The full monty
Intel's angle is that it does a better job of providing the internet on mobile phones, specifically the "full internet" as it puts it. By this it means rich applications that require more processing power then just, say, reading text or looking at still images.
The reason Intel's focusing on this is that's where the superior processing power it says Atom has over any of the ARM based offerings out there comes to the rescue.
Precisely what separates the "full internet" from the boring old regular internet is still unclear, but assuming video is a big part of it, it's possible that initiatives like Adobe's Open Screen Project will have as significant an impact as an increase in processing grunt.
Furthermore, what price are end-users prepared to pay in terms of battery life to achieve this boost? Intel likes to talk about MIDs (mobile internet devices) instead of mobile phones. These are larger UMPC type devices with, presumably, larger batteries. If the Atom is better suited to MIDs then is there any point in comparing it to ARM processors?
Moorestown is expected to use ten times less power when idle than Menlow. Perhaps we shouldn't even be talking about Intel in mobile phones until Mooretown comes out, which Intel has said will happen in 2009-2010.
Here are a couple of slides from the presentation that preceded Kedia's comments given by Shane Wall, the head of Intel's ultra-mobility group, illustrating ways in which he thinks Atom is superior to ARM-based processors:
