Replies to post #114156 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[mmoy]

> For instance, it waited until AMD introduced 64-bit processors
> before making its own x86 64 bit version.

Intel's plan was for 64-bit computing to go on Itanium. That didn't work so well because of software compatibility issues - which is why AMD's approach worked so well. Ironically, that's what Microsoft is doing now with Windows RT.

[wbmw]

And now with low power mobile devices, Intel was leading the field in low power notebook processors, but chose to delay introduction of its own much-lower-power processors until the market grew much larger.

I don't think there was an intentional delay. The growth of the phone and tablet market took everyone by surprise - and I would argue it even took Apple by surprise! I'm sure they had hoped iPhone and iPad would be a success, but I believe it even exceeded their wildest dreams. So how could Intel have known back in 2007 how big this market would be? They expected Moorestown and Medfield to be able to play this market by 2010-11, but then they realized it wasn't enough, and they had to redirect a much stronger design effort.

It's exactly how you would expect a large company to react. They have been executing down a specific path for several years now - but it takes that long to develop new designs in the semiconductor industry. Naive, impatient investors can't wait as long as it takes to develop a microprocessor, so they take their shares elsewhere. The only thing I didn't expect was for long term veterans in the technology field on this forum to forget these basic principles, and jump along with the other lemmings.

[pilgrim68]

Two problems still make "low power" atoms an issue for Intel.
1-Proprieary systems (big players Apple Samsung)
2-low processor value

Seems it would be more profitable to just do contract manufacturing. This is a market more akin to gadgets not computer systems which need tailoring for a specific user application.