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

Intel Honesty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 426 posts

Re: Intel Honesty

#381

Post by Wytwwww »

psunavy03 wrote: post #36
rowanG077 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll gladly take another Elon for siliconX. Hell I'd take 10. The good Elon has done in terms of his companies vastly outweigh the few bad tweets he slings into the world once in a while.

I don't get how some people struggle with the idea that he may simultaneously be a gifted businessman (in certain sectors, obviously Twitter was a disaster) and also simultaneously be a raging asshole. Bill Gates was a raging asshole. Steve Jobs was a raging asshole. Larry Ellison was a raging asshole. It's not ideal, but it also doesn't preclude success.

> I don't get how some people struggle with the idea that he may simultaneously be a gifted businessman

For me it's the Cybertruck. If find it hard to reconcile that a person with his track record could come up with that absurd abomination (makes me think that there is small small chance that all his other achievements were just extreme luck and random chance. Well in reality it's probably it due to lack of pressure/constraints that forced him to focus on making rational cars previously).

Re: Intel Honesty

#382

Post by Wytwwww »

alexashka wrote: post #23
knightfall21 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don't confuse demonic overlords' wishes with the wishes of the many. Remember that Elon was the overlords' darling up until he decided to spit in their face and buy their favorite mind programming toy from under them.

His pseudo-fascist political views, love of eugenics and other fringe stuff might have played a part.

Also you can't really expect a person narcissistic/unhinged enough to name his child "X AE A-XII" to be even remotely likeable (considering he also did it as a joke and possibly forgot about it doesn't make it much better).

Re: Intel Honesty

#383

Post by Wytwwww »

ryandrake wrote: post #169
rowanG077 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not remotely saying the same thing. Just because someone could do it doesn't mean it will happen. These things require MUCH more then just the possibility of it happening. For example I could go out right now and murder someone. Doesn't mean I will do it. I'm certainly capable of it. In fact most people are in this exact situation yet there are only a tiny amount of murders happening each day compared to the p…

I don't know. I happen to believe that many, many people are capable of running and growing a successful business, and that the limiting factor (and the reason they haven't already) is access to capital, not some special personality trait or pedigree or family background or really any particular expertise. Definitely millions, probably tens of millions, and maybe even hundreds of millions of people are capable of sta…

> businesses that fail is a testament to how thoroughly misallocated capital is. So much capital goes to people who end up demonstrating they are incapable of deploying it.

Doesn't that disprove you previous hypothesis? Unless you think that the people who are handing out the money and the ones they are handing it to are somehow exceptionally incompetent?

Re: Intel Honesty

#384

Post by Wytwwww »

ryandrake wrote: post #169
rowanG077 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not remotely saying the same thing. Just because someone could do it doesn't mean it will happen. These things require MUCH more then just the possibility of it happening. For example I could go out right now and murder someone. Doesn't mean I will do it. I'm certainly capable of it. In fact most people are in this exact situation yet there are only a tiny amount of murders happening each day compared to the p…

I don't know. I happen to believe that many, many people are capable of running and growing a successful business, and that the limiting factor (and the reason they haven't already) is access to capital, not some special personality trait or pedigree or family background or really any particular expertise. Definitely millions, probably tens of millions, and maybe even hundreds of millions of people are capable of sta…

> businesses that fail is a testament to how thoroughly misallocated capital is. So much capital goes to people who end up demonstrating they are incapable of deploying it.

Doesn't that disprove you previous hypothesis? Unless you think that the people who are handing out the money and the ones they are handing it to are somehow exceptionally incompetent? Why would that be the case?

Re: Intel Honesty

#385

Post by eric-hu »

Panzer04 wrote: post #337
eric-hu wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another way to look at it: Intel market cap is 83B, AMD's market cap is 228B. Do you think Intel is expected to make 1/3 of the money AMD is going to make in coming decades? I see no reason to be as optimistic. Nit: market cap is not earnings. That's stock price * shares outstanding. This year's earnings looks like this: Intel, 3 months ended: Jun 29, 2024 > Net income (loss) (1,654) https://www.intc.com/news-event…

Intel's revenue is 54B to AMD 22B. If Intel's CPU division was spun off, I see little reason to believe AMD deserves a 3x premium to that - and you get IFS with Intel as well right now! Granted, IFS is the millstone hanging around their neck right now, unless they can fix it.

Why focus on revenue instead of income? Regardless of what Intel’s revenue is, they’re losing money. AMD is earning.

Re: Intel Honesty

#386

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

newsclues wrote: post #72

What happens to the computer and tech industry if Intel fails? The x86 licence still has value to some others in the space, but it seems like Intel could potentially be sold off for parts if it can't sell correct.

As another commenter pointed out, AMD owns the x86_64 patents. The original x86 patents have long since expired already, and the x64 patents should be expiring soon as well. The ones listed on Wikipedia have already expired[0] but it is not clear how many extensions are needed to run most modern x64 binaries and if they can be easily emulated via another extension or through microcode. (if that is even allowed).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing

(From the above link, US6889312B1 actually had its patents mistakenly transferred to Philips which seemingly went unnoticed for 18 years)

Re: Intel Honesty

#387

Post by crowcroft »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #233
crowcroft wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$29b cash and about $50b in debt. They have a valid business still, but I think you're under appreciating how much of a hole they need to dig themselves out of. Their current foundries can't just make other chips, and they certainly can't make GPUs for AI (TSMC make Intel GPUs). They are making a new foundry in Ohio, but in Intel's current state and comments they've made to the market it's not guaranteed the foundry…

> $29b cash and about $50b in debt. I know nothing about finance, but I have trouble figuring out how they got themselves into this situation given this https://www.intc.com/stock-info/dividends-and-buybacks : As of June 29th, 2024, we were authorized to repurchase up to $110.0 billion, of which $7.24 billion remain available. We have repurchased 5.77 billion shares at a cost of $152.05 billion since the program bega…

Yea, and all that debt did was delay the pain that they are experiencing now, while putting the company in a far worse position to try fix itself.

Re: Intel Honesty

#388

Post by _w1tm »

kbolino wrote: post #112
_w1tm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM wins the instruction set wars and buys the tech. Future ARM processors will have x86 hardware that offers compatibility with legacy software. Eventually the instruction set is forgotten.

Why/how would the death of Intel kill off AMD too?

IBM still sells CPUs based on the PowerPC (now Power ISA) architecture. AMD doesn’t need to die for x86 to become irrelevant.

Re: Intel Honesty

#389

Post by schmidtleonard »

closeparen wrote: post #195
schmidtleonard wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of capitalism is to establish, reinforce, and perpetuate a class hierarchy where the people on the bottom must constantly pay to exist while the people on top constantly get paid to exist. This shit isn't a side effect, it's the entire point of the exercise.

Unfortunately in their rejection of capitalism, the people have mostly decided to do feudalism, i.e. legitimacy comes from land ownership and land tenure. It is even hereditary: heirs get to pay much lower property tax than transplants. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on capitalism, but even Marx would agree with me that it's better than feudalism.

"That's not true capitalism!!!"

Sure dude. Now where have I heard that before?

Re: Intel Honesty

#390

Post by timschmidt »

Wytwwww wrote: post #376
timschmidt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve sells the SteamDeck and is preparing SteamOS for use on similar handhelds available now from most major vendors. They may not be traditional laptops or desktops, but they're PCs, and they're being sold with compatibility with a large installed base of Windows games in mind. Moreover, handheld gaming PC users seem to perceive SteamOS as being superior to Windows in this device category.

SteamDeack is a much more open equivalent of Android/ChomeOS. Yes you can use it as a Linux "Desktop" but form the perspective of most people it's just there to run a single proprietary app while Linux is just an implementation detail. Of course some people will use it for other things than Steam but I doubt it's a very significant proportion.

> SteamDeack is a much more open equivalent of Android/ChomeOS

SteamDeck runs a minimally modified Arch Linux, with a full KDE desktop installed from the factory and prominent switch in the main UI to close Steam and reboot into a full desktop.

> it's just there to run a single proprietary app

Tens of thousands of Windows games, more like. The Steam app is just a launcher and store. Even Windows doesn't successfully run all legacy windows applications, so I think it's incredible that a successful mainstream product focused on gamers not only provides simpler user interaction than Windows gaming portables, but does so while running unmodified Windows games on Linux.

I cannot overstate the importance of Valve creating a funding stream for Wine / Proton development by doing this, hiring a boatload of Wine devs, and fostering a massive user base for testing and validation. Wine was already impressive, but it has improved leaps and bounds with Valve's efforts. This opens up the door for future cannibalization of Microsoft's share of other market segments.

There was a time when hardware support under Linux was holding it back, that time is long gone. Linux desktops and applications have developed to the point that anyone familiar with a Mac or Windows will feel reasonably at home under Gnome or KDE. Which left games and specialty Windows / Mac applications, and Valve seems to have found a way to fund knocking down that barrier.

It's a much bigger deal than another Android or ChomeOS device.

Post reply on HN