And this is where you argument is right dismissing your sayings..
RD is quite low when amortized with +40 millions chips/year, and since they intent to throw another 44 millions in 2015...
Actualy what they did was to design and manufacture a chip whose break even point is in the 30$ range, and in this price everything is included, if they did sell it at this price they would had cashed 1.4bn with no net income, so they gave those chips wich induced a 1.4bn losses, the difference with the 4.2bn is the money given to OEMs, that is 2.8bn for 46 millions chips = 60$ subisde per ordered chip, plus the chip of course...
Notice that with this shenanigans they cleared 1.4bn revenues from eventual competitors, since 60-70% of the tablets and laptops using thoses subsided chips use Windows the impact on this market is roughly 1bn revenue where AMD was competent to take a significant share.
He s explaining us that Baytrail RD and manufacturing cost is 90$, that s with such a product that Intel was trying to compete with 15-20$ mediatek and other spreadtrum chips...
Abwx
Let me try to explain this a little bit better.
It is not generally useful to take the R&D expenditures of a business that is not yet at scale and divide it by the units that are sold to arrive at a cost structure for that particular product line. First of all, a lot of those R&D dollars (in fact, I'd wager the vast majority) are being spent on projects that have nothing to do with Bay Trail.
For example, those R&D expenditures include the entire pipeline of low-power mobile IP that Intel is developing (image signal processors, video encode/decode, low power GPU, low power CPU, modems, RF transceivers, software, etc.). That pipeline, if Intel is investing properly, is many product generations and years deep.
Now, you are correct that Intel is losing a lot of money in this division because they are not yet generating material revenue from the products that are out in the market today. Further, as has been noted, Intel is providing pretty hefty contra-revenue subsidies to make Bay Trail competitive from a platform bill of materials perspective.
If Intel is being truthful, then as Intel's new products roll out, the contra-revenue goes away. In fact, Intel is guiding to an $800 million reduction in the ~$4.2 billion mobile loss seen in 2014 in 2015, so obviously some progress is being made on the cost structure front. Also keep in mind that even as SoFIA/Cherry Trail roll out, there will be designs out in the market being sold with Bay Trail in them, which is why the contra-revenue -- while significantly reduce in 2015 -- will still persist.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before, the only real "impact" Bay Trail has had on AMD is that it took significant share in the low-end of the PC market against Kabini/Beema. Given that Intel now reports that ~80% of its Pentium/Celeron mix, and 20%+ of its notebook chips sold are Bay Trail-M based, and given how high Intel's profitability in the PC segment is, it is very unlikely that Intel is "giving away" these parts. These parts are winning designs on their own merits (by having the right combination of performance/power/cost structure), and given that this is the case, I don't see why AMD would have done any better in tablets even ex-Intel contra revenue.