Microsoft, Intel Want to Push iPad's Market Share Below 50%

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Like what? There is a Windows 7 tablet available today, if I gave it to you, what software would you run and how would it be better than running it on your PC?[/citation]

I'd totally use it for playing HOMM. How would it be better? Think about it.

 

[del35]

Pleaseeee because I wanna vomit every time i see an apple product.

I feel sorry for people using Apple products. I guess I am a bit more compassionate.

 

[del35]

Pleaseeee because I wanna vomit every time i see an apple product.

I feel sorry for people using Apple products. I guess I am a bit more compassionate.

 

[kartu]

Android needs neither Initel nor Microsoft to achieve that.
Apple is already at about 64% on tablet market (18% on smartphones).

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Microsoft is late to the game (as they were with the audio player and smartphone markets). Even if they manage to beat Apple in the tablet market in like 2014, the iPad will have had at least four years of huge profits with hardly any competition. By the time Microsoft and Intel get their act together, Apple will concentrate on something else and Wintel will be competing on razor thin margins in a saturated market. Why didn't Microsoft do it right from the get go with the Tablet PC? Why did it take Steve Jobs to show them how it's done?As an Apple hater (I find offensive their walled-garden approach to product design), I'm sick of having to wait for years while others catch up. Even today, if you want a high res tablet, you're stuck with Apple. If you want a high end 3.5" phone (not everyone wants 4"+), you're stuck with Apple. At least now Wintel have something to offer if you want a thin, light laptop, and it took them what, two years to develop competition to Macbook Air.[/citation]
Microsoft did arrive late to the MP3 players, but then again so did Apple. Again Microsoft didn't invented smart-phones but to say that they arrive late is misguided to say the least since they have smart-phones with Windows since 2000. Both Apple and Android arrived late at the smart-phone market even if they're leading today..

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Microsoft did arrive late to the MP3 players, but then again so did Apple.[/citation]

iPod transformed the MP3 player market, no other product even came close to coming close. Zune is Microsoft's answer to the iPod, but they were years late and fumbled it.


[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Again Microsoft didn't invented smart-phones but to say that they arrive late is misguided to say the least since they have smart-phones with Windows since 2000. Both Apple and Android arrived late at the smart-phone market even if they're leading today..[/citation]

Yeah, ok. Microsoft came first with the smartphone and the tablet PC and sucked so bad at it that it's worse than being late.

The point is Microsoft is trying to catch up to iOS and Android, they're behind, they're late to the game. Their entire mobile device strategy is reactive in nature. Why didn't Zune come out one month before iPod? Why didn't they come up with a better Windows tablet one month before iPad came out, but are instead two years late?

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]apple uses intel's components...it's not going to happen...for each windows table that sell, ten ipads with intel hardware are also sold...this claim is very hypo-critic[/citation]
What intel component is used on the iPad?

 

[halcyon]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]What intel component is used on the iPad?[/citation]
I think that may have been a mistake. I don't think there's any noteworthy Intel pieces in the iPads....I could be very wrong though...wouldn't be the first time.

 

[lassik]

They hope to do this with the ZunePad?

 

[hfitch]

Microsoft and Intel is like the old wire telephone companies trying to provide internet. Dsl is good enough no reason to look for something better. Oh wait cable is offering 10 times the speed for the same cost. The consumer won't care. Wait no one but farmers are buying dsl now. Lets try FIOS 10 years later. Oh wait we don't have infrastructure to do this. Nvidia and Amd got big in the mobile market with chip because Intel didn't have the foresight or want to go mobile. They finally have some chips coming to market that can match Nvidia and AMD. This is 4 years later. In computer world thats game over. Apple has had 2 years to grow its IPAD. Microsoft and Intel are to late. The only OS that has a chance is Android which Intel be smart work with Google instead of Microsoft. They have a market to bring Movies, Games, Video, Books, and many other feature to the system. Microsoft is way to slow on bringing product to market. The only reason why Xbox live is killing now is Sony still to this point hasn't brought a good enough store to PS3. Solution Microsoft go cross platform. I know you won't but that's what made your OS in the old days work. Any vendor any system could use your OS but not you close off your products. This is why you don't succeed. Your Zune, your store is closed platform. Change with the times. Work on any OS and you would make money again.

 

[halcyon]

Apple is making a lot of money in this sector. So the competition prolly thinks they can learn from Apple's mistakes and provide a superior product and steal market share. However, they have customers like me who have already been convinced otherwise. A Microsoft-Intel tablet has to be 3X better, in all areas, for me to move away from what already works for me...the iPad. ...and I have a feeling that my perspective isn't all that unique.

I wonder if the 32 flavors of Microsoft-Intel tablet will be 3X better?

