After losing Apple's iPad business, Intel has bled $7 billion while heavily subsidizing cheap x86 At

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 217
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,776member
    volcan wrote: »
    I am the epitome of SJ's intersection of technology and the graphic arts.

    ... that was 'liberal arts' ....
  • Reply 162 of 217
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,776member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    No, you simply fail to comprehend what's been said. You insist on defining flop as a revenue failure. Nexus models are intended as reference hardware platforms, and designed to highlight/promote new OS features, which they very successfully do. Revenue drivers in and of themselves is not the purpose.

    Of course the Nexus models don't attract strong consumer demand. They aren't designed to. They appeal to a small but vocal subset of Android users.: Those that think having the latest OS version is worth the user feature trade-offs provided by Google Android licensees.

    The OEM's provide the better storage options, the improved batteries, more intriguing designs, the different display options, the better camera's and the hardware promotion, but still based on the new OS features/integration and base hardware reference that Google provided as an outline thru the current Nexus product. That's the way it's supposed to work instead of Google stealing away their hardware sales with incredible hardware, lots of storage options, and creative design. So yeah the Nexus models are pretty successful, providing just what they're supposed to.

    Your inability to understand it so far doesn't make it less factual. If you go back again and read some of my comments again with a more open mind you might still get it.

    ... and no one actually liked this 'reference platform'? You really can't see the lunacy of your continued harping on about this can you?
  • Reply 163 of 217

    See how Intel's Anand Chandrasekher trash talks ARM.

     

  • Reply 164 of 217

    Intel can't lose money on business they never had.

  • Reply 165 of 217

    but but but...!

    She will be able to last a through a long famine period.

    Yep.

    She'll have a goodly supply of fat to see her through hard times. She probably wouldn't want to have a baby in those hard times, though.
  • Reply 166 of 217
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RichL View Post

     

     

    I'd love to see you back up such a blanket statement with some evidence. 

     

    For example, how many Nexus 5 units have been sold? What's the BoM cost of a Nexus 5? How much did R&D cost for LG?


     

    Nexus 5 are sold basically AT COST. Considering how much more expensive the Nexus 6 is, that's seems very obvious. Since none of those companies will publish numbers, your BS is as good as mine. But, the fact they upped the price massively on the Nexus line this years seems to bear the conclusion that those were sold at a loss.

  • Reply 167 of 217
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    So, in essence,there isn't really any need for Nexus branded tablets at all as the OEM's are perfectly capable of providing timely delivery of the latest Android update, and in hardware defined for the most discerning user.




    Hence it's a resounding failure, both as originally intended and financially. Of course someone will continue to grasp at straws but I don't think people here will be that dumb to believe it.

  • Reply 168 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    Google has a 'stated purpose' for Nexus? I'd like a link to that.
    Of course:
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/android-be-together-not-same.html

    "Advances in computing are driven at the intersection of hardware and software. That's why we’ve always introduced Nexus devices alongside our platform releases. Rather than creating software in the abstract, we work with hardware partners to build Nexus devices to help push the boundaries of what's possible. Nexus devices also serve as a reference for the ecosystem as they develop on our newest release."

    Ars also published an article back in June based on interviews with the Nexus program manager.
    http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/nexus-program-manager-says-nexus-devices-cant-ever-go-away/
    "The whole idea of Nexus was, we did it for two reasons: one is to actually have a physical device that we're working with, but the other was sort of like a statement of purity," Burke told Ars. "It's like, here's how when we were designing Android and creating different frameworks and APIs and user experience, here's how we think it should look. It's a starting point."

    Burke was adamant that development of Android would be much more difficult without Nexus hardware to test against'. "I think of my team, and there's two outputs: there's the open-source code we make available and everyone uses, and then there's Nexus devices, and there's no way I could do open-source code without a Nexus device," Burke said. "You just can't get all the bugs, you can't actually experience it, you've got to live and breathe it day-in and day-out... So the idea of a Nexus device will never go away, can't ever go away... So I think Nexus continues to be very important for Android."

    Burke also said that the team would continue to release new versions of Android alongside new Nexus hardware, as has become customary. "I don't see why we would change that," he said. "Otherwise, if there was no Nexus device, I'd have to launch something on existing Nexus devices, and eventually in a couple years those devices would be out of date and then what do I do? I wouldn't be able to be sure that when I was open-sourcing code that it would actually work."
  • Reply 169 of 217
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Oh here we go again...

    Let's look at the problems:
    1. Intel
    2. Microsoft

    Intel's problem is that the x86 architechure was not designed for mobile devices, and Intel didn't care about power consumption, nor AMD, until they hit the brick wall at 4Ghz. Also Itanium (mockingly referred to as Itanic.)

