One positive I draw from Panello's statements is that it's a small step towards how open the manufacturers were about certain processor lines. The x86 mainline cores were a notable example, as were IBM's disclosures on Cell, sometimes POWER, and a few other non-embedded CPU lines.
The emergence of embedded, portable, and microserver core lines (edit: as the big buzz source) has had a chilling effect, with a drying up or paywalling of some traditional technical sources, a drop in the quantity of software guides, and a lack of openness about the hardware.
AMD's Bobcat was significant in that AMD really clammed up, with Jaguar being something of a change back.
ARM isn't as open, and its various licensees even less so.
Computing platform providers don't get as much of a marketing boost about any of the components they use, and we have some sparkling examples as of late of how tight-lipped or misleading they can be.
Forcing a PR tit for tat is not the same as the sort of walkthroughs and publications I remember for the big chip announcements, but I wonder if Sony hadn't pulled the tech geek gambit if both sides would have shut up and gone Nintendo as far as architectural tidbits go.
I do hope that we do get more disclosure from the architects and designers of the system, and a little less of the game of web forum telephone.
