Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,726
- 1,013
- 126
Myopic. Consoles, handhelds, olpc, embedded, etc. AMD offers long support sockets, not just desktop, that dwarf intels long term offering. Intel is losing money because their whole profit system was based on OEMs making a complete new system every iteration and never just upgrading components.
in mobile both offers like 2 generation of sockets also for embedded Intel has way long support than whatever AMD gives what do you mean by olpc?
also for embedded compare these what will you pick.
Handheld and Desktop AMD is clear winner as of now
Schmide
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2002
- 5,726
- 1,013
- 126
Yes
didn't knew that term
it says upto 10 years(same as Intel but intel has an added clause ) the 15 years was for FPGAs can't be compared
edit:
upto x years/% is usually <=x/% it doesn't guarantee x.
Last edited:
No? The inefficiency started showing when they changed the reporting model aka IFS.
Executive shakeup continues at Intel https://seekingalpha.com/news/44763..._source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=40951463.18296
Say what you will about Tan, he's making the magnitude of changes that are necessary to right the ship. I'm not sure they are the correct changes, but they're not hitting elephants with a flyswatter any longer.
I looked at the age of people they are beyond retirement lol it's not a shakeup but a clickbait article
Ryan Russel is certainly not beyond retirement, he's like 54 years old, lol. Kaizad Mistry is younger than Lip Bu Tan and Pat Gelsinger. Gary Patton is the only one who you might say was beyond retirement but I don't know him or his current condition to say. I've worked with multiple people his age, or older, that were still plenty effective in the work place. The fact that all 3 are "retiring" at the same time tells you that they are being retired rather than retiring.
Kaizad is still 60+ that's retirement age same for patton russel you can argue maybe they are the fall guys for foundry
I said maybe what irks me the most is Ann Keller's disappearance she just vanished.
Jim Keller was over 60 while working at Intel, I didn't hear anyone saying he was past retirement nor do I hear anyone saying Lip Bu Tan is either. Just because you are at an age that you can retire, doesn't mean you should or that you are "past retirement age". Lip Bu Tan is trying to remake the company according to his vision, that's it.
Gideon
Platinum Member
- Nov 27, 2007
- 2,015
- 4,996
- 136
Intel's Former 'Inventor of The Year', Who Specialized In Glass Substrates, Has Now Joined Samsung, Showing that Team Blue is Ready to Abandon Its Core Team & Vision
Intel might have lost a major talent, as the company's core employee responsible for glass substrates has moved to Samsung.
wccftech.com
It's really incredible how much Intel fumbled their technology lead. They had some of the most advanced R&D in many fields including AI, Ray Tracing, Glass Substrates, Fiber Optics... and just never managed to turn that leadership R&D into a leadership product.Intel's Former 'Inventor of The Year', Who Specialized In Glass Substrates, Has Now Joined Samsung, Showing that Team Blue is Ready to Abandon Its Core Team & Vision
Intel might have lost a major talent, as the company's core employee responsible for glass substrates has moved to Samsung.
Most companies that gain a monopoly or near monopoly in one field fail miserably when they attempt to enter other fields.
Look at Microsoft. How many different products they did they and fail at (tablets multiple times, phones multiple times, search, the list goes on) and even where they didn't utterly fail like Xbox they didn't exactly achieve leadership let alone the type of monopoly they are used to having. Finally with cloud they found something else they were really good at, but they wasted countless billions on failed products and failed acquisitions.
Or how about Google? Their quasi monopoly in search spawned their advertising business which still to this day provides over 100% of their profit. Collectively everything else that's not advertising loses money, and the "Google graveyard" is littered with their many many failed products. Even things you'd think Google would be good at - how many different messaging/chat apps did they go through over the years before they decided to hand things back to the carriers by going with a long ignored SMS upgrade?
Monopoly profits can fund a lot of stuff, but colors your perceptions of what "success" is so maybe you try to be too ambitious. Or maybe you have to be, because a business line some companies would kill for is "hurting our margins" and gets cut when the beancounters see it will never provide monopoly sized profits.
