Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/Intel-slams-slow-iPhone-ARM-CPU/0,130061702,339292765,00.htm

I still think Intel screwed-up BIG time when they sold their embedded CPU's
(StrongARM, XScale) to Marvell. The idea was that future devices would be more
and more like PC's and that these should therefore have a 'real' Intel x86
processor. Now, several years later, it seems like Intel made the wrong decision
and is paying dearly for it. None of the newest mobile phones use an Intel
processor, and ARM continues its reign there, as the Intel embedded devices.

In the article, some Intel bloke is bitching that the iPhone should have had an
Intel processor instead of ARM. But the x86 is totally unsuitable for battery
powered handheld devices, and laptops using Intel processors rarely work more
than 2 hours if they are used under normal office working conditions.

I liked StrongARM and XScale, but Intel foolishly thought they could force OEM's
to use Intel processors in their devices. Wrong!! It looks they are going to
lose marketshare and become also-rans in the new netbook segment. Already, some
netbooks are popping up which use non-Intel Chinese MIPS processors and Intel's
foray into the embedded market is bound to falter.

Anyone agree with me that Intel made a mistake selling their embedded processors?


Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?

Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/Intel-slams-slow-iPhone-ARM-CPU/0,130061702,339292765,00.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it
(StrongARM, XScale) to Marvell. The idea was that future devices would be more
and more like PC's and that these should therefore have a 'real' Intel x86
processor. Now, several years later, it seems like Intel made the wrong decision
and is paying dearly for it. None of the newest mobile phones use an Intel
processor, and ARM continues its reign there, as the Intel embedded devices.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
an Intel processor instead of ARM. But the x86 is totally unsuitable for battery
powered handheld devices, and laptops using Intel processors rarely work more
than 2 hours if they are used under normal office working conditions.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
OEM's to use Intel processors in their devices. Wrong!! It looks they are going
to lose marketshare and become also-rans in the new netbook segment. Already,
some netbooks are popping up which use non-Intel Chinese MIPS processors and
Intel's foray into the embedded market is bound to falter.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope.
If you read that carefully, they are attacking the market from two
different directions.
Intel is Morphing the PC into something much more mobile, and the Phones
are morphing into Web-Browsing, video playing systems.

Intel's pathway give you the phone second, it comes almost for free,
whilst the other direction start as a phone, and morph towards something
more.
Of course, the Elephant in the room, NOT mentioned at all, is Power
and battery life.

Keep in mind, the processors we know about in the public domain, are
not the same as what intel is showing the phone and ultra-portable
designers for 2009 design wins.
By all reports, Intel's Atom is doing very well.

eg: this claim ["The overall processor market rose 14 per cent during
the third quarter, and 15.4 per cent on the year, to reach a value of
$8.3bn (5.25bn).
Much of this growth was down to strong demand for Intel's Atom processor
which registered shipment growth of nearly nine per cent.
"Not considering the effects of Atom, the overall market still grew at a
decent pace in the third quarter," ]

Notice that Apple changed from PowerPCB to Intel CPUs because of Intel's
R&D muscle and roadmap. - and managed that transistion surprisingly well.

Expect Apple to have an ultra-portable product with an intel CPU.

Plenty of room for both CPUs and differing applications morphs.

-jg




Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/Intel-slams-slow-iPhone-ARM-CPU/0,130061702,339292765,00.htm
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Absolutamente! You just mentioned the very reason why I and lots of
other people hold their wallets closed when it comes to "mobility". A
device that cannot rival the old Casio portable "type writers" that
could run weeks on a few AA cells just ain't worth it IMHO.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com /

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm finding myself tempting by an Eee PC at the moment, but battery
life is the one thing holding me back.  For all its limitations my
10 year old Newton's 30 hour battery life means that it is genuinelly
mobile.  Of course, if the batteries do happen to run out when you
are out and about you simply pick up a set of AA alkaline cells
from pretty much any newsagent or filling station - something you
lose out on when it seems every mobile device out there has its
own proprietrary rechargable battery.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lonestar.org

Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Same here. I would have bought one a long time ago but the battery
runtime is paltry. I do not see any benefit versus a low-end Dell where
there always seems to be some $399 deal.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's the other issue I'll never understand. You can get nice 2600mAh
NiMH, even some with low self-discharge. But no, everyone must have
their own variety. I bet nobody in those companies ever tries to figure
out how much in sales that is costing them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com /

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I also keep on wondering why so many market segments ignore
those amazing 2.6 Ah NiMH cells available nowadays.
 The camera market seems to have enforced them on the industry;
some of the top-class zoom cameras (I just watch only that segment)
tried to go vendor specific Liion at a moment but went back to
AA cells. I guess because being unable to replace your camera
is understood as unacceptable by at least one vendor and the
rest have followed the market success.

