[Arm-netbook] Intel at CES

[mike.valk at gmail.com]

2017-01-09 0:08 GMT+01:00 peter green <plugwash at p10link.net>:

> On 08/01/17 12:58, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>> <lkcl at lkcl.net> wrote:
>>
>>   i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's
>>> interfaces are "crippled", peter.
>>>
>> ok, so can you see what i did, peter?  you laid down a challenge (to
>> do better)... and after three days, you've not responded.  you
>> *provisionally* described an alternative standard... but did not
>> follow through.
>>
>>   *that's* what makes the difference, here.  it's *not enough* to say
>> "the standard you came up with is rubbish", you have to *follow
>> through*, and if you can't follow through then it's.... you know what
>> i'm trying to say?
>>
> The compromises you made are a result of your goals. You wanted a standard
> that could be implemented with virtually any cheap SoC. That basically
> forced you into the decisions to use USB and parallel RGB.
>
> Unfortunately USB has a reputation for poor performance and reliability.
> Some of this is possibly the fault of the USB standards themselves, some is
> a result of crappy implementations.
>

Examples please.

If USB had such a bad track record then why is it the most used peripheral
interface?

And which part of the USB standard? The physical interface or the
communication protocols?


>
> Intel has different goals, their job is to make something that takes best
> advantage of their own current and future products. EOMA68 does not do
> that, it drags it down to the lowest common denominator. As such I believe
> that by adopting EOMA68 Intel would be crippling their product. I gave some
> examples of interfaces I think Intel should include that were unsuitable
> for EOMA68.
>

The lowest common denominator is what's going to get this running. Everyone
can join in with almost everything. You could even create a EOMA Card with
a beefy Microcontroller.

Once everyone is in, new interfaces can be chosen/developed for the next
version/type.


>
> I don't know exactly what Interfaces it would be best for Intel to
> include, that would require knowing both full details of the chips they
> plan to use in their current cards as well as their future roadmaps (if
> they have something on their SoCs today but plan to drop it in the future
> it would be stupid for them to put it on their compute cards).


Intel could force a "new" standard by flooding or hyping the market. That
would require every other vendor to follow the Intel route.

For other company's to follow that usually comes in two tracks:
1. Intel has made a success en the they "chime" in on the succes
2. Intel actively recruits "partners" to co-develop products

But I don't think so. Intel is desperate to find new grounds and are
shooting with hail. It'll surprise me if they are still around after ten
years.

1. Desktop and Laptop markets are shrinking.
2. Server market is shifting to better Power/Watt ratios. ARM is gaing. The
market is opening again to other CPU architectures becaus of Saas offerings.
3. Computing market is shifting to GPU's.
4. Intel failed at the mobile market. To power hungry/To late.
5. Intel failed at the IoT market. To power hungry/To late.




>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20170109/ce515bc8/attachment.html>