161–170 of 484 posts
Isn't this just a culmination of nearly a decade of unforced errors and mismanaged strategy? I'm a complete outsider but I see a couple of fundamental huge misses by Intel over the past 10 or so years: 1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch. 2) Missed too many ticks and re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a US citizen, but aren't the retirement funds managed by someone who should be held responsible for not diversifying?
Retirement funds do pretty OK here. Early in your career you'll mostly hold something like an S&P 500 index fund or a total stock market fund, as you get closer to retirement they shift the allocation towards safer investments. I don't love this; the total stock market is a lot of tech companies, and I already have plenty of exposure to tech by working in the field. It's a good heuristic for most people, though. (And…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harder to fire, harder to hire, without fail.
If you have a strong welfare state, it should make it easier to fire. This is the case in Denmark, some countries offer incentives to lay staff off temporarily but, generally, it isn't the case (which is why you have unbelievable levels of unemployment in Europe).
However, I know for sure that in Germany, it isn't that easy to hire and fire people on a whim. In the US this seems to be the case.
Just in case, let me also clarify this:
I don't care, if you think the American system is better than the German one. I simply made the statement that even if not all EU countries have rulings like Germany, it is surely harder to fire people on a whim.
And also the article didn't mention where this will occur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch. I'm gonna add the caveat that the failure didn't happen out of the gate. Xscale was leagues ahead of anything else two decades ago. Atom stumbled at the start but Cherry Trail had a better price to performance ratio than anything tha…
In this market what counts is performance/watt ratio. Battery power is a big selling point for cell phones, and so you can charge a bit more for less watts. Though of course price does matter too. There are also embedded markets where you have to be passively cooled, again watts matter. My impression is Intel hit the price for embedded just fine, but at higher watts, and thus they can't compete.
That was also excellent for Cherry Trail, with an SDP of 2 watts. When you have some time sit down and compare the benchmarks from a Cherry Trail tablet like the Surface 3 and its successor chips like the 4415Y. The 4415Y like the one in the Surface Go is three years newer, has a 60% higher TDP, a Recommended Customer Price over four times higher, and while its 3D chops are better it actually benchmarks lower than the Cherry Trail chip in PCMark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft ignoring AMD in their latest Surface lineup is a hint for the people looking for answers I think the entire new surface line-up is a giant conspiracy. The Surface Pro 9 5G has a Qualcomm 8cx Gen 3 with some tweaks called the SQ3. It does not match the performance of 12 Gen intel in a 15w power envelope, which is important because the Surface Pro 9 non-5G (intel) uses an i5-1235u, a 15w chip. But the last…
Microsoft has an exclusivity agreement with Qualcomm that isn't doing them any favors.
Isn't this just a culmination of nearly a decade of unforced errors and mismanaged strategy? I'm a complete outsider but I see a couple of fundamental huge misses by Intel over the past 10 or so years: 1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch. 2) Missed too many ticks and re…
I've typed this before but I'll type it again here. About 10 years ago I ran the local Python Meetup group here in Phoenix. Intel had/has a big presence here and one of they guys who worked on the Atom team (doing compiler optimizations for that chip family) told us (at one of the Meetups)Intel corporate didn't like how good a processor Atom was shaping up to be. They were worried it would start to cannibalize their…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's great that they are essentially "recycled" when new, better companies come along and eat their lunch. Don't you have on the order of tens of thousands of dollars invested in Intel through retirement savings, though? When S&P 500 companies fail, your retirement savings become worthless. (Apple is really the one you want to watch out for, though!)
Not a US citizen, but aren't the retirement funds managed by someone who should be held responsible for not diversifying?
fund managers don't have "personal" or "corporate" assets that are anywhere near the scale of the (retirement) funds they manage; being held responsible for mismanagement would not lead to a source of capital to replace that which had been lost through mismanagement.
All investment has risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely missed the boat on mobile I think their main error was short-termism. They were addicted to high margin (workstation/server) devices. They had no interest in the low margins of mobile devices. They could not imagine how low-power devices would take over the world.
It's reported Steve Jobs did ask Intel to provide CPU for the first gen of iPhone, but the offer price was too low so Intel would lose money. If you were the CEO of Intel, how would you explain it to the board that "we should make this deal with Apple even with loss, because I think iPhone will be the next big thing"?
So a deal based on any price wasn't a realistic avenue for iPhone. The fact that Intel was actually considered was itself a radical move on behalf of Steve (absent the technical obstacles that emerged later).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know a lot of the details, but everything I've heard over the last couple of years indicated that AMD was absolutely crushing Intel. A recent laptop I purchased, as well as the last desktop I put together (~2 years ago) each have Ryzen chips. I forget the details but in addition to performance issues, didn't Intel CPUs also have some major security vulnerabilities? And was it that they were related to instruc…
> everything I've heard over the last couple of years indicated that AMD was absolutely crushing Intel. AMD market cap: $93B Intel market cap: $104B And now you will no longer be able to say that everything you've heard indicates that AMD is "absolutely crushing Intel".
Their multiplier means that the market thinks highly of their ability to continue to grow.