Intel 14 nm delayed.

[krumme]

And informed investors much later. As others have said, that's a criminal offence.

Well it seems you need a motive for your crime. The far most important part imho in situations like this. I can not see what Intel will have to gain from keeping the information? On the contrary.

 

[SiliconWars]

Well it seems you need a motive for your crime. The far most important part imho in situations like this. I can not see what Intel will have to gain from keeping the information? On the contrary.

I'm sure that TSMC and GF could have made good use of this information 6 months ago.

 

[mikk]

I keep hearing from AMD we are on track all the time (it's a standard phrase in this industry). Too bad they basically always have to delay something.

 

[SiliconWars]

I keep hearing from AMD we are on track all the time (it's a standard phrase in this industry). Too bad they basically always have to delay something.

Intel has gone on record twice in the past 3 months - once at the Q2 CC - to state that 14nm was on track to ship by the end of the year.

I have shown that people outside of Intel knew that 14nm was delayed at least until Q1 *before* the Q2 CC - http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2640-intel-14nm-delayed.html

The Q2 CC was on the 16th of July. SEMICON West was between the 8th and 11th of July.

If people outside of Intel knew about it then, why did they lie about it at the Q2 CC, then again at IDF?

“14 nanometer on-track to enter production by the end of the year” EVP and CFO Stacy J. Smith

“We are on track to start production on our 14 nanometer process technology in the back half of this year. CEO Brian M. Krzanich

 

[ShintaiDK]

So how many companies are you gonna sue now? I can understand its currently AMD, Intel, GloFo and TSMC.

I mean you are so sure, or is it just more of the same FUD?

 

[Phynaz]

Typical sad attempt to deflect the issue on to other companies again.

From another forum -

Now the Techreport forum is your source of legal information.

 

[Abwx]

It is likely that they have issues since they are using the lithographic
tools at their maximum resolution , that is 18nm, wich is the real metric
size of this alleged "14nm" node.

 

[aigomorla]

Do you think the CEO of any company makes a manufacturing decision without data?
"Hey, look, somebody just handed me a chip, we're ready to go!"

It is nice of you to admit the enjoyment you get out of the forums though. For you it doesn't seem to be about technology enthusiasm, but it's about being "right" on the Internet.

isnt that how facebook ipo started?

hey we got a product lets IPO it!

<sarcasm incase i offended ya phynaz>

 

[Fjodor2001]

Again, total FUD, since the delay is with respect to statements made on the prior earnings call,

So you mean Intel has known about the Broadwell delay since back in July (or perhaps even earlier) when their internal release schedule was updated, but kept it secret and not informed the investors and the market about it until now, 3 months later?

 

[Revolution 11]

It is likely that they have issues since they are using the lithographic
tools at their maximum resolution , that is 18nm, wich is the real metric
size of this alleged "14nm" node.

It is a lot more complicated than just metric size. The transistor length is different from wire diameter and so on. A lot of electrical parameters go into a node and determine performance/power use.

 

[liahos1]

So you mean Intel has known about the Broadwell delay since back in July (or perhaps even earlier) when their internal release schedule was updated, but kept it secret and not informed the investors and the market about it until now, 3 months later?

sure and there would be nothing wrong with that whatsoever. If they decided to do it in Sept or Jan would not change one thing. companies are not open libraries where any question asked gets answered. Have you ever tried talking to a Company CFO or IR? My hit rate on getting direct answers is like 10%. Half a public investors job is being to discern hints or connect dots because nothing is given to you on a plate.

 

[SiliconWars]

sure and there would be nothing wrong with that whatsoever. If they decided to do it in Sept or Jan would not change one thing. companies are not open libraries where any question asked gets answered. Have you ever tried talking to a Company CFO or IR? My hit rate on getting direct answers is like 10%. Half a public investors job is being to discern hints or connect dots because nothing is given to you on a plate.

Yes but surely downright lying about something is a lot different from deflecting or refusing to answer a question. One of them is deception - they deliberately deceived investors (of which you are one).

This could have serious ramifications down the line. Clearly I'm not an Intel investor but if I were then I'd be extremely unhappy about this if it turns out like say...Airmont is late and Intel spends another year on the sidelines while Qualcomm and Apple clean up in mobile. Bay Trail missed out on a lot of high profile wins due to being late - I'm not saying it would have won them but to have a chance you have to be available and it wasn't. Is Airmont now going to be the same after the promises of it being pulled in? I honestly don't believe it matters for Broadwell as AMD is probably not going to have anything much in competition, but for Airmont this could be a disaster.

 

[Fjodor2001]

With the lack of competition from AMD one could almost suspect it's an "intentional delay" to first make profit from existing investments made in Ivy Bridge and Haswell before introducing Broadwell. I know the Intel CEO would never admit to that though.

The market still seems flooded with old Ivy Bridge based desktop PCs and laptop, even though Haswell was released almost 5 months ago. My impression is that I see more IB than Haswell based computers in ads currently. So the retailers are still clearing out old IB inventory. As I remember it the transition to a new CPU used to be quicker than this for previous CPU generations...

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i dont think pc's are selling at all right now, they certainly dont need to be shipping out a fifth generation at the same clockspeeds so soon after releasing haswell

 

[SiliconWars]

Intel would never blame a process issue for a delay unless it was the process - it's (rightly so) their pride and joy and this is shattering the illusion of their process infallibility.

 

[ShintaiDK]

i dont think pc's are selling at all right now, they certainly dont need to be shipping out a fifth generation at the same clockspeeds so soon after releasing haswell

They actually sell better than expected. North American market only shrinked with 0.2% now. With some luck sales will go forward next Q.

 

[aigomorla]

Intel would never blame a process issue for a delay unless it was the process - it's (rightly so) their pride and joy and this is shattering the illusion of their process infallibility.

Is it just me, or do you have more intel hate then i do?

 

[SiliconWars]

Is it just me, or do you have more intel hate then i do?

There was no hate in that post. Don't get me wrong, unlike most I won't BS about not having a severe disdain of Intel and how they go about their business, but I don't think that post was proof of it.

Intel's process is their pride and joy and the envy of the industry, always has been. They would never, ever blame it for a delay unless it was and I'm 100% sure that every single Intel fanboy here would agree with that statement.

 

[liahos1]

Yes but surely downright lying about something is a lot different from deflecting or refusing to answer a question. One of them is deception - they deliberately deceived investors (of which you are one).

This could have serious ramifications down the line. Clearly I'm not an Intel investor but if I were then I'd be extremely unhappy about this if it turns out like say...Airmont is late and Intel spends another year on the sidelines while Qualcomm and Apple clean up in mobile. Bay Trail missed out on a lot of high profile wins due to being late - I'm not saying it would have won them but to have a chance you have to be available and it wasn't. Is Airmont now going to be the same after the promises of it being pulled in? I honestly don't believe it matters for Broadwell as AMD is probably not going to have anything much in competition, but for Airmont this could be a disaster.

believe it or not i'm actually not an intel investor. i am involved in other names that depend on intel's success/failure in different verticals they participate in.

 

[SiliconWars]

believe it or not i'm actually not an intel investor. i am involved in other names that depend on intel's success/failure in different verticals they participate in.

Ok but still, if you were and you'd bought shares based on what you were told in Q2 you'd be pretty annoyed, right?

 

[mrmt]

With the lack of competition from AMD one could almost suspect it's an "intentional delay" to first make profit from existing investments made in Ivy Bridge and Haswell before introducing Broadwell. I know the Intel CEO would never admit to that though.

So they get all the downside of investing in the 14nm, bearing all the CAPEX brunt, node but none of the benefits, because all the PPE sits idle in the fabs. All that because someone had the bright idea of milking 22nm for one more quarter.

I think it's not a question of BK be bold enough to admit doing that, but a question of BK being stupid enough to follow that route.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Ok but still, if you were and you'd bought shares based on what you were told in Q2 you'd be pretty annoyed, right?

Intel investor with a fairly substantial position, and yes, I am irritated. But it's a mild irritation at worst and not all that material to whether I think I should own the shares or not. What bums me out is that the Q4 guidance was pretty weak-sauce.

At the end of the day, as an investor, I am looking to see Intel establish a meaningful moat in the mobile space, as it has in the PC and server spaces. My bet is that once its low power SoC guys find their legs and the company as a whole transitions to a more SoC-oriented company, it will have scale and technological advantages that can't be easily picked off. This will translate into nice revenue and profit growth. Heck, even a return to breakeven on Atom with all else flat buys investors ~$0.40/share on the bottom line. If DCG can continue to grow at low double digits and if PC can stabilize and grow at low single digits, the stock will see some nice appreciation from here.

14nm Broadwell delayed? Yeah, sure, it sucks, but it's not as though Intel doesn't already have the PC market on lockdown.

 

[liahos1]

Ok but still, if you were and you'd bought shares based on what you were told in Q2 you'd be pretty annoyed, right?

not really because the financial impact wouldn't really hit the firm until 2H next year anyway. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being no annoyance and 10 being i will puke this stock at any price because I dont trust a thing I'm hearing from management or it could be a fraud, this would maybe qualify as a 3-4.

Even then on my firm's investments, i try to take a multi year view and not get caught up in quarter to quarter game. I'd be really paranoid if i really felt there were real issues at 14nm or that the new CEO was an idiot. I have issues with intel dont get me wrong and I dont think they are going to take 99.9% of the tablet/phone market anytime soon. but even if they take 10% by 2015 (which i think is more than doable) that does serious damage to certain companies in the mobile supply chain which im sort of more interested in.

 

[SiliconWars]

Well like I said, I'm not an Intel investor so really I couldn't care less from that standpoint, and obviously I'm not going to go reporting them either.

From a *trust* point of view however, it doesn't bode well. It might be the smart thing to do from a certain perspective, but from other's not so much.

Anyway, getting to the point - if he can lie about something like that then he sure won't mind telling half truths about whether or not it's fixed either. Before you all jump on me again let me remind you that I do believe it *probably* is fixed and said so before - I'm just not going to mindlessly trust this new guy who already has a serious question mark over him regarding the issue. I'm not taking what he said at full face value, not being "obtuse" or anything else.

 

[Edgemeal]

Ok but still, if you were and you'd bought shares based on what you were told in Q2 you'd be pretty annoyed, right?

Not really because they are just "forward looking statements", they can't predict the future, so they just offer what they expect to happen with a disclaimer which is on investor web pages and mentioned before every webcast Earnings call starts.

Example: Many factors could affect Intel's actual results, and variances from Intel's current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements