Intel's wearables push always seemed more like a PR stunt than an actual, thought-through business tactic. They put a great deal of effort into stuff like Arduino support and sponsoring BMX championships, a TV show (America's Greatest Makers), conceptual clothing lines, etc but apparently people who actually wanted to use their hardware in products had trouble getting support or chips and the specs just didn't seem to stand up (when they were available at all).
I reckon it already has doomed Intel in the IoT market, investors just haven't realized it yet. Their answer to the IoT involved buggy shrunk-down 486s with poor performance and power consumption and very limited onboard peripherals compared to their ARM competitors. (I can't even find power consumption or instruction set information for the newest ones, which is worrying.) They've put a lot of money into high-profile publicity stunts like an Intel-funded TV series ("America's Greatest Makers"), BMX bikers, Arduino boards, etc but apparently if anyone wants to integrate their chips into the kind of IoT product they're being promoted for, they can't actually get them unless they're a big-name brand. They mostly seem to be relying on the press regurgitating their PR and not looking into the details.
From what I can tell, the whole thing is basically a PR stunt. Intel are less interested in actually displacing ARM than they are in generating lots of publicity about how they're part of that hip new IoT thing. They've funded an entire TV show called America's Greatest Makers to try and associate the Intel Curie with wearables and the maker movement, done a whole bunch of high-profile tie ins with the X Games, Lady Gaga, Arduino, BMW, etc but they've no interest in actually making it available unless it'll give them publicity.
It seems to be impossible to find official power consumption figures for it anywhere either, and the documentation is lacking in general.
Hacker Cinema
3 comments on Hacker News
Intel's wearables push always seemed more like a PR stunt than an actual, thought-through business tactic. They put a great deal of effort into stuff like Arduino support and sponsoring BMX championships, a TV show (America's Greatest Makers), conceptual clothing lines, etc but apparently people who actually wanted to use their hardware in products had trouble getting support or chips and the specs just didn't seem to stand up (when they were available at all).
I reckon it already has doomed Intel in the IoT market, investors just haven't realized it yet. Their answer to the IoT involved buggy shrunk-down 486s with poor performance and power consumption and very limited onboard peripherals compared to their ARM competitors. (I can't even find power consumption or instruction set information for the newest ones, which is worrying.) They've put a lot of money into high-profile publicity stunts like an Intel-funded TV series ("America's Greatest Makers"), BMX bikers, Arduino boards, etc but apparently if anyone wants to integrate their chips into the kind of IoT product they're being promoted for, they can't actually get them unless they're a big-name brand. They mostly seem to be relying on the press regurgitating their PR and not looking into the details.
From what I can tell, the whole thing is basically a PR stunt. Intel are less interested in actually displacing ARM than they are in generating lots of publicity about how they're part of that hip new IoT thing. They've funded an entire TV show called America's Greatest Makers to try and associate the Intel Curie with wearables and the maker movement, done a whole bunch of high-profile tie ins with the X Games, Lady Gaga, Arduino, BMW, etc but they've no interest in actually making it available unless it'll give them publicity.
It seems to be impossible to find official power consumption figures for it anywhere either, and the documentation is lacking in general.