Intel has $55.9B record year, ships 46M tablets

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
Lonyo said:
So you also think NV (Tegra), Microsoft (Bing, Xbox, Surface), Sony (Playstation 3/4) and Google (Android) are bad for subsidising lossmaking products?

Yes or no, simple question.
Click to expand...
Consoles have always been driven by their software (game) sales, totally different business model, so NO as far as consoles are concerned.

Bing, MS's answer to Google, much like their hip idea of a PS competitor, but again it's not a commodity & strictly speaking it is a service nothing more, so definitely NO.

As for Tegra, sure it doesn't have any place in the market if it doesn't deliver on the promises made & at a certain effective price. But then again Tegra is Nvidia's biggest enemy at this point in time.

Android :hmm: doesn't Google make money on it through ads, yes it does :biggrin:

Surface, latest gen loss making ? Need to do some more background check :p
 
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
So the fact that even with game sales overall Xbox was loss making, but just used to get Microsoft into the market doesn't matter because the business model is to lose money on hardware and eventually make it back on software sales.

While for Intel, making a loss on sales to eventually make it back on hardware sales when they have a better product is bad.
And I'm the one who needs to call a spade a spade?

MS release a product which is unlikely to ever make profit purely to get marketshare so their second generation product can make profit as it will have more mind and marketshare. (Overall the Xbox 1 business model was never going to make a profit, ignoring the hardware loss vs software revenues, the overall combination wasn't profitable, therefore it was purely a lossmaking venture).
That's fine according to you when you don't bother to look at my point.

Intel releases a product which won't make a profit purely to get marketshare so their next gen product can make profit.
That's bad.

See where I'm going?

MS didn't expect to make Xbox 1 profit ever. Because they expected a loss due to high costs to enter the console market, but were willing to take losses on Gen 1 in order to make profit with Gens 2 and onwards.
But when Intel do it, that's bad.

As for Sony, they sold the PS3 at a high loss but included a Bluray player partly to get Bluray to have marketshare. Distorting the market and killing HD-DVD.
And Bluray had nothing to do with making back profit on software sales.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-ceo-discusses-hd-product-lines-blue-ray-and-ps3
Another un-named executive from Sony said that the company's Blu-Ray campaign would place the console on much more of an even keel against Microsoft's Xbox 360 and suggested a lower price point than that hinted at by Ken Kutaragi.

"The reason Sony has suddenly gained support for Blu-ray is simple," the executive said.

PS3 is a subsidised Blu-Ray play that will sell 20 million units. The first HD player will be on the market for USD 1,000. PS3 could be at USD 300 or USD 400. Sony will be selling them at a loss the first six months to a year just to get Blu-Ray players out in the market."
Click to expand...
But that's fine. Kill HD DVD with your subsidised Bluray player. R0H1T is happy with that. No market distortion there.

(My bad for putting PS3/4, not sure why I did that).
 
Last edited:
R

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
Seriously though you're comparing software, services to consumer electronics & personal computing business, really?

And did you completely, again, miss the part about driving other manufactures into oblivion ? It's not like Intel is trying to fill a vacuum, most of your other illustrations dealt with first/second to market or first in creating a new segment in the given market.
But that's fine. Kill HD DVD with your subsidised Bluray player. R0H1T is happy with that. No market distortion there.

(My bad for putting PS3/4, not sure why I did that).
Click to expand...
Did anyone stop MS from including HD DVD players inside the xbox 360, why was it sold as a separate add-on ?
 
Last edited:
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
Anon_lawyer said:
only really care about the impact on AMD, Qualcomm, Mediatek or any other competitors to the extent that the consequence is not only harmful to consumers but harmful enough to outweigh the benefit. So far I see no reason to believe there is any risk of that.
Click to expand...

The impact on AMD can be estimated to 300 millions$ sales lost because of this practice.

When we look at the last quarters neither Apple, Samsung or Qualcomm was impacted the slightest way since they enjoyed tremendous growth, Mediatek i dont know but certainly to some extent.

Contrary to what Intel is saying most of thoses subsided BT goes in Windows tablets, just check the offerings on Amazon, it makes no doubt that AMD was the main target, contra revenues were announced one month after AMD s CTO announced that they would beat the competition in all front for tablets APUs, wich happened, yet 8 months later there s not a single design using the best chip for such usage, surely it is by chance according to the usual, and numerous, Intel apologists, that s the great firm they are selling us, a firm that bribes OEMs when they are lacking technicaly speaking, innovation in shenanigans...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7974/...hitecture-a10-micro-6700t-performance-preview

They were afraid of market perception and recognition that AMD woudl had enjoyed thanks to their Mullins chip, so they ressorted to thoses despicable practices in the waiting of their next gen chip.

Lisa Su should adress this issue as an urgent point, the problem for AMD is that if they sue Intel they will have to get their own customers, particularly Asus, sued as well, retaliatory measures could be dreadfull, that s the only reason AMD did nothing, it s not because A%D said nothing that this is legal, as assumed by the Intel supporters...
 
Last edited:
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
R0H1T said:
Seriously though you're comparing software, services to consumer electronics & personal computing business, really?

And did you completely, again, miss the part about driving other manufactures into oblivion ? It's not like Intel is trying to fill a vacuum, most of your other illustrations dealt with first/second to market or first in creating a new segment in the given market.
Click to expand...

Consoles aren't consumer electronics now?
Surface isn't consumer electronics?

Are you also saying that the smartphone and tablet markets haven't grown significantly over the past 2 years?
Why does someone have to be trying to fill a vacuum? What console market vacuum existed? The fact that there were only 2 players? There's a minimum number of market participants for something to be a vacuum or not a vacuum?

Name a player in the market Intel has "driven into oblivion" since contra-revenue started, except for AMD who it drove into oblivion years ago due to other business practices and is now unable to compete anyway and where AMD has zero ability to be present in the smartphone market.

I know you want to harp on about AMD, but that damage was already done a long time ago, and rehashing it now doesn't make it the fault of Intel's current business practices, but their previous ones which have been dealt with by things like a $1b fine.

G%7BPU%20Inside.png

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/mobile-devices-and-the-gpus-inside/
Intel is making anyone head to oblivion? With 3% marketshare? Really? Intel? (Yes, that's GPU based, but they all have GPUs, and if Intel GPUs are only in Intel SOCs, then Intel have 3% of the SOCs).

There is also market consolidation. In 2013 there were over four dozen semiconductor suppliers producing application processors, today there are a little over three dozen.
Click to expand...
Intel is driving people into oblivion, totally. Not the big guys buying the little guys, or little guys having to band together because of people like Samsung or Qualcomm or Mediatek or the real big players in the market, of which Intel currently isn't one.
 
Last edited:
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
Lonyo said:
Name a player in the market Intel has "driven into oblivion" since contra-revenue started, except for AMD who it drove into oblivion years ago due to other business practices and is now unable to compete anyway and where AMD has zero ability to be present in the smartphone market.

I know you want to harp on about AMD, but that damage was already done a long time ago, and rehashing it now doesn't make it the fault of Intel's current business practices, but their previous ones which have been dealt with by things like a $1b fine.

G%7BPU%20Inside.png

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/mobile-devices-and-the-gpus-inside/
Intel is making anyone head to oblivion? With 3% marketshare? Really? Intel? (Yes, that's GPU based, but they all have GPUs, and if Intel GPUs are only in Intel SOCs, then Intel have 3% of the SOCs).
Click to expand...

This says that despite a better chip than Intel AMD has not captured the slightest small bit of the pie during Q3 14, this is the result of contra revenue, yet you re using this slide as a prove that AMD has no market share anyway....


http://www.anandtech.com/show/7974/...hitecture-a10-micro-6700t-performance-preview

Why there is no design using this chip..?.
Because it s too good compared to even Qualcomm offering.?.
Or because it s dedicated only to Windows tablets and that this market has been flooded by free chips and truck loads of subsides..?.
 
ehume

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,511
73
91
Well, I needed a replacement laptop. I only use a laptop once a year, so I wanted to get a cheap one. Microsoft sold me an HP Stream 11 Signature Edition -- the one without the bloatware -- for $179 after Christmas. It performs well for web browsing and pdf reading. So I am happy that Intel and MS subsidized this. It will be able to run all day, so I will no longer be tethered to the wall.

This was a Good Enough laptop that finally has what I need. I can use my Windows stuff, for example. I have no interest in a non-Windows environment. If Intel's subsidies allow them to produce a better unit at 10nm, good.

