Intel Corp (INTC)

[wbmw]

The hardware installed base is also 0. So what's your point?

>> Isn't that also a failure?

Not unless you use your definition to call the iPad2 a failure, too.

Intel has a huge process advantage and architectural superiority, yet loses design wins to ARM. Why is that?

It's because they made the business decision a decade ago not to invest in ultra-low power devices. You can call it the wrong decision, but until Atom, Intel's focus was squarely in the PC space.

In 2008, they developed the first Atom core, but it lacked a low power chipset, as well as the capabilities of integrating it in a low power SOC. Fast forward to 2010, and it looks like they've improved here with the Moorestown product - which hasn't yet launched.

That's my point from above. If you are going to judge a product as a failure when it hasn't launched yet, then you should apply those same guidelines across the board.

I don't think it's the technology. I think it's a management issue. Intel isn't experienced in selling into the vertical markets of cell phones and tablets.

It is a new business model, but it's obviously too soon to judge it a failure before it gets off the ground. Intel has only announced 2 design wins for Moorestown, LG and Nokia (while implying that there are others, but not as big). I would wait for those products to be available, with Meego or another low power OS running them, and then decide if Intel is making strides in the right direction.

I expect it is a move in the right direction, but regardless, Intel isn't going to win the low power space over night. But I do expect them to make a serious dent over the next 5 years.