Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel acquires Linutronix

community.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#61

Post by MangoCoffee »

dannyw wrote: post #16
bestouff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.

Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…

that's a very dark future for personal computer. its already suck with Windows to pay for different level of OS features.

if Intel go this route then i'm glad that Apple paved the way to use ARM for personal computer.

i bought a mac mini w/M1 and it was amazing. i can code .Net with jetbrains's rider without a problem, run multiple apps and play Hearthstone, all on 8gb of RAM.

i hope to see RISC-V for personal computer in the near future.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#62

Post by echelon »

robotnikman wrote: post #22
dannyw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…

Damn, the future of personal computing gets more depressing every day.

The market economy has discovered this path and is allowing it.

- iPhone you can't freely distribute software to (and Android makes it sufficiently difficult that only 0.01% of users can do it, so we may as well count them in too)

- infrastructure giants that turn open source services into paid platforms and then accrete all developer mindshare

- thin clients replacing thick clients. Workloads will move from desktop computers to the cloud. No need for a beefy computer to run software locally. More moat for the platforms since tools won't develop for a small market of hobbyists.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#63

Post by cptskippy »

imglorp wrote: post #28
dannyw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…

That trick might work for home desktop due to the short sight bug in human consumers (mostly gamers?), but does it make sense for server? It seems like a bunch of potential liabilities for a cloud host or data center operator. This is basically DRM for CPU and as such, its primary function is to stop working when all the business rules don't line up right.

> but does it make sense for server?

Typically in Server/Enterprise the licensing is self-report and audit or activation model. I think the activation model would probably apply here quite easily.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#64

Post by detaro »

zxspectrum1982 wrote: post #46
imglorp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That trick might work for home desktop due to the short sight bug in human consumers (mostly gamers?), but does it make sense for server? It seems like a bunch of potential liabilities for a cloud host or data center operator. This is basically DRM for CPU and as such, its primary function is to stop working when all the business rules don't line up right.

It sure makes sense on the server-side. That's been IBM's business model for mainframes for half a century.

Not just mainframes, on POWER servers they offer the same.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#65

Post by danuker »

phkahler wrote: post #17
bestouff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.

>> Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me. That was bothering me a bit too, but then I realized it may have a use that most of us don't care about. Sure they could charge more for AVX512 or whatever, and they might try to charge rent for such options which I'm not a fan of. But what if they are being asked by 3-letter agencies for chips with custom circuitry that w…

How does it bother you less, assuming that 3-letter agencies can access parts of CPUs that you can't?

If anything, it bothers me more! Why would they get special treatment, and why would I have to subsidize its features paying for my CPU to have it, but disabled?

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#66

Post by tediousdemise »

dannyw wrote: post #16
bestouff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.

Like it or not, that's probably where the industry will be in 5 years. You might not like it, but X-as-a-service make way more money for the company, and shareholders. It'll probably look like this: buy a 'cheap' Intel CPU for $99 (say, 4P, 12E cores clocked at 2 GHz), with "Turbo" to 4.5 GHz being a $79/year subscription and "Extreme Turbo Max" to 5.1 GHz being an additional $35/year. First year free, of course, to…

This will suck until enthusiasts figure out how to jailbreak the processors to unlock maximum speeds.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#67

Post by NicoJuicy »

pinewurst wrote: post #49
colinmhayes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're trying to IPO mobileye for $50B. If they can pull that off the acquisition will have been a major success.

But not an intentional one. They bought it as a "hey we're relevant too!" move at peak autonomous car hype, and as it's hardly additive in real life, are trying to IPO it for the dumb money before they have to write it off (e.g. Habana).

Peak autonomous hype would be when it's there.

And there is too much money in it to never be there, to although I think it will take longer than most predictions.

And net profit while amount of employees have grown 5 fold. Growth of 24% yoy is pretty good.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#69

Post by pdimitar »

phkahler wrote: post #17
bestouff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me.

>> Their current CPU-features-as-a-service marketing push doesn't look like a right move to me. That was bothering me a bit too, but then I realized it may have a use that most of us don't care about. Sure they could charge more for AVX512 or whatever, and they might try to charge rent for such options which I'm not a fan of. But what if they are being asked by 3-letter agencies for chips with custom circuitry that w…

> * That was bothering me a bit too, but then I realized it may have a use that most of us don't care about.*

That's how it starts. First it happens to people whose needs you can't relate to, and then one day they'll want extra money so the accelerated video support starts working again.

It should bother you.

Re: Intel acquires Linutronix

#70

Post by noahmasur »

colinmhayes wrote: post #3
caleb-allen wrote: post #2

Intel seems to be making all the right moves. I'm excited to see what Pat Gelsinger can do over the next 5 years (I'm long INTC).

Intel is currently worth less than AMD even though Intel's profit is quite a bit higher than AMDs entire revenue. I recognize that Intel has huge problems to solve but they absolutely seem undervalued currently.

A quick search shows INTC market cap is 184B and AMD is 135B. AMD is worth 73% of Intel.
Post reply on HN