That's a fail argument, it simply means that Intel couldn't compete on price & basically gave their chips away for free, which is what they actually did. If anyone with a semblance of reason argues that this is fair & in the interest of consumers, long term, then I question their sanity & also this keeps AMD, a very viable alternative to Intel, out of the mobile/tablet market !
If Intel was using this to crush a competitor out of existence I'd be all upset too, but tbh they barely dented the tablet market, a market that Intel can't hope to out-price competitors in with all the Chinese manufacturers happy to exist on a small fraction of the profit margin Intel required. As a consumer I got a really really cheap 8 inch tablet with near all the bells and whistles of a top end one so I'm not complaining.
If you think that contra-revenue is all that's holding AMD back then I think you are dreaming. How much do you think Intel invested in R&D for these low power chips, AMD has no money and can't do that. After all that and their process node advantage Intel is still struggling to produce anything competitive (I suspect mostly because x86 is a massive drag). AMD would have no hope producing an x86 tablet.
A simpler solution would be what nvidia did - use ARM cpu's (which are just much better for tablets) and radeon graphics. That's a lot easier although probably still requires more investment then AMD possess, and like I said in a previous post probably required software skills AMD the company don't have.
Hence perhaps their best bet would have been to keep doing what they were doing originally - developing mobile graphics and licensing it out to anyone who wanted it. That would have kept them in the market for minimal cost, and all that work developing efficient mobile graphics would have greatly benefited their notebook and desktop gpu's.
Facebook
Twitter