Shuttered and closed have different implications in this case. Closed implies an orderly wind down, while shuttered implies a rapid and disorderly cessation. It's akin the difference between closing time at night a local restaurant, and the owners throwing everyone out in the middle of the day.
The most significant quote of the article: "we expect overseas cash balances will continue to grow unless tax laws encourage U.S. companies to repatriate money".
The corporate tax rate for what Apple is doing is around 35%; that is, Apple would have to pay 35% of their cash pile in taxes if they repatriated it. Which would be generally reasonable if not for the fact that it was already taxed once in the originating country on the original sale. As a result the 35% tax rate is essentially a kind of 35% tariff on exports and foreign sales. You only need to pay it once if you sell within the US, but you pay it along with a second set of local taxes on anything you sell outside of the US, regardless of whether it was even made here. The ultimate effect is that if every dollar were immediately repatriated, foreign sales would either be immensely less profitable than domestic sales, or American companies would be at a significant competitive disadvantage against foreign companies that aren't getting taxed twice (e.g. Samsung).
Congress needs to give up on this pipe dream that they can have 35% of the profits made off of all foreign sales. When no one else is double-taxing like this, it makes the American tax system look foolish and antiquated.
Its not amusing at all. Amazon dominate by competing on old fashioned things like price,
Competing on price is an understatement. Amazon was losing money on purpose; it's more fair to say Amazon was competing via predatory pricing. Lose money on books now until everyone else has been run out of business, then significantly raise the prices once they're the only game in town. The outcome of that would have been something that would have benefited no one but Amazon.
On a side note, the wholesale model doesn't make any sense for ebooks anyhow. It's based around the realities of inventory, which wouldn't apply to ebooks.
You're not wrong, but using the generic reckless driving laws requires proving that the driver was actually being reckless, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care despite their self-imposed handicap. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is why we have laws against specific things like drunk driving and text messaging.
Yes, but that requires proving that the driver was actually driving without due care, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care while wearing the glasses. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is the same basic rationale for why laws were passed specifically to deal with text messaging.
This had better be News For Nerds, because it sure isn't Stuff That Matters. If you don't have a good technical article to post, then don't post anything at all. These flamebait stories are getting old.
Secure Erase is even more brilliant than that. Modern SSDs (and phones) run 128bit/256bit AES encryption full-time. So when the drive needs to be Secure Erased, they simply throw away the key and generate a new one.
As a result the data has been rendered inert in a fraction of the time it would take to actually overwrite it, and without needing to put all of the cells through a P/E cycle.
Strictly speaking they don't need to be off the network; the threat isn't other XP machines in general, it's things coming straight from the Internet or through other computers connected to the Internet. Put the XP machines on an airgapped network (and epoxy the USB ports if you can) where they can't transmit or receive malware, and those machines could very well run forever.
Tech companies regularly use both GAAP and non-GAAP in their statements, and for good reason, so non-GAAP should not immediately be dismissed.
GAAP is very much the bottom line - it's damn near every penny spent and earned accounted for in the final income statements. Importantly, this includes both the core business and one-off gains/losses such as settlements, restructuring costs, and write-downs. This is very important for investors as it means a company can't simply hide certain types of charges, so if a company lost a ton of money on such charges investors will see it on the bottom line.
However because GAAP includes those one-off charges, it's not very good for comparing the core business on a quarterly and annual basis. As a result tech companies will almost always compute both GAAP and non-GAAP financial results, with non-GAAP results throwing out one-off charges (and a couple of other changes) so that investors can see the results of just the core business, with all of the noise thrown out. This allows investors to evaluate the core business on its own, so that they can see whether the company would have been healthy outside of those charges, or if the core business is suffering too.
Both are important, and that's why both are included. Despite what you may think there's nothing devious about it; including both instead of just GAAP means that investors can quickly see and track the financial status of both the company and the core business. News articles in turn may quote one or another (or both), but this is purely optional on their part. On the actual reports you will always see GAAP regardless of whether non-GAAP is included too.
This isn't about kids spending money. It's about deceitful advertisements that trick people in buying stuff.