    Microsoft's problem is that they tried to put a desktop OS into a tablet, by replacing the "program manager"(Windows 3.x reference) with Explorer(Windows 95/NT4), and then with Internet Explorer (Win98), and then pulling it back out again with Windows XP, Vista and 7, and then switching to a completely different unintuitive interface that is unusable on a non-touch device.

    In both cases, Intel and Microsoft's arrogance caused a reversal of fortune. AMD beat Intel to the punch with x86-64 chips, and Apple ate Microsoft's lunch on mobile devices, even though Microsoft had mobile device software out since Windows CE.

    The thing "investor" people keep spewing out however is how everyone will want dirt cheap unusable Android devices. Look at what Android has been pushed on already
    1. Phones
    2. Tablets
    3. GoogleTV


    Nobody who makes any of these devices is adding any value by using Android, an in the case of GoogleTV, I'd rather go out of my way to avoid these SmartTV's like I avoided 3D TV's.

    Android is good for absolutely nothing. It's a gum and bailing wire solution to kill the blackberry, a device only business people were even buying, when iOS came out and it turns out that's what people wanted, suddenly it was a mad rush to copy it. The iPhone and iPad are the Luxury devices. Like other Luxury brands, those who can afford it, will pay for it, because that's what they want. Those that don't see the value in it, won't buy it. Android devices have no consistency. Some Android's are the equivalent of gluing car doors to a golf cart, while some others have equally powerful engines and are well built, but because it has the baggage of being "Android" it's adding a 500lb brick to the car that causes the fuel milage to go down. Developers hate Android because they can't just port their iOS projects to it because of all the Java garbage.

    So why is Intel producing chips for Android devices that nobody wants to develop for?
  • Reply 170 of 217
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Google has a 'stated purpose' for Nexus? I'd like a link to that.
    Of course:
    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/android-be-together-not-same.html

    "Advances in computing are driven at the intersection of hardware and software. That's why we’ve always introduced Nexus devices alongside our platform releases. Rather than creating software in the abstract, we work with hardware partners to build Nexus devices to help push the boundaries of what's possible. Nexus devices also serve as a reference for the ecosystem as they develop on our newest release."

    Not quite. You completely ignored -- but I am sure, did not miss -- my other two questions.

    (You 'also' appear to have missed a key word in making your exaggerated claim about Google's stated purpose, but that's a minor point -- I am throwing this in to see if you'll predictaby respond to just this, thus ignoring my reminding you of the two questions you ignored).
  • Reply 171 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    tmay wrote: »
    So, in essence,there isn't really any need for Nexus branded tablets at all as the OEM's are perfectly capable of providing timely delivery of the latest Android update, and in hardware defined for the most discerning user.

    C'mon. He's just moving the goalposts so that Google scores. The end zone now starts at the 40 yard line for the Nexus.

    matrix07 wrote: »

    Hence it's a resounding failure, both as originally intended and financially. Of course someone will continue to grasp at straws but I don't think people here will be that dumb to believe it.

    See the previous post for a Google explanation of what purpose the Nexus program serves. After reading it you should realize it's simple common-sense.
  • Reply 172 of 217
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    This was a Digitimes article no?

     


     

    Actually, no.

     

    This one was highly accurate.

     

    ;)

  • Reply 173 of 217
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    Not quite. You completely ignored -- but I am sure, did not miss -- my other two questions.

    (You 'also' appear to have missed a key word in making your exaggerated claim about Google's stated purpose, but that's a minor point -- I am throwing this in to see if you'll predictaby respond to just this, thus ignoring my reminding you of the two questions you ignored).
    Google's blogs and their Nexus Program lead discuss why Nexus devices are needed.
    The number of sales of any particular Nexus model and the revenue from them has no bearing on why Google has to have them built. They're not designed to be revenue drivers.

    So no your questions weren't ignored. If you read my entire post they were addressed in the quotes I provided explaining why Nexus models are created.
    1: They might be "flops" if the goal was simply making Nexus models successful commercial products. They're not. The commercially successful products are left to the Android partners to design and sell (with various degrees of success).
    2: Googles' engineer explains why they are a necessary component of the Android development program. and how they successfully fill the need for an actual hardware reference platform as a "proving ground" so to speak.

    It's not as hard to understand as several members here are making it so I'm becoming convinced that a few here simply refuse to give up a talking point that Nexus models are a "flop". They insist on purporting to know better how to gauge the success of the Nexus program than Google does. A good start would be first understanding why it exists.
  • Reply 174 of 217
    gatorguy wrote: »

    Google's blogs and their Nexus Program lead discuss why Nexus devices are needed.
    The number of sales of any particular Nexus model and the revenue from them has no bearing on why Google needs to have them built. They're not designed to be revenue drivers.

