Intel exits memory business, sale to Hynix for $9B

Post by someperson » Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 8:41 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #18

bnt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real shitshow starts when the CFO becomes the CEO (as is usually the case), so Intel is pretty much dead as is US tech innovation on this scale (until VCs do what China does and start pouring money into hard stuff, not just fluffy software).

> until VCs do what China does and start pouring money into hard stuff, not just fluffy software VCs won't do that, it's not their business model. The only way out is government funding - the way it has been for decades.

Post by rvba » Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 8:57 AM UTC

bnt wrote: post #7

lend000 wrote: post #5

Intel's NAND flash was overshadowed by their Optane (not included in the sale) and lagging behind Hynix and Samsung, so I guess this isn't such a bad move. The cynical take is that the CFO running Intel is attempting a bunch of standard corporate restructuring strategies to delay the effects of their slowing technical innovation. It is definitely concerning from a US technical superiority standpoint to consider that…

The real shitshow starts when the CFO becomes the CEO (as is usually the case), so Intel is pretty much dead as is US tech innovation on this scale (until VCs do what China does and start pouring money into hard stuff, not just fluffy software).

Post by paulgerhardt » Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 8:59 AM UTC

brain5ide wrote: post #22

someperson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 of the "traitorous eight" from Fairchild Semiconductor were the investors who funded Intel

This happened once.

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 9:08 AM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #24

lend000 wrote: post #5

Intel's NAND flash was overshadowed by their Optane (not included in the sale) and lagging behind Hynix and Samsung, so I guess this isn't such a bad move. The cynical take is that the CFO running Intel is attempting a bunch of standard corporate restructuring strategies to delay the effects of their slowing technical innovation. It is definitely concerning from a US technical superiority standpoint to consider that…

Unpopular opinion: Intel may be slowly dying, but this is fine and eventually happens to all ageing corporations. Looking at the technical quality of their non-x86 products, most of it was not great, so it is not surprising to see the rot spread.

Post by Reason077 » Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 9:10 AM UTC

bnt wrote: post #7

lend000 wrote: post #5

Intel's NAND flash was overshadowed by their Optane (not included in the sale) and lagging behind Hynix and Samsung, so I guess this isn't such a bad move. The cynical take is that the CFO running Intel is attempting a bunch of standard corporate restructuring strategies to delay the effects of their slowing technical innovation. It is definitely concerning from a US technical superiority standpoint to consider that…

The real shitshow starts when the CFO becomes the CEO (as is usually the case), so Intel is pretty much dead as is US tech innovation on this scale (until VCs do what China does and start pouring money into hard stuff, not just fluffy software).