They need to drastically restructure their company or they won’t have one. This is at least some kind of acknowledgment that their business is at a critical juncture. They’ve been coasting for decades.
Apple was 8% of the PC market in the last quarter and is usually 6-7%, yes they spend a ton of money on Intel but they are by no means a "HUGE" account, the rest of the 92% of the market mostly uses Intel and that isn't counting people that build their own computers. In fact Intel's rise to dominance happened without Apple being a customer at all. So, no, Apple Silicon isn't a big blow to Intel. If Apple made Apple Silicone available to other companies it could potentially be a threat to Intel but as it is they aren't even competitors.
You also seem to be oblivious to the fact that PCs and graphics chips are only part of Intel's business. It is the largest of their business segments but that is not all they do.
A dominant market share has never ever been an ironclad guarantee of a company's continued survival and prosperity. Are you too young to know about this company called Kodak?
Where did I say a dominant market share was a guarantee of survival? The conversation is about where they are currently, which is still dominant. Thanks for chiming in though.
Actually, you should perhaps reread -- or if it's not late -- rewrite what you wrote. You're the one that brought up silly arguments about market share. If you're bringing up market share, it's pretty much what @tundraboy boy said. There's no reason to bring it up otherwise.
Don't walk it back. Just suck it up, admit you were wrong, and move on.
If you are going to chime in take the time to read the entire thread so you have the context of why I brought up market share rather than jump on a comment mid thread and straw man it. The article says intel was previously dominant, there is no previous about it they still are .... today. Talking about what they are today isn’t saying what they will be in the future which.
Sorry, but your post makes no sense.
It’s pretty clear, sorry you are unable to follow but it really doesn’t matter.
The long and the short of it is I don’t buy the narrative of Intel’s imminent demise because the data available doesn’t back that. Apparently that is super contentions with people here because ..... yeah, I don’t know it’s all kinda weird. ... y’all enjoy your intel hate train. ߤ禺wj;♂️
“ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
That is some grade A hyperbole. Intel certainly has some issues and is facing challengers in a way that it hasn’t in some time. That said they are still the dominant player in the processor world and are nowhere near obscurity. Their closest rival, AMD, doesn’t do anywhere close the volume that intel does.
What Apple is doing is largely irrelevant to Intel since Apple doesn’t sell their chips to the broader market. So even though Apple Silicone can out perform Intel it is only relevant to the Apple ecosystem which is just a tiny fraction of the broader chip market.
Your shot was on target but somehow you still missed the mark. Yes, nobody can match Intel’s volume, but they have sub-par products. This makes them the purchase of last resort—you buy it ‘cause you have no other option. This is not a long-term sustainable position. TSMC is rapidly building out new silicon foundries in various locations around the world, perhaps even Phoenix Az. Within 10 years the Taiwan manufacturer will have significantly eclipsed Intels production capacity, with the bulk of that being the new, ultra-lucrative sub 7nm processes.
Intel used to be king of two inter-related fields, micro-processor design and manufacturing process. Both these leads have evaporated as the industry stumbles around, seemingly incapable of extricating themselves from o long series of critical mistakes. These have been well documented gambles that never paid off, but management has continued to double down on them regardless of the outcomes. This is why we have how many derivations to their 14nm process node—yes, the 10nm process exists but has absolutely horrible number of rejected parts making it almost unusable thus the exploding levels of binned chips they offer at 10nm. Have you noticed that they actually had to BACKPORT Rocketlake due to the failure to execute Icelake? Likewise the ‘lakes series of designs are going nowhere—their primary focus of development being tweaks to allow higher frequency and over locking at the expense of ridiculous power draw and heat issues and integrated graphics to act as a bulwark against AMD.
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
I agree, he's just trying to light a fire under the asses of his moribund employees without setting off a mass panic attack. Truth be told, Apple is, by far, the lesser of two existential threats to Intel's long term viability in the PC ecosystem. Even if Intel puts a dent in Apple's market presence, which they most surely will not do, the threat from AMD will reduce Intel to a smoldering hulk and they'll be fighting to maintain relevance in what's left of the niche markets that haven't already fallen to ARM based solutions.
Problem being, it’s not just AMD or (to a lesser extent, Apple), but rather AMD, TSMC, and Apple with Qualcomm and NVidia jumping onto the bandwagon. TSMC has just been killing Intel by conservatively chipping away at process shrinks after making the early leap to extreme-ultraviolet lithography. Now they have development time, market space and a huge cash flow to begin integrating new gate designs an radical element doping schemes. Meanwhile even mighty Intel is going to Taiwan in order to try to stay competitive with AMD and the other design houses. This takes away revenue at the same time they need to drop billions on new lithographic equipment that once 2 small international firms produce. Good luck with that!
This "lifestyle" company was the biggest reporter of hardware bugs in Skylake, Apple reported more silicon bugs than Intels own QA team. But i can understand that it is pretty difficult to see if you head is far up you know where!! Its clearly dark for Intel, and now the future of Intel lies in the hands of Microsoft, if they do an ARM windows Intel is toast.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” – Ed Colligan, Palm CEO, November 16, 2006
This "lifestyle" company was the biggest reporter of hardware bugs in Skylake, Apple reported more silicon bugs than Intels own QA team. But i can understand that it is pretty difficult to see if you head is far up you know where!! Its clearly dark for Intel, and now the future of Intel lies in the hands of Microsoft, if they do an ARM windows Intel is toast.
Interesting, does the compiler team report as Apple, as LLVM org or a bit of both?
It always puzzled me in the last forty years about the hatred toward Apple from non-Apple users. They never used Apple products. And the mystery is resolved recently. They are technical people that working in hardware. They know Apple did not invent most of the hardware parts. They think Apple is an assembler of parts. Yet Apple sells products at high premium. And these people could not make a fortune. So the truth is they regards Apple as a life style company. Remember the 1984 TV commercial? Jobs hit these hardware gurus head-on. Apple evolved over the years. Now Apple hardware and software are the best in the industry.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” – Ed Colligan, Palm CEO, November 16, 2006
Actually, he was right!
Up until about the 5th generation or so of the iPhone, Palm had a better OS and a better phone. And, even then, they developed a new and improved OS that just never got off the ground.
So, I think he was right: the "PC guys" didn't just walk in and figure it out. It took multiple iterations to get it right. But then that was always Steve's strong point: paying attention to the little things that combine to make something really great -- and that takes time.
Greatness is seldom a sudden bolt of lightening. The icons that built America into a powerhouse (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, etc.) were not great inventors. Instead they were great at vision and steadily plugged away at developing something great.
“ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
That is some grade A hyperbole. Intel certainly has some issues and is facing challengers in a way that it hasn’t in some time. That said they are still the dominant player in the processor world and are nowhere near obscurity. Their closest rival, AMD, doesn’t do anywhere close the volume that intel does.
What Apple is doing is largely irrelevant to Intel since Apple doesn’t sell their chips to the broader market. So even though Apple Silicone can out perform Intel it is only relevant to the Apple ecosystem which is just a tiny fraction of the broader chip market.
Your shot was on target but somehow you still missed the mark. Yes, nobody can match Intel’s volume, but they have sub-par products. This makes them the purchase of last resort—you buy it ‘cause you have no other option. This is not a long-term sustainable position. TSMC is rapidly building out new silicon foundries in various locations around the world, perhaps even Phoenix Az. Within 10 years the Taiwan manufacturer will have significantly eclipsed Intels production capacity, with the bulk of that being the new, ultra-lucrative sub 7nm processes.
Intel used to be king of two inter-related fields, micro-processor design and manufacturing process. Both these leads have evaporated as the industry stumbles around, seemingly incapable of extricating themselves from o long series of critical mistakes. These have been well documented gambles that never paid off, but management has continued to double down on them regardless of the outcomes. This is why we have how many derivations to their 14nm process node—yes, the 10nm process exists but has absolutely horrible number of rejected parts making it almost unusable thus the exploding levels of binned chips they offer at 10nm. Have you noticed that they actually had to BACKPORT Rocketlake due to the failure to execute Icelake? Likewise the ‘lakes series of designs are going nowhere—their primary focus of development being tweaks to allow higher frequency and over locking at the expense of ridiculous power draw and heat issues and integrated graphics to act as a bulwark against AMD.
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
“ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
That is some grade A hyperbole. Intel certainly has some issues and is facing challengers in a way that it hasn’t in some time. That said they are still the dominant player in the processor world and are nowhere near obscurity. Their closest rival, AMD, doesn’t do anywhere close the volume that intel does.
What Apple is doing is largely irrelevant to Intel since Apple doesn’t sell their chips to the broader market. So even though Apple Silicone can out perform Intel it is only relevant to the Apple ecosystem which is just a tiny fraction of the broader chip market.
Your shot was on target but somehow you still missed the mark. Yes, nobody can match Intel’s volume, but they have sub-par products. This makes them the purchase of last resort—you buy it ‘cause you have no other option. This is not a long-term sustainable position. TSMC is rapidly building out new silicon foundries in various locations around the world, perhaps even Phoenix Az. Within 10 years the Taiwan manufacturer will have significantly eclipsed Intels production capacity, with the bulk of that being the new, ultra-lucrative sub 7nm processes.
Intel used to be king of two inter-related fields, micro-processor design and manufacturing process. Both these leads have evaporated as the industry stumbles around, seemingly incapable of extricating themselves from o long series of critical mistakes. These have been well documented gambles that never paid off, but management has continued to double down on them regardless of the outcomes. This is why we have how many derivations to their 14nm process node—yes, the 10nm process exists but has absolutely horrible number of rejected parts making it almost unusable thus the exploding levels of binned chips they offer at 10nm. Have you noticed that they actually had to BACKPORT Rocketlake due to the failure to execute Icelake? Likewise the ‘lakes series of designs are going nowhere—their primary focus of development being tweaks to allow higher frequency and over locking at the expense of ridiculous power draw and heat issues and integrated graphics to act as a bulwark against AMD.
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
Agreed! except, a minor point:
Microsoft has a history or not picking sides -- they even helped Apple by opening Office up to the Mac.
I suspect that they will fully open Windows to ARM processors as they become more prevalent. So far, except for the failed Windows Phone they haven't had much reason to.
“ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
That is some grade A hyperbole. Intel certainly has some issues and is facing challengers in a way that it hasn’t in some time. That said they are still the dominant player in the processor world and are nowhere near obscurity. Their closest rival, AMD, doesn’t do anywhere close the volume that intel does.
What Apple is doing is largely irrelevant to Intel since Apple doesn’t sell their chips to the broader market. So even though Apple Silicone can out perform Intel it is only relevant to the Apple ecosystem which is just a tiny fraction of the broader chip market.
Your shot was on target but somehow you still missed the mark. Yes, nobody can match Intel’s volume, but they have sub-par products. This makes them the purchase of last resort—you buy it ‘cause you have no other option. This is not a long-term sustainable position. TSMC is rapidly building out new silicon foundries in various locations around the world, perhaps even Phoenix Az. Within 10 years the Taiwan manufacturer will have significantly eclipsed Intels production capacity, with the bulk of that being the new, ultra-lucrative sub 7nm processes.
Intel used to be king of two inter-related fields, micro-processor design and manufacturing process. Both these leads have evaporated as the industry stumbles around, seemingly incapable of extricating themselves from o long series of critical mistakes. These have been well documented gambles that never paid off, but management has continued to double down on them regardless of the outcomes. This is why we have how many derivations to their 14nm process node—yes, the 10nm process exists but has absolutely horrible number of rejected parts making it almost unusable thus the exploding levels of binned chips they offer at 10nm. Have you noticed that they actually had to BACKPORT Rocketlake due to the failure to execute Icelake? Likewise the ‘lakes series of designs are going nowhere—their primary focus of development being tweaks to allow higher frequency and over locking at the expense of ridiculous power draw and heat issues and integrated graphics to act as a bulwark against AMD.
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
Agreed! except, a minor point:
Microsoft has a history or not picking sides -- they even helped Apple by opening Office up to the Mac.
I suspect that they will fully open Windows to ARM processors as they become more prevalent. So far, except for the failed Windows Phone they haven't had much reason to.
People misunderstood Microsoft business for years. Microsoft is essentially a software company. It succeeded because IBM PCs beat Apple. People took this to mean Microsoft and Apple is a strong competitor. Most PC users don't know the Office suite is available on Macs since the beginning.
“ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
That is some grade A hyperbole. Intel certainly has some issues and is facing challengers in a way that it hasn’t in some time. That said they are still the dominant player in the processor world and are nowhere near obscurity. Their closest rival, AMD, doesn’t do anywhere close the volume that intel does.
What Apple is doing is largely irrelevant to Intel since Apple doesn’t sell their chips to the broader market. So even though Apple Silicone can out perform Intel it is only relevant to the Apple ecosystem which is just a tiny fraction of the broader chip market.
Your shot was on target but somehow you still missed the mark. Yes, nobody can match Intel’s volume, but they have sub-par products. This makes them the purchase of last resort—you buy it ‘cause you have no other option. This is not a long-term sustainable position. TSMC is rapidly building out new silicon foundries in various locations around the world, perhaps even Phoenix Az. Within 10 years the Taiwan manufacturer will have significantly eclipsed Intels production capacity, with the bulk of that being the new, ultra-lucrative sub 7nm processes.
Intel used to be king of two inter-related fields, micro-processor design and manufacturing process. Both these leads have evaporated as the industry stumbles around, seemingly incapable of extricating themselves from o long series of critical mistakes. These have been well documented gambles that never paid off, but management has continued to double down on them regardless of the outcomes. This is why we have how many derivations to their 14nm process node—yes, the 10nm process exists but has absolutely horrible number of rejected parts making it almost unusable thus the exploding levels of binned chips they offer at 10nm. Have you noticed that they actually had to BACKPORT Rocketlake due to the failure to execute Icelake? Likewise the ‘lakes series of designs are going nowhere—their primary focus of development being tweaks to allow higher frequency and over locking at the expense of ridiculous power draw and heat issues and integrated graphics to act as a bulwark against AMD.
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
I think obscurity and falling behind the competition are on the same continuum, but point taken.
Up until about the 5th generation or so of the iPhone, Palm had a better OS and a better phone. And, even then, they developed a new and improved OS that just never got off the ground.
So, I think he was right: the "PC guys" didn't just walk in and figure it out. It took multiple iterations to get it right. But then that was always Steve's strong point: paying attention to the little things that combine to make something really great -- and that takes time.
Greatness is seldom a sudden bolt of lightening. The icons that built America into a powerhouse (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, etc.) were not great inventors. Instead they were great at vision and steadily plugged away at developing something great.
No, the iPhone pretty much instantly made all other phones dinosaurs by comparison. The writing was on the wall. While the original iPhone did in fact have a few missing features, it didn't matter. The iPhone focused on what was most important... overall user experience. Android was first to copy that overall look and feel that the rest was history. The market will only support two major platforms. Palm's attempt to come back with the Pre was too little, too late.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
Nobody is claiming Intel isn't currently in a market leading position, nor are they claiming they will "quickly fade into obscurity". They clearly have enough momentum to carry them for years, regardless of how poorly they perform compared to their competition.
That said, people are rightly pointing out that Intel has failed to execute for many years now. Losing Apple's business is essentially the "canary in the coal mine". It's an early indicator of the way things are headed without significant changes by Intel to become drastically more competitive in terms of price, performance and efficiency.
Up until about the 5th generation or so of the iPhone, Palm had a better OS and a better phone. And, even then, they developed a new and improved OS that just never got off the ground.
So, I think he was right: the "PC guys" didn't just walk in and figure it out. It took multiple iterations to get it right. But then that was always Steve's strong point: paying attention to the little things that combine to make something really great -- and that takes time.
Greatness is seldom a sudden bolt of lightening. The icons that built America into a powerhouse (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Carnegie, etc.) were not great inventors. Instead they were great at vision and steadily plugged away at developing something great.
No, the iPhone pretty much instantly made all other phones dinosaurs by comparison. The writing was on the wall. While the original iPhone did in fact have a few missing features, it didn't matter. The iPhone focused on what was most important... overall user experience. Android was first to copy that overall look and feel that the rest was history. The market will only support two major platforms. Palm's attempt to come back with the Pre was too little, too late.
My comments were about the line in the article I quoted as it was inaccurate for two reasons:
1. Intel still holds a dominant market position. I didn’t claim they would do so for forever, and your post is lately forward looking.
2 That they would quickly fade into obscurity. That isn’t going to happen unless Microsoft moves Windows off of x86. Could happen but it’s not going to happen in the near future.
Note, AI has since walked back their claims in their article to better reflect reality and it now reads:
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Falling behind the competition is significantly different than slipping into obscurity.
Nobody is claiming Intel isn't currently in a market leading position, nor are they claiming they will "quickly fade into obscurity". They clearly have enough momentum to carry them for years, regardless of how poorly they perform compared to their competition.
That said, people are rightly pointing out that Intel has failed to execute for many years now. Losing Apple's business is essentially the "canary in the coal mine". It's an early indicator of the way things are headed without significant changes by Intel to become drastically more competitive in terms of price, performance and efficiency.
Remember the Pad sized WebOS device from HP basically shipped and was killed in the same month so they sold them off on the cheap. So annoyed I didn't grab one was better than early iPad in many ways that iPad is finally catching up to now it has been given some freedom from the PhoneUI. That showed the Pad form could be a laptop replacement especially for people for who a portable was second device.
Remember the Pad sized WebOS device from HP basically shipped and was killed in the same month so they sold them off on the cheap. So annoyed I didn't grab one was better than early iPad in many ways that iPad is finally catching up to now it has been given some freedom from the PhoneUI. That showed the Pad form could be a laptop replacement especially for people for who a portable was second device.
It's funny how we nostalgically remember things as being better than they actually were. I don't recall anything particularly impressive about the Pre. Probably the most common thing was the card metaphor for application switching. Even with that, it turns out Apple was already using that metaphor for open web pages in Safari. While that concept was used in a different context with the Pre, it wasn't even original. That said, what in particular impressed you so much about it?
Remember the Pad sized WebOS device from HP basically shipped and was killed in the same month so they sold them off on the cheap. So annoyed I didn't grab one was better than early iPad in many ways that iPad is finally catching up to now it has been given some freedom from the PhoneUI. That showed the Pad form could be a laptop replacement especially for people for who a portable was second device.
It's funny how we nostalgically remember things as being better than they actually were. I don't recall anything particularly impressive about the Pre. Probably the most common thing was the card metaphor for application switching. Even with that, it turns out Apple was already using that metaphor for open web pages in Safari. While that concept was used in a different context with the Pre, it wasn't even original. That said, what in particular impressed you so much about it?
I remember people gushing over webOS and lots of people saying that Palm had nailed a lot of interface paradigms. Multitasking, fast app switching and unified messaging were the big banner features. This was at a time when Apple didn't have any of those (and they still don't seem to have any interest in unified messaging). Apple having a vaguely similar UI for switching tabs in Safari doesn't really compare.
The Pre's hardware was mostly positive but a bit less rosy, webOS could chug on the underpowered hardware, but the TouchPad that OP was talking about was much better equipped and well received in that regard, though cancelled almost straight away by an HP that seemed intent on self immolation at the time.
Remember the Pad sized WebOS device from HP basically shipped and was killed in the same month so they sold them off on the cheap. So annoyed I didn't grab one was better than early iPad in many ways that iPad is finally catching up to now it has been given some freedom from the PhoneUI. That showed the Pad form could be a laptop replacement especially for people for who a portable was second device.
It's funny how we nostalgically remember things as being better than they actually were. I don't recall anything particularly impressive about the Pre. Probably the most common thing was the card metaphor for application switching. Even with that, it turns out Apple was already using that metaphor for open web pages in Safari. While that concept was used in a different context with the Pre, it wasn't even original. That said, what in particular impressed you so much about it?
I think that is because we project how they could be given that starting position + the 10years that have passed of development. The TouchPad interfaces with the general improvements in ARM, Battery and build quality. They had some fundamentals right and different for the Pad than the phone. Unlike Apple who handcuffed the iPad to the phone. Think of the difference first couple of generations of Aseries chips made to the iPad
WebOS TouchPad also showed WebApps could actually be viable to develop potentially cross-platform quality apps.
Comments
is it possible to turn this ship around? Possible, but not probable. If it were just an issue of straightening out process it would be one thing, and they are actually starting this with the shift to EUV at huge cost of $$, time, and engineering know how. The problem is they need to scrap virtually everything they’ve worked on the last 10 years or so...that’s huge and it means that most of their engineering staff also need to re-specialize in a hurry. But at the same time as this massive switch in production is going on, the design team faces their own quandary—how to maintain backward compatibility while increasing performance without chasing the higher frequency will-o-the-wisps. They need to find a way to get more operations done per clock-tick rather than squeeze more clock ticks out of the hardware. If they can’t do this then each successfully smaller node will only give them minimal performance benefit. They could look at designing specialty cores to run legacy code, but designing gates to redirect code sections might be impossible given how intertwined the legacy code is with modern calls. They will also need MS to support this at the os level since that’s where so much of the cruft resides.
TL:dr...it can be done, but success is much more likely if they went all in on the number 13 at the roulette wheel.
Intel smells of desperation.
“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.” – Ed Colligan, Palm CEO, November 16, 2006
Interesting, does the compiler team report as Apple, as LLVM org or a bit of both?
” The previously dominant processor giant is slipping behind competitors rapidly, and the new CEO hopes the company can change course soon.”
Happy_Noodle_Boy said: Nobody is claiming Intel isn't currently in a market leading position, nor are they claiming they will "quickly fade into obscurity". They clearly have enough momentum to carry them for years, regardless of how poorly they perform compared to their competition.
That said, people are rightly pointing out that Intel has failed to execute for many years now. Losing Apple's business is essentially the "canary in the coal mine". It's an early indicator of the way things are headed without significant changes by Intel to become drastically more competitive in terms of price, performance and efficiency.
The Pre's hardware was mostly positive but a bit less rosy, webOS could chug on the underpowered hardware, but the TouchPad that OP was talking about was much better equipped and well received in that regard, though cancelled almost straight away by an HP that seemed intent on self immolation at the time.