So, one of the problems I seen in most of the discussions is that everyone is trying to tell a technology story (because you find that interesting, and it is) when you need to learn to tell an economic story. One of the reasons why Apple is quite successful here is that they are not a technology company. They are a go-to-market company. They identify a customer need, they identify how they can solve it, how they will market that solution, then they invent the technology needed to implement that solution and then they sell it. They identify the potential demand, then they create that demand, then they satisfy that demand.
Intel had no go-to-market strategy for the AI or the ray tracing or the fiber optics. You look at an Intel tech like Thunderbolt, Apple carried that. It would have died in the lab if Apple didn't commit to putting it in products to solve problems their market was looking at. Between Intel and their customers are a whole field of players that Intel has no control over. Intel didn't want to make PCs, so Thunderbolt largely withered in the PC space. Same goes for fiber optics and ray tracing and AI even though those are big categories, Intel couldn't get into the category in an economically meaningful way.
I think one of the problems Intel always had was that they were aspirationally modeling off of companies like the old HP that were technological pioneers in the valley. But HP made things. I spent years working with a 1970s HP-1000, and HP oscilloscopes and all kinds of stuff. In the old days they didn't avoid the messy step of turning it into a product, but Intel was sort of founded with the idea of 'what if we just skipped that messy part'. And yeah, it works, but you lose a LOT of control in the goal of being a technology leader because you have no ability to put it in a customer's hands and give them a competitive advantage or whatever so that a demand market can form around the tech. Sure, a lot of it comes because of alignments in the interests of the OEMs and Intel, but when that space runs toward price competition because the OEMs don't have different versions of Windows to ship and the Intel/AMD SKU price sheet is sufficiently well calibrated that there's no real competitive benefit other than cost, then nobody is really championing your tech because their success is coming from saving pennies, not solving problems and that pioneering tech is designed to solve problems. Meanwhile Apple is over there refusing against all analyst insistence on competing on price and focusing on solving problems and building up tech behind that task, and so Thunderbolt gets developed and Apple runs with it because it's useful and the PC world is still coloring their USB ports because they don't want to pay the $0.03 to make them all good ones. There's no room for Thunderbolt in that space and Intel is trapped to the whims of the OEMs. The OEMs don't want Thunderbolt, they want a USB-2 to be marginally cheaper, and Intel has no room to make the case for Thunderbolt - so Apple does it.
You can argue that Intel should have become more of a product company like HP or Apple, but I don't think they actually had the capacity to do that for the same reason that Google so routinely fails on the same front - that's just not how they're wired, and we've just watched Intel try and wire itself for 10 years, unsuccessfully. It's hard. Most companies go bankrupt before they get there. Apple themselves very nearly did as well.
The only thing I think Intel fumbled was investing in that stuff in the first place when they had insufficient control over whether they could turn it into a product (I'd make an exception for glass substrate - that was much more in their wheelhouse). I think they needed to pick a lane - either act like AMD and build only to customer demand, or be innovative and have a product division.
"People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I'm actually as proud of the things we haven't done as the things I have done. Innovation is saying no to 1,000 things."
Jobs isn't saying that the idea they reject isn't good - he's admitting that it is. But it's not enough that out there might be a customer who wants it - he's saying "It's not useful to us if we can't walk it from the lab into a customers hands and collect that payment." And Intel wasn't able to do that and I'm willing to bet that nobody could put down a business model for how Intel was going to put ray tracing into people's hands and collect money for it.
coercitiv
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2014
- 7,248
- 17,069
- 136
We do tell an economic story, you're just not accustomed to read it. Companies like Intel identify the customer need at a different level, but the process is very much still there. Nvidia is one of the most successful companies in the world right now, and most of their profits come from products that are part of other people's "messy step". They correctly identified a massive need and built technology to sell for that need.
No, those are fine, but there are all of these 'why did this go wrong, it was so great' - and if you tell the economic story it usually becomes pretty apparent why it went wrong. The successful stuff doesn't really need the story - it's axiomatic.
It will be interesting to see if Nivida's economic story is sustainable given that none of the other people's messy steps are making any money.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter