[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Advice on system purchase

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:02:58 -0500
Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:

> On 10/29/2012 9:17 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:06:36 -0500
> > Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 10/29/2012 6:08 PM, Celejar wrote:
> >>
> >>> Interesting. Google shows that there was a thread on /. a year ago
> >>> about the question of ARM on the desktop, but a quick skim shows
> >>> no obviously compelling reason why it won't ever happen. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> There a dozens of reasons.  First and foremost, ARM sells millions
> >> of
> > 
> > Thanks much for the detailed explanation. [I assume you really mean
> > 'billions']. 
> No, I mean millions.  One billion chips per year would equal 1 for
> every 7 humans on the planet, and that's simply impossible.  Over 3
> billion people have never used an electronic device.  That's almost
> half the Earth's population.  Do the math.
According to ARM:


"2.2 billion chips shipped, split equally between mobile and non-mobile

> > I don't fully understand / agree with everything you
> > write, but very interesting nevertheless. [I'm not conversant
> > enough in these issues to challenge you on anything you write.]
> It's simple economics:  If one could make a decent amount of profit
> pushing an ARM based desktop CPU into the market, they'd do it.  They
> haven't done it, nor will do it, because there's no money to be made,
> only losses, as history has shown us.  Both IBM/Motorola and DEC lost
> money and failed to drive adoption of their RISC chips in desktops.
> Apple dropped PPC for Intel, eliminating the last RISC CPU in desktop
> machines.  Given this history, if you're an exec at ARM, would you
> consider such a push viable?  Let alone profitable?  No, you wouldn't.

There once was money in it, and they did. The first standalone ARM PC
saw the light of day at the end of the 1980s, when it was faster than
the 386s of the day and competitive in price. It also ran a useful
desktop OS when MS was still fumbling with Windows 2.0.

They just couldn't keep it that way, they had the Apple trouble of
being a single manufacturer of computer, OS, and in this case, CPU.
This kept the prices very high, but not for long. Development was
far too slow to keep up with the rest of the world. Even Apple saw the
light eventually, and went more mainstream.


Reply to: