Intel: Winning and Losing
abortretry.fail
Intel: Winning and Losing
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#2The article mostly focuses on the 2008-2014 era.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#3The Atom model was the breaking point for Intel. No one forgives them for wasting their money on Atom-based laptops, which are slower than a tortoise. Never play with the customer's intelligence.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#4The site’s domain name is the best use of a .fail tld ever.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#5Their domain name is probably most of their market cap
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#6I'll give a viewpoint that the article reads like a listing of spec sheets and process improvements for CPUs of that era and not much else. Not really worth reading imho.
I'd love some discussion on why Intel left XScale and went to Atom and i think Itanium is worthy of discussion in this era too. I don't really want a raw listing of [In year X Intel launched Y with SPEC_SHEET_LISTING features].
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#7The Atom model was the breaking point for Intel. No one forgives them for wasting their money on Atom-based laptops, which are slower than a tortoise. Never play with the customer's intelligence.
I could tell they were cooked when they bought McAfee.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#8The Atom model was the breaking point for Intel. No one forgives them for wasting their money on Atom-based laptops, which are slower than a tortoise. Never play with the customer's intelligence.
I've always wondered, how do some smart companies, or smart film directors, or smart musicians can fail so hard? I understand that, sometimes, it's a matter of someone abusing a project for personal gain. Some CEOs, workers just want to pitch, pocket the money, and move on, but the level of absurdity of some of the decisions made are counter-productive the 'get rich quick' scheme too. I think there are self perpetuating echo chamber self dellusions. Perhaps this is why an outside perspective can see the painfully obvious. This is probably why having some churn with the outside world, and also understanding what is the periphery of the outside, unbiased opinion is, is very important.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#9I'll give a viewpoint that the article reads like a listing of spec sheets and process improvements for CPUs of that era and not much else. Not really worth reading imho. I'd love some discussion on why Intel left XScale and went to Atom and i think Itanium is worthy of discussion in this era too. I don't really want a raw listing of [In year X Intel launched Y with SPEC_SHEET_LISTING features].
> I'd love some discussion on why Intel left XScale and went to Atom
I thought it was pretty obvious. They didn't control the ARM ISA and ARM Ltd designs had caught up to + surpassed XScale innovations (superscalar, Out-of-order pipelining, MIPS/w, etc). So instead of further innovating they decided to launch a competitor of their own ISA.
Re: Intel: Winning and Losing
#10These are the years when Intel lost dominance, right? This article doesn't seem to show much insight as to why that happened or what caused the missteps.