Bingo. Since the late 80s firms have routinely been slapped down for predatory practices when it comes to kids. TV is the most obvious example - toy commercials have been forcibly unbundled from their parent programs and standards have been imposed to prevent the Chocobot Hour problem - but regulations have been put in place elsewhere for similar reasons. The US already has COPPA for dealing with the Internet, which prevents firms from collecting information on children under 13, for largely the same reasons.
Anyhow, not to go on an anti-corporate rant here, but this isn't anything new. Kids are stupid/naive and easily influenced, and less scrupulous businesses have long attempted to do an end-run around parents by targeting kids directly, which is why these regulations are in place. Parents should absolutely keep a close eye on what their kids are doing and nothing the government can do will replace that, but parents are ultimately competing against firms employing graduate level psychological methods. Kids are all but helpless here, so it's not a fair fight to say the least.
Parents should not have to fight against firms blatantly predating on their kids, which is what some of these kid-focused games are trying to do.
Good catch. I meant to go for "classic Direct3D" there, but my fingers did their own thing it seems. Direct3D itself was introduced in 1995, and was brutally extended up through 2004 with D3D9.0c.
Agreed. They're going to pull a Dx10 - Vista. Windows 8 was a COLOSSAL failure, so just like Vista, now they have to force the market to give them money.
Dammit. It's been 6 years now and I'm getting tired of this stupid falsehood. Direct3D 10 wasn't limited to Vista for superficial business reasons. There are some extremely important technical factors that required overhauling parts of Windows alongside D3D10.
The graphics stack below the API was almost entirely overhauled, as per the Windows Display Driver Model. Context switching, multithreading, virtual memory, splitting up the driver into user-mode and kernel-mode components, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. People forget just how broken Direct3D 9 was (and is); it was created at a time when the term "GPU" didn't exist yet and a video card was little more than a texturing unit and a raster op pipeline, and then brutally extended over the years to incorporate functionality like T&L and shaders. The whole thing predicated on a driver model that basically treated the video card as nothing more than a special class of peripheral, whereas with WDDM the GPU was finally promoted to a special class of processor within Windows.
Direct3D 10 in turn takes advantage of these low-level changes, particularly the changes to memory management. As a result, you can't have D3D10 without WDDM and the modern graphics stack it brings.
So the only way to bring D3D10 to XP would have been to create a cutthroat version of it that had little in common with Vista's version, or to backport the entire Vista graphics stack to XP, At which point you would have Vista whether you liked it or not, since you just brought over one of the biggest changes in the OS, and all of the bugs, growing pains, and incompatibility that brings.
If your company really is in the market for purchasing laptops, then a company of that size would be able to order any OS they wanted regardless. Or alternatively roll out their own OS, since an organization that large is undoubtedly going to be volume licensed anyhow. Business customers aren't suddenly stopping purchases due to Windows 8 any more than they were Vista/7 when they wanted XP.
That's the thing though, it doesn't work. At least not particularly well.
XP was fundamentally a transitional OS. It's half-way between the bad old days of Win9x/DOS where there was no security and practically everything ran in the kernel, and Win Vista which institutes a proper security model along with evicting most drivers to the user-mode. The stability improvements alone made XP a vast improvement over Win9x, but it's still not a secure operating system.
The reality of the situation is that users (business and consumer alike) need to suck it up one more time and move to Win6.x. Yes it's painful, yes it's expensive, and yes, learning is hard. But Win6.x is the first Windows OS that implements a modern (and dare I say *nixy) security model. It's the first Windows OS with good 64bit CPU support. It's the first Windows OS with a graphics stack worth half a damn. Heck, it's the first Windows OS that doesn't run IE as Admin.
We must make the transition now, just one more time. After that, if users want to stop on Win6.x, that's okay. Even Vista perfectly fine since it implements all the major security features that make Win6.x necessary. Like any other OS there will come a time when Win6.x grows old and tired, but unlike XP Win6.x was built to last. It was built to be secure and even now, more than 6 years after its launch it doesn't have any significant faults. It's built to withstand the world that comes with the age of the always-on Internet.
But we can't stop on XP. XP is fundamentally broken and was never meant to be used like this for this long. Use Win 8, use Win 7, hell, use Vista, but please don't stop on XP.
The second that ABC called my number they were in violation of the DNC legislation. That makes them liable.
