News Intel's interim co-CEO claims retailers are 'concerned' by return rate of Qualcomm powered machines

Qualcomm probably knows it has to take a "loss-leader" attitude in this.

ARM-based programs will not just magically appear. Adobe will port to ARM Windows because enough people own ARM Windows. Autodesk will port to ARM Windows because enough people own ARM Windows.

The existence of the Mac based on M1/2/3/* actually helps with this as mentioned in the article, because half the battle will already be complete, the port to ARM without Windows. Qualcomm has to just get it out there however and in whatever way they can get it out there since Microsoft desperately wants ARM and is already doing much of the heavy lifting there.

That's why Intel does take the competition seriously. ARM's already got a built in 20% of the market (Apple's command) which sets the stage. What Intel is doing by focusing on the high retail return rate, which is most surely accurate, is putting out FUD.

It's propaganda. All wars involve propaganda, even Sun Tzu wrote about it.(wasn't called that at the time)
 
The article said:
... it also plans to keep tailoring its designs to better compete against Arm-based rivals in terms of power consumption and performance efficiency. ...

"I think another barrier is we took too long at Intel to become performance and power-oriented, and we made a massive leap with our Lunar Lake product last year," said the interim co-CEO. "We are as performant on performance and battery life as most Arm devices out there."
Lunar Lake represents a local maximum, I think - not a new trend line. Intel jumped to TSMC N3B. We have yet to see how 18A will compare on efficiency, but you have to consider that Snapdragon X is on TSMC N4P, like AMD. Also, Intel has said it won't be using on-package DRAM in Panther Lake, which eliminates another efficiency advantage of Lunar Lake's.

So, I simply don't believe Intel has effectively nullified the efficiency advantages of ARM. Lunar Lake got some tactical victories, but that's mostly all they are.

I will say that Intel's embrace of hybrid architectures was unquestionably a good move, from the perspective of battery life. Without that, they might be dead in the water.
 
Intel comes close to Snapdragon's battery time only because they severely throttle down performance when off the plug. That's not matching they're efficiency. Who wants a machine that drops performance to save battery life?

And Intel's giant production advantage goes out the door when they have to use TSMC to produce their chips.

False claims of high rates of product return reek of desperation and a company struggling to keep their head above the water. Sad days for a once great tech company. But it's time to move forward. They just can't match the performance and efficiency of Snapdragon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
Are there any retailers going on record to say this? I can't find anything using a traditional search engine search nor AI-driven search. This is bold for a CEO to say if it's not publicly-verifyable information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bit_user
Qualcomm probably knows it has to take a "loss-leader" attitude in this.

ARM-based programs will not just magically appear. Adobe will port to ARM Windows because enough people own ARM Windows. Autodesk will port to ARM Windows because enough people own ARM Windows.

The existence of the Mac based on M1/2/3/* actually helps with this as mentioned in the article, because half the battle will already be complete, the port to ARM without Windows. Qualcomm has to just get it out there however and in whatever way they can get it out there since Microsoft desperately wants ARM and is already doing much of the heavy lifting there.

That's why Intel does take the competition seriously. ARM's already got a built in 20% of the market (Apple's command) which sets the stage. What Intel is doing by focusing on the high retail return rate, which is most surely accurate, is putting out FUD.

It's propaganda. All wars involve propaganda, even Sun Tzu wrote about it.(wasn't called that at the time)
Apple has 9% global laptop market share for two reasons. First, are all the class action lawsuits for poor build quality. Second, are the 20th features at 21th century prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m3city
Certainly priced to sell right now. But I can imagine someone taking one home and then finding out some incompatibility that is a deal breaker.

That's exactly what happens.

"But it said it was Windows."
"Yes, but it's running an ARM processor."
"So I need a special processor to run my software?"
"No, you need an x86 processor."
"What's an x86 processor?"
"Intel or AMD"
"So this thing is junk? Why would you even sell garbage like this?"
 
So, I simply don't believe Intel has effectively nullified the efficiency advantages of ARM. Lunar Lake got some tactical victories, but that's mostly all they are.
When I think of this I always think back to the ARM supercomputer built by Fujitsu. Once built, and for a couple of years, it was the most powerful computer in the world. But, when you broke it down, per unit of work it was actually about 5% less efficient than comparable x86 based supercomputers.

That at least points out to me that the whole ARM is more efficient thing just may not scale as well as many think it will.

I think ARM's immediate problem is getting in the corporate door. I'm sure IT pros here will back me up and say that if you're looking to make a major corporate purchase to update, say, 1000 laptops, you are still very, very wary of them. Will they run your software? Even those weird programs every organization seems to have that were programmed by some dude named Phil in 2003? So, taking this from a purely consumer standpoint that buys one laptop is probably not the best way to look at how one thinks about adoption of ARM in the Windows space. Corporate IT has always dwarfed the sales of individuals and until they are on board it's going to be a steep hill to climb for Windows ARM computers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P.Amini
Is the return rate actually confirmed? It seems like Intel is trying to make it sound worse than it is.

Compatibility is nowhere near as bad as people claim. I have a surface pro 11 with the X elite and it has run everything I have wanted it to. Some adobe programs, the desktop version of fusion 360, 3D printer slicers, nord vpn, kicad, vs code, pycharm, git, etc. and it has also ran every game that I have tried. It also works perfectly fine for Netflix, Disney plus, etc. although Amazon prime video only supports 1080p but that is the same for any windows system. For the majority of people who use laptops and notebooks for sending emails, web browsing and writing documents the Qualcomm chips are perfectly capable and the average user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an ARM processor and an x86 one. So the high return rates due to compatibility issues seems like nonsense unless there are loads of people buying them for niche uses.
 
...

I think ARM's immediate problem is getting in the corporate door. I'm sure IT pros here will back me up and say that if you're looking to make a major corporate purchase to update, say, 1000 laptops, you are still very, very wary of them. ...
Yes; I think even AMD has seen a lot of resistance to IT departments in the enterprise world deploying significant volumes of AMD PC's. I can't imagine any mature IT department in a large org deploying Qualcomm laptops in large numbers; it would be for edge / niche cases. Folks just have to acknowledge that ARM comes differently in the Windows world than it did for Apple as the later has enough control over their ecosystem to practically switch from x86 to ARM overnight.
 
Is the return rate actually confirmed? It seems like Intel is trying to make it sound worse than it is.

Compatibility is nowhere near as bad as people claim. I have a surface pro 11 with the X elite and it has run everything I have wanted it to. Some adobe programs, the desktop version of fusion 360, 3D printer slicers, nord vpn, kicad, vs code, pycharm, git, etc. and it has also ran every game that I have tried. It also works perfectly fine for Netflix, Disney plus, etc. although Amazon prime video only supports 1080p but that is the same for any windows system. For the majority of people who use laptops and notebooks for sending emails, web browsing and writing documents the Qualcomm chips are perfectly capable and the average user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an ARM processor and an x86 one. So the high return rates due to compatibility issues seems like nonsense unless there are loads of people buying them for niche uses.
He doesn't say an actual number just vagueness of "large". And really the return rate only needs to be higher than the x86 return rate for his point to stand.

It definitely is, for a regular user all its takes is one program not working right for them to return it. People on this site might spend the time to find a work around but your avg. Best Buy customer isn't.
 
Intel says that retailers complain about high return rate of Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite-based Windows PCs, but expects more competition from the Arm camp next year.

Intel's interim co-CEO claims retailers are 'concerned' by return rate of Qualcomm powered machines : Read more
Intel ARM sounds like a very bad joke with no punchline. They haven't released decent efficiency cores that yet compete with AMD on power efficiency. Intel has much better prospects in the GPU market frankly these days.
 
Seems like a lot of people posting here don't understand why she would be talking about this so here's the context for the response:
Thomas O'Malley

So there's two threats, I think, to the PC market that I think I'd just like to hear your opinion on it. Obviously there's the ARM ecosystem. So you had Qualcomm talking about by 2030, 50% of the market moving to ARM PC, which is an aggressive number, I think, by many people's standards, but anyway, still something to notice. And then two, obviously you've been on the road for the last two weeks, probably talking to customers, and your competitive dynamic with AMD, where if you hear about a leadership change the instant reaction from some customers what's the roadmap where are we going here. So can you talk about those two threats and how that may impact the next couple years?
Michelle Johnston Holthaus

Absolutely so when we think about ARM, obviously the Apple machines are all based on ARM and they've been 8% to 9% pretty relatively stable from a growth perspective and Qualcomm makes up about less than 1% of the PC market today. And if you look at the investment in ARM, you look at the work that Microsoft's done, I mean there is been a very large push to make ARM ubiquitous in the PC. And there's some real challenges to ARM being ubiquitous in the PC. You will never hear me say that it will not happen because competition makes us better. And as long as you're constantly worried about who's knocking on your door, you're going to constantly be innovating and making sure that you don't have blind spots. But we do see that there's still a lot of incompatibilities. I mean, if you look at the return rate for ARM PCs, you go talk to any retailer, their number one concern is, wow, I get a large percentage of these back. Because you go to set them up, and the things that we just expect don't work, right?

And Apple did a lot of that heavy lift for ARM to make that ubiquitous with their iOS and their whole walled garden stack. So I'm not going to say ARM will get more, I'm sure, than it gets today. But there are certainly, I think, some real barriers to getting there. And I think another barrier is we took too long at Intel to become performance and power oriented. And we made a massive leap with our Lunar Lake product last year. We are [as performant] (ph) -- on performance and battery life as most ARM devices out there. And so for our customers, a lot of them are saying, okay, you're finally in the ballpark of being focused on all these right things. Therefore, I believe I can bet on an x86 architecture, when it comes to AMD, we both kind of have the same bet, right?

When we think about the work that [Lisa's] (ph) doing and the work that we're doing, we believe that x86 is the best overall basic architecture and we'll continue to build upon that. I've spent a lot of time with customers in the last two weeks, as you can imagine. Probably the thing that is the most exciting about the last two weeks, despite a lot of very, very difficult conversations, is customers want us to be successful. Our customers have decades of relationships with Intel, and those don't go away overnight. I've seen customers lean in. I've seen customers change their roadmap. I've seen customers say, Michelle, I need you to look me in the eye and tell me that your say-do ratio is going to continue as it has for the last three years and that you're going to tell me if something changes.

And so there's a lot of trust built up there. We have a lot more trust to continue to build. And I'm not saying, it's not going to be bumping, and I'm not saying that others won't take advantage of certainly the few potholes that we've had in the last couple weeks. But I feel good about where we are, particularly on the client side. But you know, I'm -- my say, do-ratio for my customers, I want it to be perfect. Like I ran sales for a long time. Nobody likes to send a dear customer letter ever. The worst thing you can do to your customers because they bet on you, they bet their business on you. We have a lot of work to do on the data center side which I'm sure you'll ask me about but with a lot of work to do there but on the client side our say-do ratio for the last four years has been very good.

We've met our schedules, we met our performance so you can expect that to continue but everybody is really excited about the PC market, as you said. So we have more competitors than we've ever had. You will see more competitors enter the marketplace in 2025. And we are going to have to be on our toes and making sure that we're winning.
 
AMD is thrashing Intel and ARM in terms of PCs, and so it's odd, indeed, to see an article about Intel which is weirdly pretending that AMD doesn't exist...😉 It must be killing Intel internally to realize how far behind AMD they have fallen. It reminds me of the late 90's and early 2000's, when Intel didn't like to even admit that AMD existed, or that it might be considered "competition" for them! Remember a couple of years ago when Gelsinger said, "Now that I've put AMD in the rearview mirror..." He was asked by so many if he was driving backwards...😉 My how things have changed, sort of. Intel just hates to even mention AMD.
 
When I think of this I always think back to the ARM supercomputer built by Fujitsu. Once built, and for a couple of years, it was the most powerful computer in the world. But, when you broke it down, per unit of work it was actually about 5% less efficient than comparable x86 based supercomputers.
Source?

I don't believe it, because x86-based machines did most of their computation using Nvidia GPUs, up to that point. So, you wouldn't be comparing ARM vs. x86, but rather ARM-SVE vs. Nvidia/CUDA. However, GPU compute is a lot less general and flexible than CPUs, which is why it's preferable to do your compute on general-purpose CPUs, if you can.

That at least points out to me that the whole ARM is more efficient thing just may not scale as well as many think it will.
Apple still sets the benchmark on efficiency. Even Lunar Lake can't beat Apple there.

I think ARM's immediate problem is getting in the corporate door.
Agreed. These aren't gaming machines, so if they can't penetrate the corporate or academic markets, they're basically nothing. And Qualcomm is too greedy to effectively tackle the academic market, I think.
 
Seems like a lot of people posting here don't understand why she would be talking about this so here's the context for the response:
Thanks!

Michelle Johnston Holthaus said:
... if you look at the return rate for ARM PCs, you go talk to any retailer, their number one concern is, wow, I get a large percentage of these back.
Okay, so it sounds like some of Tom's Journalists should go at talk to "any retailer" and try to put some numbers on those claims. Even if the sources decline to go on the record, it should be possible to find some who are willing to disclose that information anonymously.

How about it, @PaulAlcorn ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ryanshultz