nht

Mike Wuerthele said:

cropr said:

If one would show me the bar graph without the names and ask me where do you put your money I would not take the first one.  If company A invests 5% of its revenue in R&D and company B investes 10% of its revenue in R&D, I would prefer company B.  This company will launch in the future more innovative products and services

This is exactly the reason why this article justs proves the opposite that it tries to prove.  R&D efficiency in not a common benchmark in the business world and it is not without reason.   The logical error in the article is that R&D is about investments in future products and revenue is about current products. 

I don't think it was the intention of the author to prove that Apple is too much milking its current cash cow (read iPhone), but he unconsciously did.

Well, that's the problem right there, isn't it? The reason why I compared the financials, and put in nearly 20 years of data into the spreadsheets, is that this unnamed company for a long time has historically pulled out massive revenues on a relatively flat amount of spending.

Nobody invests in a vacuum. Nobody just looks at just the percentage to decide who to invest in. My issue has more to do with a lot of media jumping on reports of Apple's R&D and saying OH NO! APPLE IS SO FAR BEHIND AND MUST CATCH UP! -- that shows a lack of comprehension.

BigDann said:

tmay said:

BigDann said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

BigDann said:

>>> Almost... The truth is sometimes somewhere between! The sales force market is what Apple sold to, not the real heavy-weigh creatives! Apple saw the MacBook Air & MacBook (new) is what the sales force types want in size & weight with the performance of a MacBook Pro! Thats what Apple created and it sold to as it was the bigger market. <<< >>> If you are a real creative type or engineer the New MacBook Pro's fell short. They are the ones that have a big need in using ports and need gobs of RAM (video editing) This is the group Apple did not sell to. Apple needs to create a Pro's Pro (i'll call it the MacBook Pro-X) hitting all of the points Apple failed to address. <<< >>> Yes! The creative & engineering users are vocal as they are in need of better gear too! <<< >>> As an example the company I work for will be dropping 300+ MacBook Pro's and going to HP & Dell laptops. We just can't wait any more, 3 years in limbo! Our needs are ports Type A USB without dongles, removable storage (security) and long battery life. Within the next year or so I will likely loose my job because of the hardware switch. If Apple came out with the MacBook Pro-X I know the pro's would run and buy it. If it had come out in the spring our company would have bought replacements for what we have in the field and then some! And I would still a bright future supporting them all. <<<

A USB-C to USB-B cable is $6. USB-C to micro-USB-B is $5. No dongles required. If you need 300 of them, you can probably get them cheaper.

Removable storage you won't find with a drive that has the speed of the MacBook Pro SSD, and you won't find in HP or Dell's workstations. Apple's battery life is best in class. Regarding RAM, talk to Intel. Kaby Lake doesn't support 32GB of LPDDR3 RAM, and to get there with LPDDR4 is two chip generations away. Other machines that can do it use a separate controller, and you won't get MacBook Pro battery life.

The Dell i7 15-inch with 32GB of RAM, and a slower 512GB SSD? It's $2899. It has a four-hour battery life.

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it's not, your management and/or ownership are full of it and just want to be rid of Macs.

These Pros screaming for 32GB of RAM and beefy Apple hardware will need to put their money where their mouth is, and do it soon. The vast majority of Apple's market has spoken whether we like it or not. These Pros? They are in the low single-digits of 10 percent of Apple's business from a dollar perspective. At best, given Apple's own numbers, 0.5 percent, at best.

Mike I'm not disagreeing with you. Apple saw a market that was underserved and it struct it and hit pay dirt! No question about that.

As for USB-B to USB-C cables. That works for printers and other devices that have removable cables. It doesn't solve the USB thumb drives and devices that don't have removable cables. Sadly we have a lot.

As far as storage theres more to it than speed it's gaining access to the data when the system craps out as well as the security of the data when the system needs to be serviced. Some of us work on stuff thats very confidential! Which is why removable internal storage is a must. Apples new SSD using in the 13" function key model appears to offer both speed & removability, so it can be done. 

Our testing shows the Dell is 7~8 hours web surfing which is about the same for the MacBook Pro's using Chrome. So I'm not sure where you got 4 hours. Granted, this is not much of a load and in use. We can only get about 2hrs for either running CAD with our workloads in either. Which is why we need a bigger battery option. Right now we are using some external batteries when we have no choice. But they don't fit the USB-C port. I'm sure USB-C options will show up that will help but thats not now.

Yes, the heavy weight Pro market is much smaller but its also the group that made Apple Apple! If augmented reality (AR) is what Apple wants to get into its this group which will lead the pack. So if they can't do it with what Apple is selling were does that leave Apple?

Look at IBM with Watson this is a very expensive box and only a few 100 will be sold. Yet it will be what sets the mark in predictive analytical breakdown. I'm sure Apple has access to one or two for its AI efforts.

So big companies do see the value of small niche products that build sales indirectly. Apple needs to see the light here that this is no different! It's the development of the next big thing that it needs to nurture. Failing to do that will weaken its' importance as a leader.

As for the company I work for. They pleated directly with Apple quite a few times as they did not want to jump (they still don't want to). It was a very tough decision and was driven from the support staff not upper management. I know of one other mid-sized company that will likely do the same.

It's the small & mid-sized companies that don't have the deep pockets to rotate equipment like the bigger companies and they likewise want to squeeze out every ounce out of the gear they do buy or lease. This is the market Apple is loosing as in our case.

I disagree with you for the most part on what Apple should do for the market; your use case has "niche" written all over it, and you/your company doesn't seem to care to adapt, very fast anyway. "Pro's" are just as likely to resist change as any other computing segment; move on.

Purchase  USB Type C Thumb Drive; they are readily available.

Increase your battery life by using Safari instead of Chrome, which has a notorious reputation for poor battery life on an MBP, albeit Google has greatly improved it to date.

Solve your removable storage issue by using a USB Type C mass storage device, including a TB 3 one for performance
.
Use a different CAD system not laden with decades of legacy code, which most are, to increase battery life. A difficult transition, but otherwise, I'm not seeing the need for Apple to figure out why your CAD software is so power inefficient. What software do use you and what for?

I am reminded of the other concern that Pro's had; 32 GB of DRAM. For the most part, I see this as a requirement that they pulled out of their asses, with no actual, nor relevant testing to determine if it was even required. But some "Pro Creatives" did test, for video workflows as an example and did find that the top end MBP did just fine, and posted benchmarks and workflow to prove it. In fact, the only relevant concern I can see that is not covered by the Intel Roadmap in the near future, is the need for a top end MBP without the Touch Bar.

Finally, wrt the Mac Pro, Apple has hinted at a new form factor, with, I'm assuming, reasonable performance levels.

I would add, If the Mac Mini dies, it is because it has outlived it's usefulness as the utility of entry level PC's diminishes.

Sorry Guy we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

You have no idea the scale of change you are talking about here! You also don't follow we are on the cutting edge! We need more horse power as we are doing more and in most cases we are using the best software available.

You have this idea there are options in software there are none! We are using the best thats available.

A good 25% of the time we are hitting the 16GB RAM wall so 32GB would improve things for us, Some of the tools we use work better with more RAM.

danvm said:

nht said:

danvm said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

danvm said:

From what I understood, the people that had issues with dongles were not related to price, specially when you consider that they are ready to purchase a +$1300 MBP.  What they miss is the practicality of having the ports in the notebook.  

Removable storage you won't find with a drive that has the speed of the MacBook Pro SSD, and you won't find in HP or Dell's workstations. Apple's battery life is best in class. Regarding RAM, talk to Intel. Kaby Lake doesn't support 32GB of LPDDR3 RAM, and to get there with LPDDR4 is two chip generations away. Other machines that can do it use a separate controller, and you won't get MacBook Pro battery life.

The Dell i7 15-inch with 32GB of RAM, and a slower 512GB SSD? It's $2899. It has a four-hour battery life.

You point out some advantages the MBP have over the HP Z workstations and Dell Precisions (SSD performance, battery life), and I may add weight, size and trackpad.  But there are some benefits from HP and Dell workstations have over the MBP, as 32GB and 64GB of RAM, more ports, 3YR warranty standard with onsite support, discreet graphics in the 14" notebooks, spill resistant keyboard and 4K screens.  

If this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it's not, your management and/or ownership are full of it and just want to be rid of Macs.

These Pros screaming for 32GB of RAM and beefy Apple hardware will need to put their money where their mouth is, and do it soon. The vast majority of Apple's market has spoken whether we like it or not. These Pros? They are in the low single-digits of 10 percent of Apple's business from a dollar perspective. At best, given Apple's own numbers, 0.5 percent, at best.

I find interesting how HP and Dell, which have far less resources than Apple, make sure that small percentage of customers have a device that matches their needs and workflow, while, in your opinion, Apple should ignore them.  Too bad.

Don't attribute malice when there is none. I don't think that Apple should ignore them, and I am on record for saying that many, many times and I never said that here.

But, looking at the entire picture from the outside, it's pretty clear that's what's going on, and will continue to go on.

You're in a big business, given that 300 MBPs are headed to the scrapyard. You're telling me that 0.5 percent of your user base gets the same level of attention from a R&D standpoint that nine percent gets?

The complaints about the 2016 MBP started from the pros BEFORE THEY EVER HAD ONE, and one pro assumes that every other pro needs exactly the same thing which is ludicrous at its face. The complaints began literally, hour one after announcement. 