    So your questions weren't ignored. They were addressed in the quotes I provided explaining why Nexus models are created. 1: They might be "flops" if the goal was simply making Nexus models successful commercial products. They aren't built for that reason. The commercial successful products are left to the Android partners to design and sell (with various degrees of success). 2: Googles' engineer explains why they are a necessary component of the Android development program. and how they successfully fill the need for an actual hardware reference platform as a "proving ground" so to speak.

    Ok. So, Nexus sales aren't all that great because it's also meant to serve some larger objective. And two, there's no way really tell if that larger objective has been met except for a statement from a Google employee. Got it.
  • Reply 175 of 217
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Googles' engineer explains why they are a necessary component of the Android development program. and how they successfully fill the need for an actual hardware reference platform as a "proving ground" so to speak.

     

    Yet they made one serious mistake this year. They introduced a 64bit tablet and a 32bit phone. Is Google telling us that phones should be 32bit and tablets should be 64bit? How can developers utilize Nexus devices as a "hardware reference platform" when they didn't even give them the same processor architecture?

  • Reply 176 of 217
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,398member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     

     

    Yet they made one serious mistake this year. They introduced a 64bit tablet and a 32bit phone. Is Google telling us that phones should be 32bit and tablets should be 64bit? How can developers utilize Nexus devices as a "hardware reference platform" when they didn't even give them the same processor architecture?


    After Gatorguy's latest pass at an answer, I'm beginning to see that Nexus to Google is an internal platform for software test and development created by a single OEM. The intent isn't a hardware reference platform at all. That said, I'm not surprised that Google would sell these to developers, but selling these to the public seems to have shown that Nexus needs curating: the Nexus 9 is an embarrassment as a flagship device for the public. Whether it is a failure or not really concerns perspective, but as it is sold to the public, it looks a failure.

  • Reply 177 of 217
    If history repeats maybe Apple ARM may have a few more years of life. Last time when Apple was involved with designing CPUs it lasted about 12 years (PowerPC from 1994-1996) so wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself. Perhaps the only thing that will save it is OS X optimization, but that won't probably happen since apple enjoys making money selling millions of useless apps on stupidly limited iOS.

    iPad sales are declining because 1) the market is saturated and 2) iPhone 6 Plus is cannibalizing it and no wonder considering that the 6 Plus has the same processor, way smaller (but big enough), lighter, better camera, higher PPi, applePay and fits in the pocket, and doesn't bend as easly as the Air 2:) iPad is just too big and clunky of a device for its usefulness.
  • Reply 178 of 217
    Yeah, like AMD closed the gap. You only have so much time to close the gap before you become irrelevant.
    ascii wrote: »
    Intel will close the gap eventually. Chip design is not magic and they are not stupid. And while they're playing catch up, they have to keep an x86 ecosystem alive in that space, hence the subsidies.

    Yeah, like AMD closed the gap. You only have so much time to close the gap before you become irrelevant.
  • Reply 179 of 217
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Limited distribution, largely thru Google themselves? No advertising or promotion? Additional and useful consumer features reserved for the licensee version of that same general Nexus model, ie LG G3 is the enhanced Nexus 5? That's three I can come up with off the top of my head. Again it's not about whether a Nexus model is better both feature and hardware-wise than the followup licensee models that build on/improve the reference design and OS version.



    The Nexus program has a specific stated purpose and competing with licensees, a requisite and harmful side-effect if they were intended as commercial successes, is not it. I'm very surprised it's not as obvious to you.

     

    They have advertised them on Australian TV and sell them in some of the stores here, where they languish near the iPads.

  • Reply 180 of 217
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gimarbazat View Post



    If history repeats maybe Apple ARM may have a few more years of life. Last time when Apple was involved with designing CPUs it lasted about 12 years (PowerPC from 1994-1996) so wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself. Perhaps the only thing that will save it is OS X optimization, but that won't probably happen since apple enjoys making money selling millions of useless apps on stupidly limited iOS.



    iPad sales are declining because 1) the market is saturated and 2) iPhone 6 Plus is cannibalizing it and no wonder considering that the 6 Plus has the same processor, way smaller (but big enough), lighter, better camera, higher PPi, applePay and fits in the pocket, and doesn't bend as easly as the Air 2:) iPad is just too big and clunky of a device for its usefulness.

     

    You forgot to say that Apple doesn't give a crap if the 6+ plus canibalises its own tablets (and the few other high end tablets) since their margins on the 6+ most people buy are more than twice those of the tablets most people use... BTW, the whole tablet goes downmarket and Apple simply goes down 5-10% in sales (which seems to be the case this year), that's still a big win for Apple since that means their share of the Tablet market profit will top 90% (and maybe even 95%!!!). How will those other makers make good products in the future if they are ALL losing money or making pitances?

Sign In or Register to comment.