I see this as no different from airlines low-balling their fares on certain routes to discourage competitors. In the long run, though, if they try to sell laptops at high prices, I just won't buy them. This is what people who criticize Intel's current moves miss: if Intel misses -- either by making an unsatisfactory SOC or by failing in some other way to make it into this market -- there will always be a substitute. In this market, there will always be a competitor.
 
R

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
Lonyo said:
Consoles aren't consumer electronics now?
Surface isn't consumer electronics?

G%7BPU%20Inside.png

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/mobile-devices-and-the-gpus-inside/
Intel is making anyone head to oblivion? With 3% marketshare? Really? Intel? (Yes, that's GPU based, but they all have GPUs, and if Intel GPUs are only in Intel SOCs, then Intel have 3% of the SOCs).
Click to expand...
Consoles are all about software (game) sales remember? When was the last time you saw anyone buy a console & switch to another one in month or two, some exclusive titles pretty much decide what console a given consumer will buy.

Surface, yes if it's a continually failing venture (probably because Intel isn't giving MS the same discount it gives to Apple?) then it should be canned, so yes bad overall.

I thought Baytrail was all about tablets, so what happened to all the 46m netbook err tablet chips sold? What you're probably talking about is Clovertrail, even with contra revenues that ship has sunk so not much to add there. Maybe you should first separate facts from misleading facts or selective stats.
 
Last edited:
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Abwx said:
This says that despite a better chip than Intel AMD has not captured the slightest small bit of the pie during Q3 14, this is the result of contra revenue, yet you re using this slide as a prove that AMD has no market share anyway....
Click to expand...

In what way does AMD have a "better chip"?
 
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
I give up.
You refuse to read my points about basic market entry in a market with high barriers to entry, which consoles and electronics are.

I don't give the slightest crap about the fact that consoles rely on software sales to make profit, THAT WASN'T RELEVANT TO MY POINT, WHICH YOU APPARENTLY REFUSE TO READ.
Microsoft sunk money into the original Xbox never expecting any return on either hardware or software sales sufficient to cover the costs purely to get marketshare.
Intel are sinking money into Baytrail with no expectation of return purely to get marketshare.
SAME GODDAMN CONCEPT. HOW YOU MAKE THE MONEY BACK EVENTUALLY IS IRRELEVANT. THEY ARE MONEYSINKING A GEN 1 PRODUCT TO GET MARKET SHARE TO MAKE THE MONEY BACK WITH GEN 2 OR 3. THAT IS THE COMPARISON I AM MAKING.

You also talk about Surface being bad because it's a failing venture, but you don't say it's bad because of MS subsidising it.

Now you're saying Intel's contra-revenue is killing competitors, but apparently now only in tablets, even thought the smartphone market is way larger, and apparently Intel has zero presence in it, so how are they killing anyone?
Who needs to separate facts from misleading or partial facts? You do too. So tell me, WHO IS INTEL KILLING IN THE MARKET (apart from the company that was never there, aka AMD).


And did you completely, again, miss the part about driving other manufactures into oblivion ?
Click to expand...

WHO HAVE THEY DRIVEN INTO OBLIVION??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!????????????????????
 
Arachnotronic

Arachnotronic

Lifer
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
ehume said:
Well, I needed a replacement laptop. I only use a laptop once a year, so I wanted to get a cheap one. Microsoft sold me an HP Stream 11 Signature Edition -- the one without the bloatware -- for $179 after Christmas. It performs well for web browsing and pdf reading. So I am happy that Intel and MS subsidized this. It will be able to run all day, so I will no longer be tethered to the wall.

This was a Good Enough laptop that finally has what I need. I can use my Windows stuff, for example. I have no interest in a non-Windows environment. If Intel's subsidies allow them to produce a better unit at 10nm, good.

I see this as no different from airlines low-balling their fares on certain routes to discourage competitors. In the long run, though, if they try to sell laptops at high prices, I just won't buy them. This is what people who criticize Intel's current moves miss: if Intel misses -- either by making an unsatisfactory SOC or by failing in some other way to make it into this market -- there will always be a substitute. In this market, there will always be a competitor.
Click to expand...

The HP Stream 11 has a Celeron N2840 (Bay Trail-M), so no contra-revenue subsidy there. Intel made money off of your purchase.
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
Arachnotronic said:
In what way does AMD have a "better chip"?
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7974/...hitecture-a10-micro-6700t-performance-preview

What is better than AMD s Mullins in thoses charts.?.


Arachnotronic said:
The HP Stream 11 has a Celeron N2840 (Bay Trail-M), so no contra-revenue subsidy there. Intel made money off of your purchase.
Click to expand...


At less than 200$ there s no way that there s no subsides, unless the retailer is getting rid of his inventory at cost prices.
 
Last edited:
ehume

ehume

Golden Member
Nov 6, 2009
1,511
73
91
Abwx said:
At less than 200$ there s no way that there s no subsides, unless the retailer is getting rid of his inventory at cost prices.
Click to expand...

I was pretty sure that at the normal price of $199, there was a subsidy involved. The extra $20 off was the MS store clearing out inventory, IMO.
 
NTMBK

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,525
6,050
136
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
ehume said:
I was pretty sure that at the normal price of $199, there was a subsidy involved. The extra $20 off was the MS store clearing out inventory, IMO.
Click to expand...

Quite possible, Intel is subsiding at the rate of 89$ including the chip, assuming the Asus and other Dell do not cash part of this subsides this would yield about 130-150$ less at the retail level compared with a non subsided product, hence the 199$, surely that HP did cash a few $, it s enough given that they have usualy a few percent net margins only.
 
GreenChile

GreenChile

Member
Sep 4, 2007
190
0
0
Abwx said:
This says that despite a better chip than Intel AMD has not captured the slightest small bit of the pie during Q3 14, this is the result of contra revenue, yet you re using this slide as a prove that AMD has no market share anyway....


http://www.anandtech.com/show/7974/...hitecture-a10-micro-6700t-performance-preview

Why there is no design using this chip..?.
Because it s too good compared to even Qualcomm offering.?.
Or because it s dedicated only to Windows tablets and that this market has been flooded by free chips and truck loads of subsides..?.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Are you saying the BOM for Mullins is equivalent to Qualcomm or any of the big competitors? Source needed.

AMD's inability to break into this market has nothing to do with Intel. It has everything to do with not having a competitive offering at a competitive price. Why are you not angry at Qualcomm for offering SOCs for so cheap?
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
NTMBK said:
At that preview the press were not able to measure power consumption or battery life, so we don't know how it measures up perf/W. And we have no idea how the cost of the platform compares.

Not saying it's necessarily bad, just saying we haven't got enough information to compare properly.
Click to expand...

The manufacturer of the A10 u6700T based tablet specify 6-8h battery life depending of the usage, the device has a 32Wh battery and the higher grade Mullins, this point to 4-5.3W power usage for the whole thing, this sound quite competitive in respect of Baytrail if we are to look at the perf/watt ratios, particularly when the GPU is put to use, that is 32% of the usage time for tablet owners.

So far thoses devices got cleared out not only from tablets but also from fanless netbooks since a big part of the subsided bay trails are used in such devices according to Digitimes.
 
A

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
12,033
4,995
136
GreenChile said:
Nonsense. Are you saying the BOM for Mullins is equivalent to Qualcomm or any of the big competitors? Source needed.

AMD's inability to break into this market has nothing to do with Intel. It has everything to do with not having a competitive offering at a competitive price. Why are you not angry at Qualcomm for offering SOCs for so cheap?
Click to expand...

This story about BOM is just a cover conveniently used by Intel, what are the differences since we are talking of SoCs.?

Thoses chips use the same RAMs, HDD or eeMCs, screens, batteries, power supplies, cases and so on, so explain us where would be the difference, and dont come with Intel s slide with 500 components difference while a surface mount capacitor or semiconductor is hardly 0.01$ when bought in industrial quantities, all the cost are in the elements i mentioned, the rest is peanuts.

As for AMD they certainly have a much better offering than Intel, as proved by the numbers, it s just that Intel being incapable to compete did ressort, as is usual with them when cornered, to dirty tactics, now you are saying that AMD cant compete against a mediocre chip that is offered with a 50$ bill, so much for Intel inoovation capabilities, see nowhere else the reasons why ther s so much BTs and about no Mullins in said devices.

As for Qualcomm, look at the scores compared to Mullins, their Snapdragon is obviously inferior, should it be priced higher.?.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom