Intel has leveraged the IP from its Infineon acquisition, is integrating the LTE into its chipset, and now has Intel RealSense camera technology, it will provide a more integrated solution that in and of itself has higher demand. Granted, until adoption increases, Intel may still provide "incentives" for OEMs to select its product, but I assure you Intel does not need to pay people to use its chips in the normal sense. This is the cost of being late to the game...

 

[shadowoflight]

They need to stop using the atom brand since it's been tarnished by its use in cheap and shitty netbooks

 

[ceh4702]

Other players entered into the mobile tablet market, while Intel was sitting on its behind. The key difference, I see is those other players made tablets and not just processors.

 

[gumbedamit]

I don't think the average consumer cares if there's Intel inside or not. Most average consumers don't know the difference between ARM and Atom. The consumers who do remember may be the ones that were saddled with those Atom chips trying to power those horrid Netbooks. I think Intel just needs to get those chips into the Brand name products consumers are already using.

 

[InvalidError]

Other players entered into the mobile tablet market, while Intel was sitting on its behind. The key difference, I see is those other players made tablets and not just processors.

Most ARM SoC designers do not sell tablets. Samsung and Apple are the only two exceptions I can think of.

I suppose Nvidia would sort-of belong on that list too but then again, distributing consumer electronics is not exactly Nvidia's core business. They got stuck having to do it mainly because they failed to score ODM wins during the R&D phase.

 

[Wisecracker]

AMD's biggest problem is that their current lowest-power chips only go down to 4.5W, which rules them out of anything smaller than large tablets. Intel on the other hand has x86 SoCs going down to 2.5W IIRC - though most of their current SoCs have no published TDPs.

AMD A10 Micro-6700T 'Mullins' APU uses a 2.8w 'Scenario Design Power' with 4.5w TDP at the top end.

AMD has highly competitive product that runs cooler on less power. It's difficult, but not impossible to find the good low-watt Temash and Mullins APUs but in limited designs. Intel's market power at retail and in the channel simply overwhelms AMD.

 

[Giroro]

Intel needs to rebrand Atom ... badly. Too many people were burned by barely-functioning netbooks (that ironically had a hard time rendering webpages) to even come close to giving another shot to that brand.

 

[ceh4702]

Whenever I see Atom, I run the other way.

 

[Bolts Romano]

it cost us tax payer $2 billion dollar for 1 B2 bomber, now Intel lost 4 billion which can cover 2 planes.

You can see the usefulness of B2 bomber than Intel Atom, when did you see the mobile phone with Intel inside ? (so far only lenovo using it and the mobile phone is nowhere to find)

B2 bomber is also hard to find but now i can understand it is much better to invest in B2 bomber than Intel Atom