Everything you are unhappy about is restricted primarily to smartphones which is at this point an insignificant part of Intel's revenue base.
I am unhappy about both smartphones as well as tablets. At least the data today seems to suggest that the Microsoft tablet ecosystem is a small fraction of the overall tablet ecosystem, and going forward, I expect new growth to come at the expense of PC's. In other words, people buying future Windows tablets will likely buy them in lieu of a Windows PC. Given that the value prop of a Windows tablet is the legacy compatibility with Windows based productivity apps, I see no reason why someone would want a Windows tablet *in addition to* a Windows PC. Rather, they would buy the tablet and dock it when in a productivity or business environment.
Meanwhile, Android tablets is a large, untapped business for Intel, but as I said in my last post, it's a kingdom of fiefdoms, belonging to Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google Nexus devices, and the China ecosystem. Not much outside of these has any relevant volumes.
And yet, Intel's best chance of an ecosystem play with Samsung evaporated when Samsung switched back to Exynos for their next Galaxy Tab.
Although, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind if Intel is able to show meaningful design wins - Amazon, Nexus, et al. But I haven't seen it yet, and we're several months into the Bay Trail product line with nothing in the Android space to show for it. And you say I am being emotional about it - but all I want is for someone to point to some progress.
A lot of your change in position seems related to the Tegra K1. I don't get this either. It's mainly a graphics advance and one that doesn't have much impact on Intel. Maybe you can explain this too.
nVidia's announcement had no direct effect on my opinion. But indirectly, they used CES as an opportunity to show the world some leadership features and demonstrations. Intel had the same opportunity, but instead of talking about tablets, they showed demos of 3D cameras and baby monitors sewn into clothing.
I would have preferred they showed how to make money off of these things. For 3D cameras, I haven't seen a demo that particularly cries out to me as a "must-have" use-case. They tried to explain how it helps with "Immersive Collaboration", but a better example of that would have been a demo between a conference center and a bunch of people with tablets in an environment where 3D body tracking somehow made sense. Problem is, I can't think of an example of where it makes sense, and I don't think anyone else can, either. So I wonder why they demonstrated a gimmicky and useless technology, when they could have shown some progress in their development pipeline like nVidia did.
As for baby's clothes, yes that does sound useful. But how much money will Intel make on the sale? Probably less than a buck - or even less than a quarter. That's the going price of these kinds of embedded products. No one is going to buy clothes for their baby with a $100 premium, even if it does monitor them remotely.
And so - how does Intel make money in this business? I was hoping they could tell us, but I guess that's up for investors to just "believe" as well, right?
You seem like a really bright guy which makes your sudden 180 turn even more incomprehensible to me. I'd like to know what I'm missing.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
