• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    And that’s how they lost mobile to Arm, because before the iPhone, Intel wasn’t serious about mobile because of lower profit margins. Then when the mistake became obvious, they instead wasted billions trying to catch up quickly! And when that failed they gave up! The cost of course weren’t so much development, as it was incentives to try to bribe phone/netbook/tablet makers to use Intel. While their product remained inferior.

    It’s also how they lost compute in datacenters to Nvidia and AMD. They only considered it basically just a GPU low profit niche market, until long efter it obviously was way more than that.

    It’s kind of arrogant to think a product needs to have 50+% profit margin to be worth it, if it can help penetrate a growing market or a multi billion dollar market.

    This seems like a continuance of the Intel death spiral, and a continuance of the mindset that mostly stalled Intel development on the destop and datacenter for almost a decade, allowing AMD to become highly competitive, and enter Intel core markets with better products.

    • Alphane Moon@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      And that’s how they lost mobile to Arm, because before the iPhone, Intel wasn’t serious about mobile because of lower profit margins. Then when the mistake became obvious, they instead wasted billions trying to catch up quickly! And when that failed they gave up!

      I am old enough to remember when there were x86 smartphones (very niche, they weren’t available where I lived around that time, but they were in the news). This is spot on.