What IS my opinion is that the drama about no USB-A ports is overblown, and Thunderbolt 3 with USB-C is a far more flexible, far higher bandwidth port, with several technical advantages. It will serve the future much better than the 5GBps USB 3.1 type A port will in every regard.

There are no practicality concerns with it that can't be solved by a standard cable -- and that's the whole point of USB-C as the connector and not something wacky, is it not?

I apologize that I misunderstood your post.  Still, Apple did ignore the high end market in desktop and laptops.  The Mac Pro is the worst offender, while the Macbook remove many things high end customers consider important, like SD reader, USB 3.0, magesafe connector and a good keyboard.  

I agree with you that the issue with ports is overblown, but that's based in my line of work and workflow.  Like I posted before, I'm looking forward to have a MBP 13", since most of the things that were removed don't affect my workflow (all but the awful keyboard).  But you can't ignore when other people, in a different line of work with different needs, including professional users, are affected when USB 3.0 or the SD reader was removed from the MBP.  It's clear that USB-C is far more capable and it's the future, but looks like people wasn't ready to switch to it in an instant.

USB-C is USB 3.0 compatible.  You act as if they removed USB ports as opposed to added two more.  Anyone dependent on USB peripherals welcomes having 4 ports instead of 2.  

SD reader isn't really a pro requirement.  For example the Nikon D5 is CF or XQD. Canon uses CF and CFast.  Video is often on SSD sleds or CFast.  Studio shooters often just shoot tethered not muck around with SD cards.  

Folks shooting SD are mostly using mid-tier gear and not Pro gear.

I have a high end Dell laptop workstation.  It sits unused because it's too heavy to even want to haul into the field.  You need power anyway because the battery doesn't last long enough to matter.  If I gotta lug a generator on site it defeats the purpose of having a laptop. 

As a software engineer who also does FCPX for fun I call your assessment that the MBP isn't high end as bogus.

I suppose you didn't read my line "I agree with you that the issue with ports is overblown".  I see no issues at all with USB ports in the MBP, but other people do.

SD reader, as you said, may apply to mid-tier gear.  But still those users still need the SD reader on a MBP, and it's a valid request for their workflow.

I don't know what model of Precision you have, but the Dell Precision 5520 is ligher (3.96lbs) and thinner than the MBP 2017.   I read a few tests, and found to have an excellent battery life.  IMO, working with a notebook plugged in won't defeat it's purpose.  Many of them have notebooks because is more practical when traveling from home to work or visiting customers, not because they can work a whole day in battery.  

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution...   Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...

Intel may not be a high flyer.   Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year.   But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas...   Worrisome.

#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine.  Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.

What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into?  They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings.  Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.

This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:

"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. 

...

Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores

"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19

Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....

For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple:    You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor.  Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.

Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.  

But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...).   That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.

In other words, I see history repeating itself....

Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs.  This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.

This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM.  Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes.  Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes.  Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those.  Intel based servers have replace many of those.  Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.

For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT).  Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud".  Hence the I part of IoT.

Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.

You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.

Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM.  Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.

"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "

ROFL... Yep!  They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....

There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note.  The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks.  That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing.  They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line.  Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.

/shrug.

That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.  

Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway.  They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.  

" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks"
?

Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more.   And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....

Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer...    Will ARM based processors take over the server market?   Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe.  But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back.   Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation. 

Nope.

First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.

Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry.  They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.

Third, Intel's innovation has been with process.  Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort.  They are more successful at it than anyone else.  If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones.  Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.

It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...

But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process.   And, I agree that they have done well there.   Very well indeed.

No confusion.  A modern x86 processor bears about as much resemblance to the original 8086 as the A10 does the ARM2.

And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept.  Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm 

Sorry, but an I7 is nothing but a shrunken version of the original x86 with multiple cores.     

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

nht said:

GeorgeBMac said:

maestro64 said:

SpamSandwich said:

maestro64 said:

Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.

Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.

That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that. 

Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution...   Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...

Intel may not be a high flyer.   Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year.   But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas...   Worrisome.

#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine.  Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.

What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into?  They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings.  Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.

This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:

"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. 

...

Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores

"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19

Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....

For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple:    You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor.  Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.

Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.  

But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...).   That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.

In other words, I see history repeating itself....

Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs.  This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.

This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM.  Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes.  Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes.  Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those.  Intel based servers have replace many of those.  Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.

For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT).  Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud".  Hence the I part of IoT.

Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.

You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.

Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM.  Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.

"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "

ROFL... Yep!  They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....

There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note.  The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks.  That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing.  They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line.  Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.

/shrug.

That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.  

Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway.  They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.  

" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks"
?

Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more.   And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....

Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer...    Will ARM based processors take over the server market?   Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe.  But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back.   Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation. 

Nope.

First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.

Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry.  They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.

Third, Intel's innovation has been with process.  Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort.  They are more successful at it than anyone else.  If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones.  Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.

It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...

But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process.   And, I agree that they have done well there.   Very well indeed.