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276 /

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/0a1 =
8c9c1b4b3d0c9?dmode3D%source


Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

There are reasons for that:

1. The unique accessories are very profitable.
2. If you allow for the generic batteries, great many idiots will screw
up and will be complaining, trying to sue, or just bothering the
customer support.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com


Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Not if you lose sales because of it. For example, when in the market for
a digital camera all models with proprietary batteries were a clear
no-no for me, no deal. I didn't even look at those.

It is the same with water filtration, coffee makers, other technical
equipment. When a manufacturer chose a proprietary solution where it
clearly was not necessary I become suspicious and usually do not buy
that product or, worse for them, advise others not to buy it.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Got to have reverse polarity protection. Nikon seems to have mastered
that issue ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com /

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

People like you or me are not the "representative buyers" in the most of
cases. Consumer stuff is made mainly for little boys and girls from 18
to 25 y.o. who are not concerned at all.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

If there is more then one battery, get ready for all possible
combinations :)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's an extra FET plus few other components. Takes the board space and
expensive, too :)

VLV





Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

True, but make that 12-25. It is unbelievable how much buying power kids
under 18 have these days. Courtesy of their parents who are often
happily racking up credit card debt, big time.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I've done many designs for battery-operated gear. You can insert the AA
cells any which way you want. If you get it right the units will work,
if you have one of more inverted they will not work but also not die.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or a diode ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com /

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Or a diode plus a fuse if you cannot afford the voltage drop :-).

Didi

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276 /

Original message: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.arch.embedded/msg/b73 =
7f8337a0f4ac3?dmode3D%source

Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unless the fuse is a user replaceable item, it still means sending it
in for repair.  

And if it is replaceable, some fool will short it out.

What about a diode and a loud noise maker of some kind? :-)
--
ArarghMail811 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
How about a self resetting thermal fuse? Cost and size might be an issue.

Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Dito :-)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope. Diode in parallel and a polifuse :-)

VLV



Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Having developed some equipment for use by IQ-zero's I know that the
simplest reverse polarity protection is often a bridge rectifier (then
the equipment doesn't care about battery polarity). I also included
supply over-voltage protection as well. Board real-estate investment is
sometimes worth it to make the product dependable.

--
********************************************************************
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Since that involves a loss of about 1.4 V (using silicon diodes) it
requires a circuit that can operate on very low power, when the
power is limited to a single AA cell. :-)

Please don't remove attributes for quoted material.  I think I have
restored them, hopefully without error.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
 [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It can also be a liability - look at the flak Apple have taken over
ipod batteries.  I don't really think it's warranted - it seems to
me that it's simply that people don't appreciate rechargeables wear
out - but it creates a negative perception of the brand in any
case.  That's without even mentioning the various fire hazard laptop
battery issues over the last couple of years, although laptops
probably deserve their own batteries given the higher power demands
compared to a lot of portable equipment.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think most consumers have got to grips with generic batteries
given the amount of devices that use them.  Mass produced stuff
with custom moulded cases can easily arrange things so that it is
impossible to insert each cell with reversed polarity - only
accommodate the bump on the +ve cap at one end of the recess.  If
circumstances don't permit that, a reverse polarity protection
circuit is what?  One transistor and one resistor at a cost of
pennies and with negligible voltage drop.

When pandering to the idiots, it often seems that it is the
proprietary batteries that cause problems.  By definition, each
battery is different and it often isn't overly clear how each
particular style is supposed to clip or slide into position.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lonestar.org

Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Andrew Smallshaw schreef:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Most people don't care, by the time the battery goes dead the gadget has
been long since out of fashion. Or do you really think a iPhone will
impress anyone in two years from now?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The actual cells (typically 18650) used in the battery pack are often
exactly the same. But if your laptop battery dies after 3 or 4 years of
use you might be more tempted to buy a new laptop; a replacement battery
pack will be surprisingly expensive.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Another reason for using custom batteries is the form factor of device.

Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's the throw-away society mentality. Many people like me do not buy
into that concept. You'd be surprised about the legacy stuff out here
that is in top shape. A few radios from the 50's, a heavy piano from the
time Edison electric light hadn't been invented yet, etc.

Even in my lab you'll find tools such as this:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~postr/bapix/Dip_59.htm

Other than cell phones and laptops where you don't get a choice I
usually never buy a product if there is a similar one available that
lives with AA cells.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com /

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Did Intel screw up big time by selling its embedded processors?
Joerg schreef:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think you'd be surprised to see how much 'legacy' electronics I have
in my home. However I don't consider myself to be representative for the
majority of people. And whether I like it or not that is what most
products are aimed at, for understandable reasons.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Neither do I, but most people really don't give a damn.

Site Timeline