Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th May 2013 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Intel "It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.
Thread beginning with comment 562109
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Dependance ?
by Fergy on Sun 19th May 2013 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Dependance ?"
Member since:

Same could be said about the opposite: ARM's complete dominance.

And how would they do that? This is not meant to be rhetorical I just can't think of a way.
Could it happen that the arm v7 instruction set becomes a monopoly? If that happens would it be as difficult to move to a new architecture as x86 to arm? Are Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple and AMD just stupid to build on arm v7 when it could all disappear after the contract runs out? I imagine at least Apple would demand a perpetual licence. What does it matter then that arm v7 has a monopoly when everybody including Intel can use it for a fair price?

Reply Parent Score: 3