Fpg, let me get this straight. Your theory is that Intel's contra-revenue payment is more like a cash incentive to accept a less compelling product, and in spite of having explained the BOM issue multiple times to you, you insist that there is some other aspect that's uncompetitive - but you won't go out on a limb to say where Intel is deficient.
I tend to call that FUD. You make up a problem, without direct proof, and instead of pointing to any kind of smoking gun (such as a review showing poor performance or short battery life), you use ad hom attacks on people who question your lack of direct correlation (I.e. telling me that I'm too naive to recognize the problem that you yourself can't seem to clearly articulate).
It's utterly shameful that you would write numerous posts vigorously defending a position that you've not even once logically articulated. It's all hearsay and speculation. If I were to agree with you, I'd have to accept that for no other rational reason, the OEM's just don't like Intel, but would be willing to commit a design win if Intel cuts them a check off the side.
Of course, just saying it out loud sounds ridiculous. This OEM would have to be a little crazy to build the design, if there are more competitive SoC's to choose from. If I'm to accept your notion that Intel can't compete of their own merit - but they can compete with a $10 or $15 subsidy - then you'd have to do a lot better at finding the smoking gun, or rather the aspect of Intel's design that makes it so unappealing that they'd have to undersell even Mediatek and Allwinner to get the design.
Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
