> "Just like Innovator's Dilemma says, they will predictably move "up-market" in servers and supercomputers, trying to chase higher-profits as ARM is forcing them to fight with cheaper chips in the consumer market."
Which way is up? Intel's been moving down in terms of per-core wattage since 2005, putting them closer to direct competition with ARM. Anybody can glue together a bunch of cores to get high theoretical performance, but it's Intel's single-threaded performance lead that is their biggest architectural advantage.
In this case "up" is defined by potential profit/chip. There are structural and easy to miss business reasons why it is very hard for any company to successfully move into markets where the profit margins are below what they are structured to expect, and it is very easy for a company to move into markets where the profit margins are above what they are structured to expect.
Intel has to improve their power because a major market for them - server chips - is full of people who want to spend less on electricity for the same computation. Despite this push, they have made absolutely no inroads into the unprofitable mobile market. By contrast ARM, which already has the required power ratios, has every economic incentive in the world to move into the server market. Unless Intel can offer a good enough power ratio to offset the higher costs of their chips, ARM will eventually succeed.
Which way is up? Intel's been moving down in terms of per-core wattage since 2005, putting them closer to direct competition with ARM. Anybody can glue together a bunch of cores to get high theoretical performance, but it's Intel's single-threaded performance lead that is their biggest architectural advantage.