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

Intel's Fall from Grace

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#21

Post by etempleton »

shiroiushi wrote: post #10
etempleton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they can deliver 18a in 2025 and it is comparable to the competition they are going to be in a much better position. Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. If Intel wants to succeed it has to have a comparable product at a comparable price to TSMC. There is more demand for leading edge chips than…

>Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. I thought the board wanted to split the company in two, while Pat wanted to invest in the fabs. Now that he's gone, doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business?

I think it is conjecture that is what the board wants. I myself have mused on here that is what they want, but I honestly think it would be a huge mistake, especially at this point. I think they are too far invested in this strategy to abandon it now.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#22

Post by etempleton »

ksec wrote: post #13
shiroiushi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. I thought the board wanted to split the company in two, while Pat wanted to invest in the fabs. Now that he's gone, doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business?

>doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business? I dont think that is even possible. Given the money they received from CHIP Act. They could spin off x86 business, but may be not the Fab. My guess is that The board actually want Intel to be itself back in the good old days, leading edge node and selling CPU at a premium. Hence they want to scale down their scale…

I think this is probably accurate. I think the board is struggling with the amount of financial outlay and the weaker than expected returns. I don’t think Pat or the board thought things would get this bad before they got better. I do think they could have managed public sentiment a bit better. While they have been struggling it would have been smart to have an enthusiast gaming cpu that outclassed AMD even if it they lost money on it. Most of the tech sites that review cpus are enthusiast oriented. I don’t believe things are as dire as they look for Intel.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#23

Post by etempleton »

silisili wrote: post #9
etempleton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they can deliver 18a in 2025 and it is comparable to the competition they are going to be in a much better position. Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. If Intel wants to succeed it has to have a comparable product at a comparable price to TSMC. There is more demand for leading edge chips than…

I think you're right, but > if they can deliver 18a in 2025 What on earth makes you believe this is a possibility given their last 10 years? For Intel's sake, I hope I eat crow. But fool me once, shame on you...

And that is the big IF. Depending on who you believe 18a is either doomed or right on track. I think if they can launch shipping products that consumers can actually buy on 18a in 2025 it is a huge win. If not, well, Intel is for a lot more pain.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#24

Post by etempleton »

dismalaf wrote: post #11
silisili wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but > if they can deliver 18a in 2025 What on earth makes you believe this is a possibility given their last 10 years? For Intel's sake, I hope I eat crow. But fool me once, shame on you...

Intel made a strategic error in adopting EUV later than Samsung and TSMC, but they've always had good fabs. All the (non-fake) news about 18a seems to point to them being able to deliver in 2025.

This is the biggest thing that gives me some hope. The issue was they were trying to execute on old technology that was never going to scale smaller. This was a huge strategic blunder by leadership, but does not mean that the rank and file cannot execute when given the proper tools.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#25

Post by pjc50 »

LoveMortuus wrote: post #5
Prbeek wrote: post #2

"Every Thursday I do a 24 hour prayer and fasting day . This week I'd invite you to join me in praying and fasting for the 100K Intel employees as they navigate this difficult period. Intel and its team is of seminal importance to the future of the industry and US". https://x.com/PGelsinger/status/1865783256551133472?t=So3tqq... Former CEO seems to think that the problems are spiritual

Often when worldly things fail, people turn to spirituality for guidance. I don't think the former CEO thinks that is a spiritual problem, I think he just feels like there is nothing else that he could do.

Sign of a massive process failure in and of itself, no? If the shareholders want to pay someone to pray there are plenty of cheap priests available. He's just manifestly not doing his job.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#26

Post by jorams »

pjc50 wrote: post #25
LoveMortuus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often when worldly things fail, people turn to spirituality for guidance. I don't think the former CEO thinks that is a spiritual problem, I think he just feels like there is nothing else that he could do.

Sign of a massive process failure in and of itself, no? If the shareholders want to pay someone to pray there are plenty of cheap priests available. He's just manifestly not doing his job.

I don't know if you missed the news but the board removed him and he retired[1] about a week before this tweet.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42296067

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#27

Post by Night_Thastus »

Leading-edge semiconductors is a hell of a business. It requires so, so much investment and time and if you can't comprehensively beat the competition your product is almost worthless.

Companies and governments alike have tried to enter the industry and failed over and over. And even staying in it was a struggle for Intel once the pressure was on.

I'm not sure if or how that will ever change. Unless someone comes up with a complete revolution for chip manufacturing that makes the process far easier and simpler than anything we have today, while keeping close to the same performance - I don't think it will. Or if we move to some completely new technology with no similarities at all to silicon - so that new blood can make significant progress.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#28

Post by dehrmann »

The metastory here is actually about Intel, Boeing, and most recently, Chrysler. How they each did it is a little different, but they all turned the dial all the way to "short-term profit."

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#29

Post by dehrmann »

ksec wrote: post #13
shiroiushi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. I thought the board wanted to split the company in two, while Pat wanted to invest in the fabs. Now that he's gone, doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business?

>doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business? I dont think that is even possible. Given the money they received from CHIP Act. They could spin off x86 business, but may be not the Fab. My guess is that The board actually want Intel to be itself back in the good old days, leading edge node and selling CPU at a premium. Hence they want to scale down their scale…

For national security reasons, the fab side might be too important to fail, and the US government will continue to subsidize them in being 2 years behind TSMC. The x86 business is in a weirder place because switching to the latest TSMC node would be an immediate improvement and its problems are more tractable, but it's less strategically important (another domestic vendor with near drop-in replacements exists), and both datacenter and PC customers are seriously looking at other options.

Re: Intel's Fall from Grace

#30

Post by tubalcain »

dehrmann wrote: post #28

The metastory here is actually about Intel, Boeing, and most recently, Chrysler. How they each did it is a little different, but they all turned the dial all the way to "short-term profit."

I often wonder whether there's a correlation between the reduction in a company's profitability and quality with its decision to hire cheaper offshore workers, or insourcing cheaper workers from abroad. I wonder if the smart money did any type of internal studies regarding this type of correlation.
Post reply on HN