Intel lost $929mn on mobile in Q1 '14

[Nothingness]

Just seeing these posts while ignoring the context of the financials of their company, and suddenly the overwhelming concern for intel's bottom line when they made 2 billion in net profit. It's just something that cracks me up. It really is comedy gold. I hope those posts never stop coming. Because who can't use a major laugh.

You should know better: Intel and Microsoft are doomed!!!!!!!!111111 It's so fashionable to say so. [/sarcasm]

OTOH them being hugely profitable and successful doesn't mean their mobile strategy will finally succeed after trying for so long and despite having a good CPU. As Intel17 writes, they have to execute and I'll add their marketing department has to define the right SoC (it seems they are finally).

 

[NTMBK]

Agreed. When I see a spade I call it a spade.

Just seeing these posts while ignoring the context of the financials of their company, and suddenly the overwhelming concern for intel's bottom line when they made 2 billion in net profit. It's just something that cracks me up. It really is comedy gold. I hope those posts never stop coming. Because who can't use a major laugh.

"Their company"? You assume that because I don't applaud every single thing that Intel does, and worry about the long term viability of their business model, I am part of AMD? That I am somehow emotionally invested in the fate of a multinational corporation? The only person pushing this "us vs them" mentality is you, blackened.

 

[inf64]

"Their company"? You assume that because I don't applaud every single thing that Intel does, and worry about the long term viability of their business model, I am part of AMD? That I am somehow emotionally invested in the fate of a multinational corporation? The only person pushing this "us vs them" mentality is you, blackened.

This post perfectly sums up the situation on AT forum. Well said NTMBK :thumbsup:

 

[blackened23]

You should know better: Intel and Microsoft are doomed!!!!!!!!111111 It's so fashionable to say so. [/sarcasm]

OTOH them being hugely profitable and successful doesn't mean their mobile strategy will finally succeed after trying for so long and despite having a good CPU. As Intel17 writes, they have to execute and I'll add their marketing department has to define the right SoC (it seems they are finally).

When you're breaking into a new sector, your expenses go up while investing into the future. This isn't a new thing, this has happened in decades past and present. R+D invests into future compelling products; not spending money on R+D is the far bigger problem. That doesn't manifest itself in the present, but 5 years down the road it will show. Anyway. You invest in R+D to invest into future products. That benefit doesn't show immediately. It shows 2,3,4,5,6 years down the road. The Conroe CPU? You know when the R+D was spend on it? YEARS AND YEARS beforehand. I'm willing to say that the R+D on Conroe paid off, even if intel lost millions in the short term in the years prior to release. Wouldn't you say?

Anyway, intel is still making tons of money yet this doesn't matter to me as a consumer. I've said this before and i'll say it again: Intel has compelling products here now that they have full android support and while I don't agree with anyone stating that intel will dominate, I do firmly believe they will be a fierce competitor. Anyone spinning R+D expenditures while ignoring intel's financial health is just hilarious. And anyone suggesting that desktop should be their prioirity. Yeah okay. Mobile sales exceeded desktop sales when the original Pentium M was released. That sounds like a plan. Not.

 

[blackened23]

"Their company"? You assume that because I don't applaud every single thing that Intel does, and worry about the long term viability of their business model, I am part of AMD? That I am somehow emotionally invested in the fate of a multinational corporation? The only person pushing this "us vs them" mentality is you, blackened.

I didn't say anything about you. Just the overwhelming directions of various threads overall, perhaps you shouldn't get so defensive. If you take a look at a thread from top to bottom, well then, there you go. And my consumer mentality has nothing to do with that. "us vs them" has to do with the mentality you have as a consumer. Do you appreciate competition? do you appreciate the better product? Or does "us vs them" trump that?

If intel brings increased competition for mobile, even if I don't buy their SOCs, i'm all for it. But the brand loyalty buyer would buy the worse product because. Oh gee I hate qualcomm. I hate intel. So on and so forth. That's the us vs them mentality. Oh I don't know. But we can just ignore the complete context of the overall extreme profitability of intel and how R+D creates products for the future. As if spending money on R+D is a problem. Spending money on R+D is a good thing, but it doesn't manifest as beneficial for a few years.

I bought AMD when they had the better product; when the Athlon CPUs were released was I buying intel then? Nope. When AMD had the better product with the better experience, I bought AMD. Now of course AMD isn't delivering that. So I don't stick with AMD when they have the worse product, but I do appreciate the competition they bring on the GPU side. It's all about what benefits you as a consumer. Intel spending money for future compelling products? I think that will benefit me as a consumer. Now I may or may not buy it. Nonetheless. R+D is not a bad thing, and future products aren't a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's beneficial as a consumer whether I buy an iphone, an HTC with a qualcomm chip, or whatever I buy. I think that these future intel products will be good products. I could be wrong, but based on how the chips are aligning, I do firmly believe that intel has a good future to be a good competitor in mobile. Dominant? No. Great competition? I think so. R+D expenditures is all part of becoming a great competitor with better products. That money spent is not a bad thing.

"A spade is a spade" has literally nothing to do with what I buy as a consumer. But, spin it however you need to in order to make yourself feel better.

 

[NTMBK]

I didn't say anything about you. Just the overwhelming directions of various threads overall, perhaps you shouldn't get so defensive. If you take a look at a thread from top to bottom, well then, there you go. And my consumer mentality has nothing to do with that. I'll buy whatever or whoever creates the best product. "A spade is a spade" has literally nothing to do with what I buy as a consumer. But, spin it however you need to in order to make yourself feel better.

You were in the thread I started about Intel's financials, insulting people who show "overwhelming concern for intel's bottom line". Who else were you talking about?

And again, this has nothing to do with what you would buy right now. Intel makes plenty of excellent products that I would happily recommend. This is concern about the long term future of the Intel business model, which enabled all of these products.

 

[blackened23]

Investing into R+D isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. It happens when you're working on creating compelling future products.

If you want to suggest R+D expenditures is a bad thing, i'd have to question what in the world you're thinking. Especially when intel has a ton of cash saved to do just that. Prior to conroe's release, guess what? R+D costs went up in the short term, but in the long term it paid off. They took a brief hit to their financials (while maintaining profitability), but 3 years down the road AFTER they spent that R+D, what happened? They created one of their best products ever and reaped the rewards. And i'm sure then, just as now, there were financial analysts in the press that didn't understand the need for R+D and cited their increased expenditures as a problem. The thing is, that R+D money spent on conroe paid off and paid off big like I said.

Maybe you should read up on how and why spending money on R+D is a good thing. I highly suspect that NOT having money for R+D is the far bigger problem, we can certainly look at companies which can't spend money on R+D and how that directly affects their product viability 4-5 years down the road.

R+D isn't an immediate payoff. It's a delayed payoff. But spending money on R+D is a necessary evil. Without R+D, you don't have a future. It isn't a guaranteed payoff, but to make money, you spend money. That's just how it works in the silicon business , period.

Also, perhaps I was a bit brash with the comments. Scratch that, I was brash. I apologize about that. But I just don't see how or why spending money on R+D is a bad thing. This is something that will benefit consumers a few years down the road; the fact of the matter is intel has good financial health so I fail to see the problem. IMO, not spending on R+D would be a problem.

 

[rainy]

My ignore list is rather large for a reason with all these influencer, advocacy, focus group and so on programs. Plus the usual crowd.

As I understand just because you are so "special" and "very objective" person, you're showing a strong bias towards AMD in majority of posts?

 

[Nothingness]

Also, perhaps I was a bit brash with the comments. Scratch that, I was brash. I apologize about that. But I just don't see how or why spending money on R+D is a bad thing. This is something that will benefit consumers a few years down the road; the fact of the matter is intel has good financial health so I fail to see the problem. IMO, not spending on R+D would be a problem.

Of course spending money on R&D is required, but it doesn't guarantee success. It's not because you have the best R&D teams, the best process, the best CPU, the best SoC that you'll take over a market. If your marketing department has decided you'd put only two cores in a market that wants 4 (no matter how silly that is), you'll have an issue. And this is where Intel has somewhat failed until now.

Also the business model matters a lot, and the fact that some OEM will never accept to have a single source of supply: right now they'd pay $5 for SoC, but what option will they have when Intel dominates and decides prices don't fit their shareholders appetite? Or when they decide there will be only a single variant of the SoC available thus reducing OEM ability to differentiate between them?

Basically Intel is hugely successful for many good reasons, but that won't automatically translate into success in the mobile market.

 

[MisterMac]

@Wit\mrmt\shin:

Interesting enough.

...and wit btw - do you think then BK\Intel is keeping certain design wins secret - or do you think he's just saying what he practicly has to regarding the actual internal scernario?

 

[CHADBOGA]

This post perfectly sums up the situation on AT forum. Well said NTMBK :thumbsup:

Hi inf64,
Haven't seen you around much, I hope you post more often as I find your posts to be quite interesting.

How's your blog going?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Whilst Intel is losing money on mobile as they increase their spend on becoming a major player in mobile, they are in the fortunate position of being able to take marketshare off AMD in desktop, so that the overall financial position isn't impacted by as much as it could be, if they owned 100% of the desktop market.

I believe AMD are releasing their financials this week or next and you will see that once again they have lost more marketshare to Intel.

 

[inf64]

Sorry I have no time for internet forums . Real world and working you know, it's not easy. But I cheer for all of you internet warriors

 

[witeken]

...and wit btw - do you think then BK\Intel is keeping certain design wins secret - or do you think he's just saying what he practicly has to regarding the actual internal scernario?

I don't know.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Sorry I have no time for internet forums . Real world and working you know, it's not easy. But I cheer for all of you internet warriors

You have dedicated so much of your life to supporting AMD, it would be a pity to see you slow down now.

Perhaps you should wait to see what the next gen architecture that AMD brings out to replace Bulldozer is like, maybe AMD can get back on track.

 

[frozentundra123456]

While I think Intel has a tough road in mobile, especially phones, personally I am glad they are able to invest the money into trying to get into mobile because of their high profit in other areas. Their "contra revenue" program has resulted in some nice, low cost x86 tablets and convertibles, so I dont see how that is a bad thing for the consumer.

How long they will be able to continue this and how successful they will be is another story. I do know though that I will never buy another android tablet, so I am very glad to have an alternative at a reasonable price other than IoS.

 

[sm625]

Intel shouldnt be too concerned about what the shareholders want. As long as intel has access to the cheap credit (ie the federal reserve printing press), it will be able to borrow plenty of money at low rates to use to buy back shares and pump up its stock price and pay its dividends. What intel needs to be concerned with is microsofts total destruction of Windows. I have an intel tablet and I cant even use it not because the hardware is bad, but simply because the software is so bad that you literally cant/dont want to use it.

 

[inf64]

You have dedicated so much of your life to supporting AMD, it would be a pity to see you slow down now.

Perhaps you should wait to see what the next gen architecture that AMD brings out to replace Bulldozer is like, maybe AMD can get back on track.

I supported an innovative and brave underdog for years (I still do). Guilty as charged . I keep track of what is going on but cannot engage in discussions any more as it's very time consuming and essentially futile as we cannot change anything .

 

[MisterMac]

I don't know.

...but you still accept BKs word as practicly a gaurentee?

 

[witeken]

He already stated multiple times that he's certain that his 40M tablet goal will be reached.

 

[VirtualLarry]

He already stated multiple times that he's certain that his 40M tablet goal will be reached.

Didn't MS make similar claims about Surface sales, until the bitter end, and then the truth came out?

 

[Sweepr]

Didn't MS make similar claims about Surface sales, until the bitter end, and then the truth came out?

I also remember quite a lot of AMD promises that didnt materialize, but I think we're getting off-topic here.

 

[TeknoBug]

Mobile has never really been a strong market.

And yeah about the MS Surface, that thing TANKED and MS claimed otherwise... whahaha.

 

[ninaholic37]

What intel needs to be concerned with is microsofts total destruction of Windows. I have an intel tablet and I cant even use it not because the hardware is bad, but simply because the software is so bad that you literally cant/dont want to use it.

Could it be that Intel is holding back purposely for now because of Windows 8's bad rep? "Wait and see if Windows 9 is any good before investing more into this touchscreen business".

That's the 2nd most sensible explanation I've heard so far, after this one. :awe:

 

[R0H1T]

Intel shouldnt be too concerned about what the shareholders want. As long as intel has access to the cheap credit (ie the federal reserve printing press), it will be able to borrow plenty of money at low rates to use to buy back shares and pump up its stock price and pay its dividends.

OR maybe they should because MS already makes more money through their competitors, Android royalties, than Intel's ever going to make in the mobile arena over the next few years. Add to that MS bought Nokia which only uses Qualcomm chips for their win8 devices, so now MS is not only earning on hardware sales but also enabling Intel's primary competitor & in the process is steadily moving away from it's dependence on Intel.

What intel needs to be concerned with is microsofts total destruction of Windows. I have an intel tablet and I cant even use it not because the hardware is bad, but simply because the software is so bad that you literally cant/dont want to use it.

That's simply & totally untrue, sure win8 on desktop hasn't taken off like win7 did but it's still growing at a rapid pace which isn't necessarily reflected in the number of licensed copies, if you take pirated versions into account you'll see that win8 is still a smash hit relatively speaking. The phones/tablets based on win8 are flying off the shelves & that should tell you something about how the perception vs reality is in this matter.