Re: Advice on system purchase
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:02:58 -0500
Stan Hoeppner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 9:17 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:06:36 -0500
> > Stan Hoeppner <email@example.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.
> > 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.
As I have said, I don't have a deep understanding of these issues, but
one apparent flaw in your argument is that IBM, Motorola and DEC
weren't moving billions of their chips independently of their push into
the desktop market, as ARM is.