Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?

[Database Administrator]

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardwar...9292765,00.htm

I still think Intel screwed-up BIG time when they sold their embedded CPU's (StrongARM, XScale) to Marvell. The idea was that future devices would be more and more like PC's and that these should therefore have a 'real' Intel x86 processor. Now, several years later, it seems like Intel made the wrong decision and is paying dearly for it. None of the newest mobile phones use an Intel processor, and ARM continues its reign there, as the Intel embedded devices.

In the article, some Intel bloke is bitching that the iPhone should have had an Intel processor instead of ARM. But the x86 is totally unsuitable for battery powered handheld devices, and laptops using Intel processors rarely work more than 2 hours if they are used under normal office working conditions.

I liked StrongARM and XScale, but Intel foolishly thought they could force OEM's to use Intel processors in their devices. Wrong!! It looks they are going to lose marketshare and become also-rans in the new netbook segment. Already, some netbooks are popping up which use non-Intel Chinese MIPS processors and Intel's foray into the embedded market is bound to falter.

Anyone agree with me that Intel made a mistake selling their embedded processors?

[Database Administrator]

Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardwar...9292765,00.htm
>
> I still think Intel screwed-up BIG time when they sold their embedded CPU's (StrongARM, XScale) to Marvell. The idea was that future devices would be more and more like PC's and that these should therefore have a 'real' Intel x86 processor. Now, several years later, it seems like Intel made the wrong decision and is paying dearly for it. None of the newest mobile phones use an Intel processor, and ARM continues its reign there, as the Intel embedded devices.
>
> In the article, some Intel bloke is bitching that the iPhone should have had an Intel processor instead of ARM. But the x86 is totally unsuitable for battery powered handheld devices, and laptops using Intel processors rarely work more than 2 hours if they are used under normal office working conditions.
>
> I liked StrongARM and XScale, but Intel foolishly thought they could force OEM's to use Intel processors in their devices. Wrong!! It looks they are going to lose marketshare and become also-rans in the new netbook segment. Already, some netbooks are popping up which use non-Intel Chinese MIPS processors and Intel's foray into the embedded market is bound to falter.
>
> Anyone agree with me that Intel made a mistake selling their embedded processors?
>

Nope.
If you read that carefully, they are attacking the market from two
different directions.
Intel is Morphing the PC into something much more mobile, and the Phones
are morphing into Web-Browsing, video playing systems.

Intel's pathway give you the phone second, it comes almost for free,
whilst the other direction start as a phone, and morph towards something
more.
Of course, the Elephant in the room, NOT mentioned at all, is Power
and battery life.

Keep in mind, the processors we know about in the public domain, are
not the same as what intel is showing the phone and ultra-portable
designers for 2009 design wins.
By all reports, Intel's Atom is doing very well.

eg: this claim ["The overall processor market rose 14 per cent during
the third quarter, and 15.4 per cent on the year, to reach a value of
$8.3bn (£5.25bn).
Much of this growth was down to strong demand for Intel's Atom processor
which registered shipment growth of nearly nine per cent.
"Not considering the effects of Atom, the overall market still grew at a
decent pace in the third quarter," ]

Notice that Apple changed from PowerPCB to Intel CPUs because of Intel's
R&D muscle and roadmap. - and managed that transistion surprisingly well.

Expect Apple to have an ultra-portable product with an intel CPU.

Plenty of room for both CPUs and differing applications morphs.

-jg

[Database Administrator]

Jim Granville wrote:
>
> Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardwar...9292765,00.htm
>>
>>
>> I still think Intel screwed-up BIG time when they sold their embedded
>> CPU's (StrongARM, XScale) to Marvell. The idea was that future devices
>> would be more and more like PC's and that these should therefore have
>> a 'real' Intel x86 processor. Now, several years later, it seems like
>> Intel made the wrong decision and is paying dearly for it. None of the
>> newest mobile phones use an Intel processor, and ARM continues its
>> reign there, as the Intel embedded devices.
>>
>> In the article, some Intel bloke is bitching that the iPhone should
>> have had an Intel processor instead of ARM. But the x86 is totally
>> unsuitable for battery powered handheld devices, and laptops using
>> Intel processors rarely work more than 2 hours if they are used under
>> normal office working conditions.
>>
>> I liked StrongARM and XScale, but Intel foolishly thought they could
>> force OEM's to use Intel processors in their devices. Wrong!! It looks
>> they are going to lose marketshare and become also-rans in the new
>> netbook segment. Already, some netbooks are popping up which use
>> non-Intel Chinese MIPS processors and Intel's foray into the embedded
>> market is bound to falter.
>>
>> Anyone agree with me that Intel made a mistake selling their embedded
>> processors?
>>
>
> Nope.
> If you read that carefully, they are attacking the market from two
> different directions.
> Intel is Morphing the PC into something much more mobile, and the Phones
> are morphing into Web-Browsing, video playing systems.
>
> Intel's pathway give you the phone second, it comes almost for free,
> whilst the other direction start as a phone, and morph towards something
> more.
> Of course, the Elephant in the room, NOT mentioned at all, is Power
> and battery life.
>

Absolutamente! You just mentioned the very reason why I and lots of
other people hold their wallets closed when it comes to "mobility". A
device that cannot rival the old Casio portable "type writers" that
could run weeks on a few AA cells just ain't worth it IMHO.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

[Database Administrator]

On 2008-11-10, Joerg wrote:
>
> Absolutamente! You just mentioned the very reason why I and lots of
> other people hold their wallets closed when it comes to "mobility". A
> device that cannot rival the old Casio portable "type writers" that
> could run weeks on a few AA cells just ain't worth it IMHO.

