"Why do you think Intel has done so poorly in this space?"
Why do you think that Intel has failed at everything outside of x86 CPUs? Every time the playing field has been even vaguely level, they've managed to fail. They won in CPUs mainly because a variety of factors that had nothing to do with price, performance or price/performance made x86 the winner. The Motorola processors on a given node had better features and performance. Easier to write software for, too. But, they weren't "Intel compatible" so they wound up as an embedded chip and still sort of live on in the form of Coldfire. But Intel's attempts to move beyond x86, like the iAPX-432 and the i960/i860 architectures died. Itanium is still around, but it is questionable for the future. They certainly have been unable to push Tukwilla out the door, despite numerous delays.
So, to answer your question, beats the hell out of me. They owned DRAM in the 1970s. But got out of that soon after. Likewise with UV-EPROM. Both of those were very much about economies of scale, yet they got pushed out of the markets they invented. Even in x86, AMD has managed to be a formidable competitor. They weren't, for the most part until the 486 generation. They were content with being a second source. But, Intel didn't want that any more and eventually got their wish. AMD countered with the K5, which seemed decent but they couldn't manufacture it. The K6 was better, but not quite. The K7 and K8 though...
And they only have a small fraction of Intel's resources. And a famous propensity of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Which has finally caught up with them. Still, if the EU findings are to be believed, Intel had to push boundaries, maybe past the breaking point, to hold on. Despite having infinite resources. |
