The main advantage of a pre-loaded OS...

[Christopher Browne]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:16 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> | From: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org>
>
> | > This was definitely NVidia's year.
>
> | The new ones being dual or even quad core ARM Cortex chips with rather
> | impressive 3D graphics support will be impressive.  Vastly more so than
> | intel's pathetic video on their atom systems.
>
> I know very little about that world.  Intel's Poulsbo chip for the
> Atom (available for years) does have 3d acceleration (I think).  We
> Linux folks hate it because there is no decent open source driver.
> That's because Intel licensed the PowerVR SGX 535 graphics core and
> didn't get the right to disclose specs of it.
>
> I understand that there are a number of graphics cores used in the
> non-PC space, that most or all of them are closed, and we rarely hear
> about them.  ATI was in this space but sold off that part of their
> business.

No doubt NVIDIA is keen on finding a variety of kinds of sales.

The Tegra stuff seems like a good way of getting a lot of rather cheap
CPUs deployed.  Pretty low margin, but there's possibility of a LOT of
them, and pennies on hundreds of millions of units do add up.

The server side is an opportunity for much higher margins, if they can
succeed at selling them.

> |  Of course anyone that
> | wants a good atom buys one with an nvidia ion chipset.
>
> Only a small percentage of Atoms are sold for systems with IONs (but I
> have some).  I blame Intel.

I suspect Microsoft may also be a participant in the policies that
lead to it. ;-).

> In the ION's space, ATI's new Fusion stuff looks interesting.  See
> this netbook, for example (it has been cheaper):
> <http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/acer-acer-aspire-10-1-netbook-featuring-amd-processor-c-50-ao522-bz499-black-ao522-bz499/10161870.aspx?path=b0e001c0749c2a838407ee8a0e4a01e9en02>
>
> | If nvidia could manage to grab 10% of the ARM market for cell phones and
> | such especially the high end models that do lots of multimedia stuff,
> | they are going to be making some decent money.
>
> I've never understood the making money side of this stuff.  nVidia and
> ATI have rarely made much money if I remember correctly.
>
> Capturing geek mindshare certainly isn't strongly related to making
> money.

Yeah.  Just because we like it doesn't mean it's profitable.

(Indeed, often our liking may be negatively correlated with profitability!)

> (Just a guess: Apple was probably a customer that PowerPC vendors
> should have fired.  I bet the cost money to the vendors.)

Perhaps.  Indications are that Jobs would play spectacular hardball
when negotiating with hardware vendors.

On the other hand, Apple's a mighty credible reference, so perhaps
there's value in getting sales based on that reference.

But certainly they'd lose the usual "early adopter premium", as Apple
was pretty jealous to keep that premium to themselves.

I wonder how things are going with Intel, negotiations-wise.  I'd
imagine that Apple can't play as much of a prima-donna there.  Though
they'll doubtless be playing games surrounding "oh, we've got our own
chip design, better treat us right!
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists