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

What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#41

Post by nottorp »

fragmede wrote: post #9
14 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which means close the site and ignore the article. Or wait for some kind soul to post the archived version on HN lol.

I might get kicked out of the cool kids club for suggesting this, but, err, maybe we could use money in exchange for goods and se services? I know! it's a crazy idea. it'll never work. but still.

Yep. It will never work when everyone wants you to commit to a year of hard to cancel subscription to read one article that is possibly lousy.

Especially since - see another comment thread here on HN - their "AI" thinks you're a regular reader when you click on them once per month.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#42

Post by dmead »

threeseed wrote: post #27

For me, Intel needs to buy Oxide or Sidero. And commit to building a simple, powerful, enthusiast/startup friendly platform for running mini-clouds at home/on-premise. And start bringing tech like Optane, Tofino etc to developers so they can get better price/performance than the soon to be ARM dominated cloud.

This is scope creep. Intel needed to release stable products. They aren't/can't.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#43

Post by imtringued »

rwmj wrote: post #31

This article says a lot more about Arm than it does about Intel. A couple of sentences stood out: > Arm is also rumored to be eyeing an expansion into building its own chips and not just licensing its designs > if you’re a vertically integrated company and the power of your strategy is in the fact that you have a product and you have fabs, inherently, you have a potential huge advantage in terms of cost versus the co…

Yeah that CEO doesn't understand the benefits of vertical integration.

The point of specialization and outsourcing is to amortize fixed costs among a larger customer base. If fixed costs were zero, then it would never make sense to outsource, since the effective marginal cost is identical in the non specialized company versus the specialized company. Every company would produce everything they need in house.

Fabs have enormous fixed costs. Any form of vertical integration is going to make your products more expensive, unless you specialize in some kind of underserved niche with no competition. TSMC will always have the lowest marginal cost.

What Arm should be doing is partnering with TSMC and other fabs to build optimized cell libraries for Arm designs and investing into software tools for SoC integrators and become a one stop shop for proprietary IP cores and custom ASIPs so people don't even think of talking with Cadence or Synopsys.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#44

Post by threeseed »

klelatti wrote: post #37
threeseed wrote: post #27

For me, Intel needs to buy Oxide or Sidero. And commit to building a simple, powerful, enthusiast/startup friendly platform for running mini-clouds at home/on-premise. And start bringing tech like Optane, Tofino etc to developers so they can get better price/performance than the soon to be ARM dominated cloud.

Didn't 'Gelsinger era' Intel abandon Optane and Tofino? And listening to the most recent Oxide podcast [1] I can't think the Oxide team would want to stay long at Intel unless the new CEO took radical action. [1] https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends/2218242

Optane died because none of the cloud providers were really interested in it.

Which meant no developers could really develop for it so you're in a vicious circle.

It's why I think they need to have some way for people to easily use their tech at home/on-premise.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#45

Post by threeseed »

newsclues wrote: post #30
threeseed wrote: post #27

For me, Intel needs to buy Oxide or Sidero. And commit to building a simple, powerful, enthusiast/startup friendly platform for running mini-clouds at home/on-premise. And start bringing tech like Optane, Tofino etc to developers so they can get better price/performance than the soon to be ARM dominated cloud.

Intel is already an investor in oxide https://www.intelcapital.com/investing-in-oxide-unlocking-cl...

Sure. But I want an Oxide for enthusiasts/startups/small companies.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#46

Post by hmottestad »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #10
hmottestad wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article sheds some light on what’s been going on. You’ll also be happy to know that the video you linked to is not a video of the current Intel CEO.

But he's the CEO under whom things went downhill, right?

I wouldn't say so no.

Personally I feel that the 5 years of reintroducing 14nm instead of getting 10nm out the door was what ate up any lead that Intel had over its competitors.

And don't forget that rumors has it that Apple reported more bugs with Intel Skylake than the QA team at Intel had managed to report. Never a good thing when one of your biggest customers finds more bugs in your product than your own engineers have managed to find.

I wouldn't really blame all this on a single person though.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#47

Post by richliss »

He's too nice to call out the real problem, which is hubris.

Intel got arrogant, remained arrogant and despite getting absolutely pummelled by competitors on share price value, believes it is special.

Intel needs to realise it's not going to catch up TSMC and so should focus on cannibalising all other competitors and moving into spaces where TSMC doesn't operate. It's going to be a lower margin game from now on but Intel can survive. Oh and be the nicest folks in town, not the shit on the people we need like Gelsinger did.

Intel is in effect a Will Ferrell movie character. Character is arrogant, becomes arrogant and stupid in defiance, and potentially finally sees the error of its ways and grows a bit.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#48

Post by ksec »

kmlx wrote: post #24
timmytokyo wrote: post #2

Article is paywalled.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/3/24306571/verge-subscripti... > Our original reporting, reviews, and features will be behind a dynamic metered paywall — many of you will never hit the paywall, but if you read us a lot, we’ll ask you to pay.

It is funny, but HN wants reporting and publishing to be subscription based because Ads is evil. At the same time complaining about article requires subscription.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#49

Post by ksec »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #6

I have not watched Intel closely for a long time. Seeing that its market cap is down 30% over the last decade is crazy. Considering how IT in general grew so much over the same time period. What happened? To see how the Intel CEO is thinking, I now scrolled through a few interviews with him. In this interview, Intel's CEO is asked to describe the difference of a CPU and a GPU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d07wy5AK…

>I'm not sure if that is a good way to put it.

His explantation is actually closer to the truth than your array of many CPUs. Because GPU isn't that. It is / was moving in that direction but it is certain not many CPU or Intel Larrabee.

Re: What Arm's CEO makes of the Intel debacle

#50

Post by klelatti »

threeseed wrote: post #44
klelatti wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't 'Gelsinger era' Intel abandon Optane and Tofino? And listening to the most recent Oxide podcast [1] I can't think the Oxide team would want to stay long at Intel unless the new CEO took radical action. [1] https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends/2218242

Optane died because none of the cloud providers were really interested in it. Which meant no developers could really develop for it so you're in a vicious circle. It's why I think they need to have some way for people to easily use their tech at home/on-premise.

There is an interesting discussion on Optane on the Oxide podcast that I linked to. Long story short Oxide was interested but Intel's culture of secrecy got in the way. Not surprised the cloud providers weren't interested either.
Post reply on HN