Unfortunately that's not how it works. You engaged with the telemarketer, and now you have a business relationship with ABC due to the fact that they essentially purchased that relationship by purchasing that lead. Now in theory you could hold them responsible for telemarketing, but you'd have to prove they knew it was what amounts to an illegal lead, and that may as well be impossible.
MS needs to release a docking station for the Surface that lets it act like a desktop, of course they'd prefer to keep people buying both as long as possible.
I'm not sure why a docking station would be necessary. All there is to plugin is a keyboard, a mouse, and a display. Even Thunderbolt would only reduce this by 2 cables. Or you can add a touch/type cover and it becomes a de-facto laptop.
We really do live in the future. I'm looking at a panoramic, high definition landscape of another planet from my couch. How can you not get excited about it?!
People spend all of this time bitching about all the things that are wrong in the world, and they only half-realize all the awesome things that go on such as this. We live in the future and I wouldn't have it any other way.
P.S. Not all of us are male, you insensitive clod. Though the realization that I'm now wetter than Mars from looking at Mars has a certain tinge of irony to it
Respectfully, I don't know why this was modded up. There's a lot of bad information in here.
On the one hand, you're right that NVIDIA can't get into the x86 CPU market. Intel controls that lock and key. Though NVIDIA does have things to share (they have a lot of important graphics IP), but it wouldn't be enough to get Intel to part with an x86 license (NVIDIA has tried that before).
However you're completely off base on the rest. Cost has nothing to do with why NVIDIA is out of the Intel chipset business. NVIDIA's chipset business was profitable to the very end. The problem was that on the Intel side of things NVIDIA only had a license for the AGTL+ front side bus, but not the newer DMI or QPI buses that Intel started using with the Nehalem generation of CPUs. Without a license for those buses, NVIDIA couldn't make chipsets for newer Intel CPUs, and that effectively ended their chipset business (AMD's meager x86 sales were not enough to sustain a 3rd party business).
NVIDIA and Intel actually went to court over that and more; Intel eventually settled by giving NVIDIA over a billion dollars. You are right though that there's not much to chipsets these days, and if NVIDIA was still in the business they likely would have exited it with Sandy Bridge.
As for Stacked DRAM. That is very, very different from PoP RAM. PoP uses traditional BGA balls to connect DRAM to a controller, with the contacts for the RAM being along the outside rim of the organic substrate that holds the controller proper. Stacked DRAM uses through silicon vias: they're literally going straight down/up through layer of silicon to make the connection. The difference besides the massive gulf in manufacturing difficulty is that PoP doesn't lend itself to wide memory buses (you have all those solder balls and need space on the rim of the controller for them) while stacked DRAM will allow for wide memory buses since you can connect directly to the controller. The end result in both cases is that the RAM is on the same package as the controller, but their respective complexity and performance is massively different.
The problem with the S3 Mini is that it had almost nothing to do with the S3. It was a redressed version of one of Samsung's midrange smartphones. Even the Galaxy S2 was more powerful/capable in most situations, never mind the S3.
A quick look on Amazon and there is at least one ad blocker available
Indeed. Thankfully we have the Amazon store, as that's really the only other widely trusted Android repository right now. If not for Amazon I don't think there's any other repository most geeks would trust for paid apps, due to the complexities of properly handling/securing payment details.
But this still bites. Play is the de facto Android store; most users don't have immediate access to other stores, and as for Amazon they have some really weird developer-unfriendly practices for handling paid apps (primarily how pricing works). Geeks will be fine, but for the layperson this would seem to push ad blockers out of their reach.
GlassBox does more than just segregate computing tasks, it also allows us to make it so that you can create specialized cities that are visually unique and personalized, and that can be economically integrated into a larger region. Youâ(TM)re always connected to the neighbors in your region so while you play, data from your city interacts with our servers, and we run the simulation at a regional scale. For example, trades between cities, simulation effects that cause change across the region like pollution or crime, as well as depletion of resources, are all processed on the servers and then data is sent back to your city on your PC. Every city in the region is updated every three minutes, which keeps the overall region in sync and makes your decisions in your city relevant to any changes that have taken place in the region.
You don't seriously think that modern Intel processors are actually CISC, right? The underlying instruction set is closer to a DEC Alpha than it is to an 80x86 processor....