I'm finding myself tempting by an Eee PC at the moment, but battery
life is the one thing holding me back. For all its limitations my
10 year old Newton's 30 hour battery life means that it is genuinelly
mobile. Of course, if the batteries do happen to run out when you
are out and about you simply pick up a set of AA alkaline cells
from pretty much any newsagent or filling station - something you
lose out on when it seems every mobile device out there has its
own proprietrary rechargable battery.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

[Database Administrator]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> On 2008-11-10, Joerg wrote:
>> Absolutamente! You just mentioned the very reason why I and lots of
>> other people hold their wallets closed when it comes to "mobility". A
>> device that cannot rival the old Casio portable "type writers" that
>> could run weeks on a few AA cells just ain't worth it IMHO.
>
> I'm finding myself tempting by an Eee PC at the moment, but battery
> life is the one thing holding me back. ...


Same here. I would have bought one a long time ago but the battery
runtime is paltry. I do not see any benefit versus a low-end Dell where
there always seems to be some $399 deal.


> ... For all its limitations my
> 10 year old Newton's 30 hour battery life means that it is genuinelly
> mobile. Of course, if the batteries do happen to run out when you
> are out and about you simply pick up a set of AA alkaline cells
> from pretty much any newsagent or filling station - something you
> lose out on when it seems every mobile device out there has its
> own proprietrary rechargable battery.
>

That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice 2600mAh
NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone must have
their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever tries to figure
out how much in sales that is costing them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

[Database Administrator]

On Nov 11, 1:33*am, Joerg
wrote:
> > ....
> > ... *Of course, if the batteries do happen to run out when you
> > are out and about you simply pick up a set of AA alkaline cells
> > from pretty much any newsagent or filling station - something you
> > lose out on when it seems every mobile device out there has its
> > own proprietrary rechargable battery.
>
> That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice 2600mAh
> NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone must have
> their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever tries to figure
> out how much in sales that is costing them.

I also keep on wondering why so many market segments ignore
those amazing 2.6 Ah NiMH cells available nowadays.
The camera market seems to have enforced them on the industry;
some of the top-class zoom cameras (I just watch only that segment)
tried to go vendor specific Liion at a moment but went back to
AA cells. I guess because being unable to replace your camera
is understood as unacceptable by at least one vendor and the
rest have followed the market success.

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tg...7600228621276/

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp....9?dmode=source

[Database Administrator]

Joerg wrote:

> That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice 2600mAh
> NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone must have
> their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever tries to figure
> out how much in sales that is costing them.

There are reasons for that:

1. The unique accessories are very profitable.
2. If you allow for the generic batteries, great many idiots will screw
up and will be complaining, trying to sue, or just bothering the
customer support.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

[Database Administrator]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Joerg wrote:
>
>> That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice 2600mAh
>> NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone must have
>> their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever tries to
>> figure out how much in sales that is costing them.
>
> There are reasons for that:
>
> 1. The unique accessories are very profitable.


Not if you lose sales because of it. For example, when in the market for
a digital camera all models with proprietary batteries were a clear
no-no for me, no deal. I didn't even look at those.

It is the same with water filtration, coffee makers, other technical
equipment. When a manufacturer chose a proprietary solution where it
clearly was not necessary I become suspicious and usually do not buy
that product or, worse for them, advise others not to buy it.


> 2. If you allow for the generic batteries, great many idiots will screw
> up and will be complaining, trying to sue, or just bothering the
> customer support.
>

Got to have reverse polarity protection. Nikon seems to have mastered
that issue ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

[Database Administrator]

Joerg wrote:

> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice
>>> 2600mAh NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone
>>> must have their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever
>>> tries to figure out how much in sales that is costing them.
>>
>>
>> There are reasons for that:
>>
>> 1. The unique accessories are very profitable.
>
> Not if you lose sales because of it. For example, when in the market for
> a digital camera all models with proprietary batteries were a clear
> no-no for me, no deal. I didn't even look at those.

People like you or me are not the "representative buyers" in the most of
cases. Consumer stuff is made mainly for little boys and girls from 18
to 25 y.o. who are not concerned at all.


>> 2. If you allow for the generic batteries, great many idiots will
>> screw up and will be complaining, trying to sue, or just bothering the
>> customer support.
>
> Got to have reverse polarity protection.

If there is more then one battery, get ready for all possible
combinations

> Nikon seems to have mastered
> that issue ;-)

That's an extra FET plus few other components. Takes the board space and
expensive, too

VLV

[Database Administrator]

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Joerg wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice
>>>> 2600mAh NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone
>>>> must have their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever
>>>> tries to figure out how much in sales that is costing them.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are reasons for that:
>>>
>>> 1. The unique accessories are very profitable.
>>
>> Not if you lose sales because of it. For example, when in the market
>> for a digital camera all models with proprietary batteries were a
>> clear no-no for me, no deal. I didn't even look at those.
>
> People like you or me are not the "representative buyers" in the most of
> cases. Consumer stuff is made mainly for little boys and girls from 18
> to 25 y.o. who are not concerned at all.
>

True, but make that 12-25. It is unbelievable how much buying power kids
under 18 have these days. Courtesy of their parents who are often
happily racking up credit card debt, big time.

>
>>> 2. If you allow for the generic batteries, great many idiots will
>>> screw up and will be complaining, trying to sue, or just bothering
>>> the customer support.
>>
>> Got to have reverse polarity protection.
>
> If there is more then one battery, get ready for all possible
> combinations
>

I've done many designs for battery-operated gear. You can insert the AA
cells any which way you want. If you get it right the units will work,
if you have one of more inverted they will not work but also not die.


>> Nikon seems to have mastered that issue ;-)
>
> That's an extra FET plus few other components. Takes the board space and
> expensive, too
>

Or a diode ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.