Elmer:
Easy, just look at what it cost to develop Itanium and the multi-billion dollar commitments, years ago. The sales, haven't been high enough to pay for that alone, yet.
So the not paying for its development is relatively easy to prove.
The not paying for process development is easy too. By the time they relase at a process node, that process has been in production for 2 to 3 years. By that point, it is a fully matured process, ergo, no development is needed.
Ditto for equipment. Even Intel states this from time to time ("using depreciated equipment on a mature process"). How any reasonable Intel booster could fail to see these points, just shows how out of touch they must be.
As for labor bonuses, options, etc., Intel puts them into "other" rather than portion them to each business unit. That is why "other" is such a large money losing "business". As long as the AMD64 (EMT64) side of the business makes lots of money, this is allowed to slide since all figure this is picked up by the "bottom line". Typical thinking that "profits cover many warts".
That is straight from their earnings reports, 8Ks and 10Ks. But you, supposedly a long time, viewer of such things, quickly forgets such notes, because they go against your rosy view.
If Itanium is making money, then why doesn't Intel seperate it into its own business unit? Because it would then become obvious to all that its a money loser, even after all of the breaks given to it. So they use the sweet smell from the AMD64 side to cover Itanium's stink.
Pete
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