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]iPod transformed the MP3 player market, no other product even came close to coming close. Zune is Microsoft's answer to the iPod, but they were years late and fumbled it.Yeah, ok. Microsoft came first with the smartphone and the tablet PC and sucked so bad at it that it's worse than being late.The point is Microsoft is trying to catch up to iOS and Android, they're behind, they're late to the game. Their entire mobile device strategy is reactive in nature. Why didn't Zune come out one month before iPod? Why didn't they come up with a better Windows tablet one month before iPad came out, but are instead two years late?[/citation]
please do not compare smart-phones of that time with the ones we have today. They were in it's infancy, so of course smart-phones from 2000 sucked when compared with the smart-phones of today, but that doesn't mean they sucked at that time. It's like saying the first computers sucked because the ones we have today are better. or the first GUI attempts also sucked. It's true that after a while their development stagnated because of lack of competition and things only stirred up with the launch of the iPhone

 

[Guest]

>>I'd totally use it for playing HOMM. How would it be better? Think about it.

Those of who think a Windows 8 tablet is gonna help you to play older Windows games is going to be disappointed. I own a Windows 7 tablet and playing games on it is horrid, simply because existing touch based interface just work horribly with games UI optimized for keyboard and mouse. There might be a way for Windows to have an interface to simulate better keyboard and mouse, but Microsoft is not giving it much thoughts with their Windows 8 UI.

Meanwhile, Android has DosBox Turbo which allow you to play HOMM. 🙂

 

[killerb255]

32 flavors? Take away one of those and they can partner up with Baskin-Robins' marking department.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... agree... intel atom is crap without a good GPU... then better a AMD APU... and windows 8 Metro[sexual] UI sux soOoOo baaaaad.... and intel? Behave... apple could sue because of macbook air copying... and go all ARM or even AMD for the desktops and laptops...http://www.tomshardware.com/news/a [...] 14793.htmlhttp://www.appleinsider.com/articl [...] chips.htmlhttp://www.tomshardware.com/news/P [...] 12711.html... some articles to fortify my point...[/citation]

Unless ARM designs desktop and laptop level CPUs that can meet or beat the current X86 offerings, then ARM will not be a part of Apple's desktop/laptop market and that article is a lie. Metro is not bad at all, it's just not too good for a desktop or laptop. It's great for smart phones and tablets. The Medfield Atoms have great GPUs (the dual core one is supposed to have more or less equal performance to the A5X chip and have better CPU performance than the A5X), although the first few might not be record breakers.

Apple can't sue Intel for making a thinner laptop. If Apple really thought that they could do something, then they would have done it BEFORE the ultrabooks started selling.

Apple didn't go AMD because AMD had slower CPUs and had far too low volume production for the CPUs and APUs. Apple is also very focused on battery life, so Intel has been the obvious choice for some time. Until AMD steps up (steamroller might do very well if Trinity and Piledriver make a good enough jump over Llano and Bulldozer) with production and quality, they will not be chosen by Apple.

None of those articles really "fortified" your point, but they did show that you can try to use incorrect evidence in order to convince someone of something wrong just because that is how you want something to be seen as. That Apple thought about going with AMD, BUT DECLINED because of AMD not doing nearly well enough shows that AMD was not an option for Apple and is thus irrelevant to their plans until AMD can compete with Intel in performance, efficiency, and volume.

Cortex A15 I don't know about as I've yet to work with those. Cortex A9 is horrible at this though, branch prediction and instruction rescheduling is a very complex and power hungry piece of hardware to have around. Its like it's own miniature processor in and of itself. In order to keep power requirements down the A9 used an incredibly underpowered branch prediction / rescheduling unit, it might as well not even be there. That and the ARM ISA isn't very conducive to out of order operations. They used conditionally executed instructions as a way to compensate for this. It really is a perfect ISA for small lightweight processing as it gets the job done without needing excess hardware, the downside is that it can't scale to meet large complicated workloads.

Unless ARM can do something about their problems with scaling performance up to desktop levels, they will NEVER be more than an afterthought for Apple's Macs and Macbooks. They also won't be making it into any PCs, except for maybe the most low end PCs that replace the Atom based PCs if Intel doesn't make a desktop/netbook/notebook Atom refresh.

 

[Guest]

Thank you blazorthorn... the voice of reason!!! Apple is DEFINITELY not replacing Intel in its desktop and server line. In fact, they are more likely to go Intel on the tablet line if Android on Intel and Windows on Intel are indeed a success. The next version of Intel's ATOM due out late this year will be scaled down to 22 nm AND have the IvyBridge GPU. The GPU will be about 4x faster and the CPU could be scaled up quite a bit just due to power savings. In 2013 when Silvermont comes out and does out of order execution, the ATOM may very well be a great deal more powerful than the ARM CPUs with only small additional power requirements.

As far as ARM on desktop CPUs, you will not see this happen universally until 2015 when ARM has a 64-bit part. When this happens, you will likely see a lot more ARM on the desktop/low-end laptop market and possibly the rackmounted low-end server market. Without 64-bit though, they aren't a big player in anything outside of tablets. While Win 8 will still have a 32-bit build (for ARM), it is still mostly built with 64-bit in mind and most consumers will be pushed over to that code base. The next Windows builds probably won't support 32-bit at all (much like Win2000 didn't support 16-bit at all).

 

[ojas]

Isn't this a repost of old news? I think i read this earlier this week on tom's....

Anyway, WTF is up with all the atom hate?! It's becoming annoying now, seriously. Has anyone of you tested those SoCs? NO. Have you used those tablets and smartphones? NO.

When for christ's sake, what's with the negativity? I mean the older atoms may have sucked (FOR LAPTOPS/DESKTOPS) but why would the new 22nm/32nm atoms, which are SoCs dammit, suck on TABLETS/PHONES?

x86 a power hog, some ppl keep saying? That Intel-Lava Xolo X900? Recently launched in India today? Has an on-paper battery life that almost equals the Lumia 800, and outclasses almost all the Androids and BlackBerrys at its price range by at least 2 hours.

I mean seriously be a bit more open minded, give it a chance at least.

 

[DjEaZy]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Unless ARM designs desktop and laptop level CPUs that can meet or beat the current X86 offerings, then ARM will not be a part of Apple's desktop/laptop market and that article is a lie. Metro is not bad at all, it's just not too good for a desktop or laptop. It's great for smart phones and tablets. The Medfield Atoms have great GPUs (the dual core one is supposed to have more or less equal performance to the A5X chip and have better CPU performance than the A5X), although the first few might not be record breakers.Apple can't sue Intel for making a thinner laptop. If Apple really thought that they could do something, then they would have done it BEFORE the ultrabooks started selling.Apple didn't go AMD because AMD had slower CPUs and had far too low volume production for the CPUs and APUs. Apple is also very focused on battery life, so Intel has been the obvious choice for some time. Until AMD steps up (steamroller might do very well if Trinity and Piledriver make a good enough jump over Llano and Bulldozer) with production and quality, they will not be chosen by Apple.None of those articles really "fortified" your point, but they did show that you can try to use incorrect evidence in order to convince someone of something wrong just because that is how you want something to be seen as. That Apple thought about going with AMD, BUT DECLINED because of AMD not doing nearly well enough shows that AMD was not an option for Apple and is thus irrelevant to their plans until AMD can compete with Intel in performance, efficiency, and volume.Unless ARM can do something about their problems with scaling performance up to desktop levels, they will NEVER be more than an afterthought for Apple's Macs and Macbooks. They also won't be making it into any PCs, except for maybe the most low end PCs that replace the Atom based PCs if Intel doesn't make a desktop/netbook/notebook Atom refresh.[/citation]
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2010/09/nufront-aims-to-sell-250-arm-based-desktop-pcs/
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242935/hps_first_arm_server_for_testing_only.html
... there is movement in arm direction in server and desktop space... and... intel haz the CPU crown... but intel GPU's sux... so? AMD and nVidia haz the best GPU's out there, that can do more... just need to implement more... GPGPU? OpenCL?... i use video editing, that leverages GPU, and it's much cheeper and much faster, than with a high end intel CPU... even WinZip haz GPGPU acceleration for compressing files with *.zipx ... all of the adobe creative suite uses some kind of GPU acceleration... and the problem for intel will be ultrahigh resolution displays... like in iPad...
... look here, where is the fastest intel GPU...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

 

[junixophobia]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I'd like this too. First step is to have a bunch of Windows 8 based slates at a sub-$300 price point.[/citation]

What cheap windows are you talking about. In what reality did that happened?

 

[Guest]

DJ Easy, there is no movement in the desktop and ARM space other than rumors from blogs. ARM servers are 32-bit so there is little that one can do with them at the moment. That is why you don't see consumers/businesses jumping all over that. Please tell me where I can buy my ARM desktop so you can show me where the movement is. Intel isn't using an Intel GPU yet on its SOCs. They are using the same tech the other top ARM vendors are using. ARM is just now making its GPUs and Intel will be using a much more powerful GPU in its SOCs soon. nVidia's GPUs on their Tegra platform are not that powerful. AMD has no competing product. What in the world are you even talking about here? No one is running OpenCL on a tablet.

If you want to have this discussion in the workstation/desktop market, then fine, but I'm not sure what your discussion has to do with tablets. As far as GPU acceleration, few things use it. WinZip will support it for OpenCL but few things support it. Video compression and decompression is one of the few things actively using it and INtel is far superiod in that market, LOL. Ultra High resolution displays is something Intel is taking under its wing so not sure where you are going with that either other than that you are, again, wrong.

DJ, you are nothing more than an AMD shill and it makes you look bad. AMD has no product in this sector so no one cares about OpenCL and tablets. AMD has few sectors that it is doing well in outside of graphics so thanks for the GPU chart. Really it was interesting (sarcasm noted). GPUs are only a small portion of compute. CPUs do 95%+ of your daily work. If you don't know this, then you aren't the smartest guy out there. Intel's CPU is integrated into its GPUs as are many DSP functionality, memory controllers, bus controllers, etc. You can consider it all a CPU at this point as it has all been centralized.