TheGuyUk wrote:Actually I cannot agree with the argument being made. The real killer for AMD and INTEL is phones and tablets took market away from them and so did games consoles.
PC chips are over kill for a lot of people and systems on a chip provide cheap affordable experiences without the high price tag.
The touch phone and touch cheap tablets have met the needs of the users for doing what they need, not what marketing tell them they need. You do not need a £300 pound system to text, read or browse, although high definition images might have increased processor need the cheap socs have shown they can provide the experience.
Tying people to expensive hardware needs is one of the reasons they are now pushing cloud storage, so they can charge to store your data but most people do not need it. Despite the sales push back up hard drives are more use to business or TV recorders. The cheap fix will win over the big investment in a uncertain market. All it needs is a Android business PC and the market will quake. It would hurt Apple, Intel and Windows to much for them to produce one for main line consumers.
Phones and tablets have taken a huge chunk of the home PC market, but that's not what's killing off AMD and phones/tablets are hardly a threat to Intel. Intel was very slow to respond but they are getting there: the Atom Z8300
is a nominal 1.44GHz quad core part with an integrated GPU which has a TDP of 2W. For an x86 processor, that's pretty damn impressive. That aside however; Intel's real
money, like Microsoft's, comes from enterprise, HPC, and business users.
The idea of an "Android business PC" is, frankly, laughable, if it was a realistic concept then someone would have done it already. Android does not integrate into an enterprise environment; it's far too riddled with security holes and malware. Sure the same can be said about Windows -- and, though it's a tiresome argument, the same probably will
be said about Windows -- but the difference is that Windows can be tightly integrated into the server operating systems that enterprises are running. Patches and updates can be tested in a clean environment before they're rolled out to all users; security features can be managed remotely; computers can be re-imaged and re-purposed remotely. You can't do any of that with Android. You can do some - perhaps all - of that with Linux though, and Linux does have a strong enterprise presence. Linux probably won't be running on or controlling the desktop being used by Joe in HR, but it's probably running the really mission-critical stuff in the data centres.
Hell, banks still use systems designed 3 or 4 decades ago, in fact we have an increasingly acute problem with bank mainframe systems because the greybeards who maintain these systems are retiring or - and I'm not kidding here - dying. That's why it took banks like RBS & NatWest so long to fix the problem when customers couldn't withdraw any money or process the transactions - very few of the people who know these decades-old systems inside and out are still in the industry. Anyhow, this is a tangent.
The market that AMD and ARM vendors need to target is the one that Intel are all over; companies to whom £10,000 would be considered pocket change; companies who don't have their own in-house "day-to-day" IT people and have outsourced it all to various vendors & contractors; companies who buy the 4U server units filled with enough processors, RAM, and HDDs to make you go weak at the knees. ARM has found some niches in the data centre, and AMD has tried hard, but neither of them have caught up to Intel. (Although AMD has found success in enterprise/business with some of their GPUs, just not their CPUs/APUs.) Whatever happens to desktop/home computers, so long as these big buyers keep buying Intel/Windows the market will respond appropriately.