And that's really why the story question is misguided. The underlying architecture has nothing to do with the ISA; Intel can build whatever they want and throw an x86 decoder frontend on it and have a suitable x86 CPU. Killing the x86 ISA doesn't do anything for Intel or their customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Shuttered and closed have different implications in this case. Closed implies an orderly wind down, while shuttered implies a rapid and disorderly cessation. It's akin the difference between closing time at night a local restaurant, and the owners throwing everyone out in the middle of the day.
The most significant quote of the article: "we expect overseas cash balances will continue to grow unless tax laws encourage U.S. companies to repatriate money".
The corporate tax rate for what Apple is doing is around 35%; that is, Apple would have to pay 35% of their cash pile in taxes if they repatriated it. Which would be generally reasonable if not for the fact that it was already taxed once in the originating country on the original sale. As a result the 35% tax rate is essentially a kind of 35% tariff on exports and foreign sales. You only need to pay it once if you sell within the US, but you pay it along with a second set of local taxes on anything you sell outside of the US, regardless of whether it was even made here. The ultimate effect is that if every dollar were immediately repatriated, foreign sales would either be immensely less profitable than domestic sales, or American companies would be at a significant competitive disadvantage against foreign companies that aren't getting taxed twice (e.g. Samsung).
Congress needs to give up on this pipe dream that they can have 35% of the profits made off of all foreign sales. When no one else is double-taxing like this, it makes the American tax system look foolish and antiquated.
Competing on price is an understatement. Amazon was losing money on purpose; it's more fair to say Amazon was competing via predatory pricing . Lose money on books now until everyone else has been run out of business, then significantly raise the prices once they're the only game in town. The outcome of that would have been something that would have benefited no one but Amazon.
On a side note, the wholesale model doesn't make any sense for ebooks anyhow. It's based around the realities of inventory, which wouldn't apply to ebooks.
You're not wrong, but using the generic reckless driving laws requires proving that the driver was actually being reckless, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care despite their self-imposed handicap. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is why we have laws against specific things like drunk driving and text messaging.
Yes, but that requires proving that the driver was actually driving without due care, which inevitably leads to a long trial where the suspect argues that they were still taking due care while wearing the glasses. When you enumerate badness you get to skip proving whether something is bad, and simply have to prove the suspect was doing the action. This is the same basic rationale for why laws were passed specifically to deal with text messaging.
You're looking for something that doesn't exist because it's no longer needed.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Windows-WN7-00403-English-Version/dp/B009HI2W66/ref=sr_1_2?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1367939128&sr=1-2&keywords=windows+8
OEM is the new retail. MS unified the TOS; Win8 OEM's terms are essentially identical to Win7 retail's terms, including the ability to resell it.
This had better be News For Nerds, because it sure isn't Stuff That Matters. If you don't have a good technical article to post, then don't post anything at all. These flamebait stories are getting old.
Secure Erase is even more brilliant than that. Modern SSDs (and phones) run 128bit/256bit AES encryption full-time. So when the drive needs to be Secure Erased, they simply throw away the key and generate a new one.
As a result the data has been rendered inert in a fraction of the time it would take to actually overwrite it, and without needing to put all of the cells through a P/E cycle.
Intelligence is additive. Stupidity is multiplicative.
Strictly speaking they don't need to be off the network; the threat isn't other XP machines in general, it's things coming straight from the Internet or through other computers connected to the Internet. Put the XP machines on an airgapped network (and epoxy the USB ports if you can) where they can't transmit or receive malware, and those machines could very well run forever.
Tech companies regularly use both GAAP and non-GAAP in their statements, and for good reason, so non-GAAP should not immediately be dismissed.
GAAP is very much the bottom line - it's damn near every penny spent and earned accounted for in the final income statements. Importantly, this includes both the core business and one-off gains/losses such as settlements, restructuring costs, and write-downs. This is very important for investors as it means a company can't simply hide certain types of charges, so if a company lost a ton of money on such charges investors will see it on the bottom line.
However because GAAP includes those one-off charges, it's not very good for comparing the core business on a quarterly and annual basis. As a result tech companies will almost always compute both GAAP and non-GAAP financial results, with non-GAAP results throwing out one-off charges (and a couple of other changes) so that investors can see the results of just the core business, with all of the noise thrown out. This allows investors to evaluate the core business on its own, so that they can see whether the company would have been healthy outside of those charges, or if the core business is suffering too.
