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

Intel's Humbling

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 414 posts

Re: Intel's Humbling

#101

Post by mdasen »

timschmidt wrote: post #19
jsheard wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only do they manufacture Apple Silicon, but Apple usually buys out the first runs of their new processes so they have a head-start against even other TSMC customers. I believe every 3nm wafer that TSMC makes is still going to Apple, hence the just-released Qualcomm SD8G3 flagship chip still being made on TSMC 4nm.

Nvidia's AI $trillions may influence this arrangement in the near future. In the recent past Nvidia has bid Samsung against TSMC in attempts to save costs, but Apple's strategy works well for as long as one foundry has a process advantage.

I think Apple's advantages are that it has a lot of cash and a very predictable business. I'm not arguing that Nvidia doesn't have a good business, but it seems to be a bit less predictable and a bit less regular than Apple's business. Apple really knows how many chips it's going to want years in advance.

Even if Nvidia also wants TSMC's latest process, that could work to Apple's advantage. Right now it's looking like Apple might end up with TSMC's 3nm process for 18 months. If Apple and Nvidia split the initial 2nm capacity, it could be 3+ years before AMD and Qualcomm can get to 2nm.

If Nvidia launches the RTX 50 series in late 2024 or early 2025 on TSMC's 3nm (which seems to be the rumor), what does that do for availability for AMD and Qualcomm? Maybe what we'll see going forward is Apple taking the capacity for the first year and Nvidia taking the capacity for the second year leaving AMD and Qualcomm waiting longer.

That would certainly benefit Apple. Apple isn't competing against Nvidia. If Nvidia uses up TSMC capacity leaving Apple's actual competitors at a bigger disadvantage, that's pretty great for Apple.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#102

Post by scarface_74 »

tru3_power wrote: post #54
Mistletoe wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just the fate of large successful companies? The parallels with Boeing always come to mind. We’ve seen this play out so many times through history, it’s why investing in the top companies of your era is a terrible idea. https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/f... I wonder how many of our companies will survive at the top for even 20 more years? https://companiesmarketcap.com/ Berkshire is th…

Market forces are hard to fight sometimes. Look at Meta- they were beaten like hell cuz of their metaverse bet.

Am I missing something? Meta looks like it’s at an all time high

Re: Intel's Humbling

#103

Post by KerrAvon »

tverbeure wrote: post #56
dralley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Famously they divested their ARM-based mobile processor division just before smartphones took off. Wasn't that AMD (perhaps also AMD)? Qualcomm Adreno GPUs are ATi Radeon IP, hence the anagram.

Intel divested their StrongARM/XScale product line.

Yes, just before the iPhone came out and with Apple newly fully engaged as a major Intel CPU customer (for x86 Macs) for the first time ever.

Kind of like Decca Records turning down The Beatles.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#105

Post by kbutler »

Andy Grove's philosophy was "Only the paranoid survive". Intel seemed to rest on its laurels, divesting ARM, casually developing casual GPUs, and being complacent about their biggest direct competitor.

They needed (and need) a lot more paranoia.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#106

Post by chasil »

hollerith wrote: post #99
duped wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Was ARM really competitive until recently? Nope. Intel crushed them. Intel never "crushed" ARM. Intel completely failed to develop a mobile processor and ARM has a massive marketshare there. ARM has always beaten the crap out of Intel at performance per watt, which turned out to be extremely important both in mobile and data center scale.

I got curious about how ARM is doing in the data center and found this: >Arm now claims to hold a 10.1% share of the cloud computing market, although that's primarily due to Amazon and its increasing use of homegrown Arm chips. According to TrendForce, Amazon Web Services (AWS) was using its custom Graviton chips in 15% of all server deployments in 2021. https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/09/23/arm-holdings-data-...

The Amazon Graviton started by using stock ARM A72 cores.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#108

Post by mdasen »

BirAdam wrote: post #50

Everyone acts as though Intel should have seen everything coming. Where was AMD? Was AMD really competitive before Ryzen? Nope. Core 2 series blew them out of the water. Was ARM really competitive until recently? Nope. Intel crushed them. The problem for Intel is the inertia of laziness due to a lack of competition. I wouldn’t count them out just yet, however. The company’s first true swing at modern GPU was actually…

The curse of having weak enemies is that you become complacent.

You're right: AMD wasn't competitive for an incredibly long time and ARM wasn't really meaningful for a long time. That's the perfect situation for some MBAs to come into. You start thinking that you're wasting money on R&D. Why create something 30% better this year when 10% better will cost a lot less and your competitors are so far behind that it doesn't matter?

It's not that Intel should have seen AMD coming or should have seen ARM coming. It's that Intel should have understood that just because you have weak enemies today doesn't mean that you have an unassailable castle. Intel should have been smart enough to understand that backing off of R&D would mean giving up the moat they'd created. Even if it looked like no one was coming for their crown at the moment, you need to understand that disinvestment doesn't get rewarded over the long-run.

Intel should have understood that trying to be cheap about R&D and extract as much money from customers wasn't a long-term strategy. It wasn't the strategy that built them into the dominant Intel we knew. It wouldn't keep them as that dominant Intel.

Re: Intel's Humbling

#109

Post by rrr_oh_man »

jbm wrote: post #84
tru3_power wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this even mean? (not sarcastic)

I worked at (American drink company in Japan) previously and saw what the poster may be referring to. Management Consulting sells ideas, many of them silly or not important that are marketed and packaged as era-defining. A manager who implements #FASHIONABLE_IDEA can look forward to upwards mobility, while boring, realistic, business-focused ideas from people in the trenches usually get ignored (unless you want a lat…

Oh the PTSD... *twitch*

Re: Intel's Humbling

#110

Post by vineyardmike »

nine_k wrote: post #62
BirAdam wrote: post #50

Everyone acts as though Intel should have seen everything coming. Where was AMD? Was AMD really competitive before Ryzen? Nope. Core 2 series blew them out of the water. Was ARM really competitive until recently? Nope. Intel crushed them. The problem for Intel is the inertia of laziness due to a lack of competition. I wouldn’t count them out just yet, however. The company’s first true swing at modern GPU was actually…

ARM has been really competitive since, well, 2007, when the first iPhone hit the market, and when Android followed in 2008. That is, last 15 years or so. Not noticing a hugely growing segment that was bringing insane reams of cash to Apple, and Qualcomm, Samsung and others involved is not something I could call astute. Pretty certainly, Intel is improving, and of course should not be written off. But they did get the…

> Not noticing a hugely growing segment that was bringing insane reams of cash to Apple, and Qualcomm, Samsung and others involved is not something I could call astute.

And it's not like they didn't notice either. Apple literally asked intel to supply the chips for the first iPhone, but the intel CEO at the time "didn't see it".

https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/16/4337954/intel-could-have-...

Post reply on HN