Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 12th Jan 2013 22:53 UTC
Windows Well, this can't be a good sign. Samsung has told CNET that the company will not be launching its Windows RT tablet in the United States, citing a lack of demand and consumer confusion. After I spent an afternoon in my country's largest electronics retailer, it's hard not to agree with Samsung.
Thread beginning with comment 548593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by ze_jerkface on Sun 13th Jan 2013 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

Intel needs to be weakened in the PC space, they lack effective competition, they charge very high prices. Windows on ARM creates pressure on Intel.


Charge high prices? You think $50 for a dual core cpu is too high? That's the price of dinner for two in the US and that cpu can easily last you 10 years. It also provides more computing power than a $5000 server cpu could offer 10 years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by saso on Sun 13th Jan 2013 14:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

You think $50 for a dual core cpu is too high?

That's about twice what nVidia charges for a 1.3GHz Tegra 3 quad-core CPU: http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/pages/Low-End-Google-Nexus-7-...
So yes, $50 is overpriced.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by ze_jerkface on Sun 13th Jan 2013 18:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Yawn.... a comparison to ARM, how surprising.

$50 over 10 years = $5 per year. Businesses spend more on toilet paper.

How many industries offer you products that exponentially increase in power while decreasing in price?

Calling Intel cpus overpriced is the epitome of First World Problems.
http://first-world-problems.com/

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by WereCatf on Sun 13th Jan 2013 14:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Charge high prices? You think $50 for a dual core cpu is too high?


Well, that nets you a low-end Celeron processor with very, very poor GPU and no extras. For less than $50 you could in theory buy a quad-core ARM-processor with a more powerful GPU, integrated DSP capable of hardware encoding and decoding a handful of different codecs, usually there's WIFI/bluetooth/SATA/etc. integrated -- think of lower cost for the motherboard thanks to fewer needed components -- and lower thermal output.

Of course, they're not directly comparable, but generally ARM SoCs net you a lot more features and speed than a similarly-priced Intel-processor. On the other hand, ARM-vendors do not sell their SoCs to individual people and there are no motherboards to slap them on to, so I wonder how much of the asking price for the Intel-processors come from all the logistics and packaging needed to sell to end-users -- I doubt it's an entirely negligible amount.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by saso on Sun 13th Jan 2013 14:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

On the other hand, ARM-vendors do not sell their SoCs to individual people and there are no motherboards to slap them on to, so I wonder how much of the asking price for the Intel-processors come from all the logistics and packaging needed to sell to end-users -- I doubt it's an entirely negligible amount.

ARM doesn't have a machine architecture standard such as x86 has (IBM PC), so no wonder there is little to no homebrew when compared to x86. At a fundamental level, from a software perspective, every PC looks the same. There's a BIOS mapped at a certain address which has certain standard functions you can invoke, every PC has a standard ISA and (later) PCI bus interface that is largely probed in the same way, etc. ARM lacks that. Even a single ARM CPU model can be implemented and firmware-coded to wildly different behavior (which is why bootloaders and firmware blobs are often times highly vendor-specific).

IBM's (and their clone maker's) contribution is easily taken for granted, but it was by no means a small thing in the industry.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by ze_jerkface on Sun 13th Jan 2013 19:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Well, that nets you a low-end Celeron processor


A $50 dual-core Sandy Bridge Celeron will beat a $1000 Core 2 Duo from 5 years ago. What bastards they are selling for me that much power for the price of dinner at Applebee's.

For less than $50 you could in theory buy a quad-core ARM-processor with a more powerful GPU


In theory I could buy it but I couldn't run my software on it so there really is no savings for me, now is there?

Bashing Intel over prices is just freaking silly. If you want to see market without competition then have a look at the US cable market. Intel not only competes with AMD and Intel but also with their existing cpus. It's not like cable TV where you have to pay for it every month and when you stop paying your hands are empty.

Reply Parent Score: 2