Both are important, and that's why both are included. Despite what you may think there's nothing devious about it; including both instead of just GAAP means that investors can quickly see and track the financial status of both the company and the core business. News articles in turn may quote one or another (or both), but this is purely optional on their part. On the actual reports you will always see GAAP regardless of whether non-GAAP is included too.
Bingo. Since the late 80s firms have routinely been slapped down for predatory practices when it comes to kids. TV is the most obvious example - toy commercials have been forcibly unbundled from their parent programs and standards have been imposed to prevent the Chocobot Hour problem - but regulations have been put in place elsewhere for similar reasons. The US already has COPPA for dealing with the Internet, which prevents firms from collecting information on children under 13, for largely the same reasons.
Anyhow, not to go on an anti-corporate rant here, but this isn't anything new. Kids are stupid/naive and easily influenced, and less scrupulous businesses have long attempted to do an end-run around parents by targeting kids directly, which is why these regulations are in place. Parents should absolutely keep a close eye on what their kids are doing and nothing the government can do will replace that, but parents are ultimately competing against firms employing graduate level psychological methods. Kids are all but helpless here, so it's not a fair fight to say the least.
Parents should not have to fight against firms blatantly predating on their kids, which is what some of these kid-focused games are trying to do.
Good catch. I meant to go for "classic Direct3D" there, but my fingers did their own thing it seems. Direct3D itself was introduced in 1995, and was brutally extended up through 2004 with D3D9.0c.
Dammit. It's been 6 years now and I'm getting tired of this stupid falsehood. Direct3D 10 wasn't limited to Vista for superficial business reasons. There are some extremely important technical factors that required overhauling parts of Windows alongside D3D10.
The graphics stack below the API was almost entirely overhauled, as per the Windows Display Driver Model. Context switching, multithreading, virtual memory, splitting up the driver into user-mode and kernel-mode components, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. People forget just how broken Direct3D 9 was (and is); it was created at a time when the term "GPU" didn't exist yet and a video card was little more than a texturing unit and a raster op pipeline, and then brutally extended over the years to incorporate functionality like T&L and shaders. The whole thing predicated on a driver model that basically treated the video card as nothing more than a special class of peripheral, whereas with WDDM the GPU was finally promoted to a special class of processor within Windows.
Direct3D 10 in turn takes advantage of these low-level changes, particularly the changes to memory management. As a result, you can't have D3D10 without WDDM and the modern graphics stack it brings.
So the only way to bring D3D10 to XP would have been to create a cutthroat version of it that had little in common with Vista's version, or to backport the entire Vista graphics stack to XP, At which point you would have Vista whether you liked it or not, since you just brought over one of the biggest changes in the OS, and all of the bugs, growing pains, and incompatibility that brings.
If your company really is in the market for purchasing laptops, then a company of that size would be able to order any OS they wanted regardless. Or alternatively roll out their own OS, since an organization that large is undoubtedly going to be volume licensed anyhow. Business customers aren't suddenly stopping purchases due to Windows 8 any more than they were Vista/7 when they wanted XP.
That's the thing though, it doesn't work. At least not particularly well.
XP was fundamentally a transitional OS. It's half-way between the bad old days of Win9x/DOS where there was no security and practically everything ran in the kernel, and Win Vista which institutes a proper security model along with evicting most drivers to the user-mode. The stability improvements alone made XP a vast improvement over Win9x, but it's still not a secure operating system.
The reality of the situation is that users (business and consumer alike) need to suck it up one more time and move to Win6.x. Yes it's painful, yes it's expensive, and yes, learning is hard. But Win6.x is the first Windows OS that implements a modern (and dare I say *nixy) security model. It's the first Windows OS with good 64bit CPU support. It's the first Windows OS with a graphics stack worth half a damn. Heck, it's the first Windows OS that doesn't run IE as Admin.
We must make the transition now, just one more time. After that, if users want to stop on Win6.x, that's okay. Even Vista perfectly fine since it implements all the major security features that make Win6.x necessary. Like any other OS there will come a time when Win6.x grows old and tired, but unlike XP Win6.x was built to last. It was built to be secure and even now, more than 6 years after its launch it doesn't have any significant faults. It's built to withstand the world that comes with the age of the always-on Internet.
But we can't stop on XP. XP is fundamentally broken and was never meant to be used like this for this long. Use Win 8, use Win 7, hell, use Vista, but please don't stop on XP.
Unfortunately that's not how it works. You engaged with the telemarketer, and now you have a business relationship with ABC due to the fact that they essentially purchased that relationship by purchasing that lead. Now in theory you could hold them responsible for telemarketing, but you'd have to prove they knew it was what amounts to an illegal lead, and that may as well be impossible.
I'm not sure why a docking station would be necessary. All there is to plugin is a keyboard, a mouse, and a display. Even Thunderbolt would only reduce this by 2 cables. Or you can add a touch/type cover and it becomes a de-facto laptop.
We really do live in the future. I'm looking at a panoramic, high definition landscape of another planet from my couch. How can you not get excited about it?!
People spend all of this time bitching about all the things that are wrong in the world, and they only half-realize all the awesome things that go on such as this. We live in the future and I wouldn't have it any other way.
P.S. Not all of us are male, you insensitive clod. Though the realization that I'm now wetter than Mars from looking at Mars has a certain tinge of irony to it
Respectfully, I don't know why this was modded up. There's a lot of bad information in here.
On the one hand, you're right that NVIDIA can't get into the x86 CPU market. Intel controls that lock and key. Though NVIDIA does have things to share (they have a lot of important graphics IP), but it wouldn't be enough to get Intel to part with an x86 license (NVIDIA has tried that before).
However you're completely off base on the rest. Cost has nothing to do with why NVIDIA is out of the Intel chipset business. NVIDIA's chipset business was profitable to the very end. The problem was that on the Intel side of things NVIDIA only had a license for the AGTL+ front side bus, but not the newer DMI or QPI buses that Intel started using with the Nehalem generation of CPUs. Without a license for those buses, NVIDIA couldn't make chipsets for newer Intel CPUs, and that effectively ended their chipset business (AMD's meager x86 sales were not enough to sustain a 3rd party business).
NVIDIA and Intel actually went to court over that and more; Intel eventually settled by giving NVIDIA over a billion dollars. You are right though that there's not much to chipsets these days, and if NVIDIA was still in the business they likely would have exited it with Sandy Bridge.
As for Stacked DRAM. That is very, very different from PoP RAM. PoP uses traditional BGA balls to connect DRAM to a controller, with the contacts for the RAM being along the outside rim of the organic substrate that holds the controller proper. Stacked DRAM uses through silicon vias: they're literally going straight down/up through layer of silicon to make the connection. The difference besides the massive gulf in manufacturing difficulty is that PoP doesn't lend itself to wide memory buses (you have all those solder balls and need space on the rim of the controller for them) while stacked DRAM will allow for wide memory buses since you can connect directly to the controller. The end result in both cases is that the RAM is on the same package as the controller, but their respective complexity and performance is massively different.
No. But perhaps if they had stuck around the large eyes would help the Slashdot editors spot their dupes.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/13/1247255/manga-girls-beware-extra-large-eyes-caused-neanderthals-demise
The problem with the S3 Mini is that it had almost nothing to do with the S3. It was a redressed version of one of Samsung's midrange smartphones. Even the Galaxy S2 was more powerful/capable in most situations, never mind the S3.
Indeed. Thankfully we have the Amazon store, as that's really the only other widely trusted Android repository right now. If not for Amazon I don't think there's any other repository most geeks would trust for paid apps, due to the complexities of properly handling/securing payment details.
But this still bites. Play is the de facto Android store; most users don't have immediate access to other stores, and as for Amazon they have some really weird developer-unfriendly practices for handling paid apps (primarily how pricing works). Geeks will be fine, but for the layperson this would seem to push ad blockers out of their reach.
Okay. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/The-Benefits-of-Live-Service
And that's really why the story question is misguided. The underlying architecture has nothing to do with the ISA; Intel can build whatever they want and throw an x86 decoder frontend on it and have a suitable x86 CPU. Killing the x86 ISA doesn't do anything for Intel or their customers.