Intel just took the worst beating in earnings in over a decade

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    JP234JP234 Posts: 1,482member
    DAalseth said:
    JP234 said:
    tbornot said:
    It’s also likely that Apple sensed that Intel was a subsidiary of Microsoft, and their needs came first. “What do we have to lose?”,Apple thought as they took the M1 gamble. 
    Actually, at one point, Apple was run by the CEO of Intel, Andy Grove. And in his 500 days at the helm, he almost ran it aground.
    Um, I think you might mean Gil Amilio who came over from National Semiconductor. I just checked both the list of Apple CEOs and Andy Grove’s biography and there’s no record of him having an association with Apple. 
    D'oh! Right you are! And I even have his book!
    DAalsethwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 35
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,035member
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    thadec said:
    All right folks. Time to get out of the kiddie pool delusions and join the adults in reality.
    1. Intel's decline in 2022 are due to the recession and the stuff going on with China, Russia and Ukraine. We know this because it impacted iPhone sales too, as their sales were down 15% year-over-year.

    2. Even with one of the worst years in history, 286 million PCs sold in 2022. Even with one of their best years in history, Apple accounted for only 23 to 28 million of those depending on who you believe. OF the remaining 260 million or so PCs that did sell, Intel had 70% of those to AMD's 30%. Intel projects that this is going to rebound to 300 million next year. Analysts are railing (from their MacBooks and iPhones) that Intel is crazy to project this, but the 3 year replacement cycle for devices that were bought at the start of the pandemic will end in 2Q 2023. The enterprise "refresh the hardware we bought during the pandemic" will last through 2024.

    3. Intel did take a big hit in servers ... but from AMD, not ARM. Despite all the hype that you have heard - 99% of it typed on MacBooks and iPad Pros since November 2020 - ARM has only 3% of the server business. Marvell left the ARM server business because they weren't making any money, leaving Ampere as the last major player there. (And Ampere's "major" is "fewer than 1000 global employees.") Granted, Nvidia will join Ampere in a few months. But, AMD released their response to ARM servers in 2022. Intel's response won't come until 2024 but it will be mighty substantial: Sierra Forest, a Xeon with 334 efficiency cores on a 6nm process. It removes the sole advantage that ARM servers have over x86, which is better power efficiency per thread. 

    4. Apple Silicon fans do their best to evade this, but even Apple acknowledges that Intel has superior single core performance. The M1 Ultra scored 1780. The M2 Pro? 1952. Fine but the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K (1986) as well as the current gen Core i9-13900KS (2286), Core i7-13700K (2107), and Core i5-13600KF (2011) all clearly beat it. You should know that the latter is in a budget gaming desktop (16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060) that costs $1200. Yes, the 3nm M3 will come out this year. No, it will not beat the 10nm Core i9-13900KS. It won't beat the 14th gen Core i7 will be out by the end of the year either.

    5. This makes the "Combined they are aiming for 1.8x improvement in performance-per-watt. That only brings them to where Apple is now if they deliver" wishful thinking. Intel's 14nm chips were already beating the M2 Pro. This means that when Intel reaches 3nm, they will be able to make 28W chips (the M2 Pro Mac Mini's TDP is around 26.5 W) that have the same performance as what Apple offers as well as 75W-125W chips that will crush it. How? Simple: where Apple currently has only 1 performance core design (used for smartphones/tablets, laptops and PCs) Intel has 5: Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9/Xeon. (This is down from 7, as Intel ditched Celeron and Pentium.) Core i7 and Core i9 are bigger, meaning better performance but worse efficiency. Core i5 and Core i3? Smaller cores for better efficiency but worse performance. As Intel shrinks the die from 10nm to 3nm, they will keep the 125W base for Core i9 and Core i7 ... but reduce it for Core i5 and especially Core i3. The Intel core i3-13100F, for example, has unofficial single core scores of about 1700, or 95% of the M1 Ultra. They only need to maintain that while significantly decreasing the TDP for certain Core i3 and Core i5 versions. Granted, this will occur in the laptop versions of the chips - for desktops their competition will be AMD's Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, not Apple - but that doesn't matter because mini-PCs like the Intel NUC Extreme that are going to compete with the Mac Mini and Mac Studio will use laptop chips anyway. Wherever Apple is going to be in 2025 with 2nd gen TSMC N3E, Intel will be able to come up with a (likely) Core i5 to match it in 2026.  

    So long as Intel is inside 200 million Windows and Linux PCs sold each year, they aren't going anywhere. 
    It's as if somebody asked ChatGPT to imitate an Intel troll. 

    Here's my best attempt at a pro-Intel perspective. 

    Since Gelsinger's return, Intel has done a fantastic job of turning their lemons into lemonade. Lots of customers care about benchmarks, Apple has committed to keeping power and heat low, so Intel realized they can win single core benchmarks by overclocking one big core for brief periods of time. That doesn't lead to the best product or user experience, but it's good marketing. It gives OEMs something to say to keep people from going to Apple. 

    Besides running one core super hot to eek out a single thread benchmark win, Intel realized that they can compete on multi-threaded benchmarks if they throw in a large number of smaller cores running at lower clocks. And so we see products like the 13900K with 8 'performance' cores but 16 'efficiency' cores. Can software take advantage of all those little cores? Some can, for sure, but more importantly -- another benchmark win. 

    In theory, Apple could respond in kind -- they could run one of their big cores super hot for brief bursts to recapture the single core crown. They could also stuff in more of their far superior efficiency cores to win on multicore. But Apple's not doing that, leaving Intel some space for a 'win.' I suspect Apple will leave Intel with that space for quite a while because from Apple's point of view, creating a chip to beat Intel at their own game wouldn't actually lead to better Macs. 

    So in some sense, everybody wins. Intel is less profitable, but still in business and surviving to hopefully get their manufacturing back on track. Intel's customers 'win' in that they get cheap PCs that look good in benchmarks. Apple's customers win because they get computers that have excellent real world performance with low heat and great battery life. Apple wins because the customers that appreciate their products also happen to be highly educated and affluent. Happy happy joy joy. 
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 35
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,918member
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    thadec said:
    All right folks. Time to get out of the kiddie pool delusions and join the adults in reality.
    1. Intel's decline in 2022 are due to the recession and the stuff going on with China, Russia and Ukraine. We know this because it impacted iPhone sales too, as their sales were down 15% year-over-year.

    2. Even with one of the worst years in history, 286 million PCs sold in 2022. Even with one of their best years in history, Apple accounted for only 23 to 28 million of those depending on who you believe. OF the remaining 260 million or so PCs that did sell, Intel had 70% of those to AMD's 30%. Intel projects that this is going to rebound to 300 million next year. Analysts are railing (from their MacBooks and iPhones) that Intel is crazy to project this, but the 3 year replacement cycle for devices that were bought at the start of the pandemic will end in 2Q 2023. The enterprise "refresh the hardware we bought during the pandemic" will last through 2024.

    3. Intel did take a big hit in servers ... but from AMD, not ARM. Despite all the hype that you have heard - 99% of it typed on MacBooks and iPad Pros since November 2020 - ARM has only 3% of the server business. Marvell left the ARM server business because they weren't making any money, leaving Ampere as the last major player there. (And Ampere's "major" is "fewer than 1000 global employees.") Granted, Nvidia will join Ampere in a few months. But, AMD released their response to ARM servers in 2022. Intel's response won't come until 2024 but it will be mighty substantial: Sierra Forest, a Xeon with 334 efficiency cores on a 6nm process. It removes the sole advantage that ARM servers have over x86, which is better power efficiency per thread. 

    4. Apple Silicon fans do their best to evade this, but even Apple acknowledges that Intel has superior single core performance. The M1 Ultra scored 1780. The M2 Pro? 1952. Fine but the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K (1986) as well as the current gen Core i9-13900KS (2286), Core i7-13700K (2107), and Core i5-13600KF (2011) all clearly beat it. You should know that the latter is in a budget gaming desktop (16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060) that costs $1200. Yes, the 3nm M3 will come out this year. No, it will not beat the 10nm Core i9-13900KS. It won't beat the 14th gen Core i7 will be out by the end of the year either.

    5. This makes the "Combined they are aiming for 1.8x improvement in performance-per-watt. That only brings them to where Apple is now if they deliver" wishful thinking. Intel's 14nm chips were already beating the M2 Pro. This means that when Intel reaches 3nm, they will be able to make 28W chips (the M2 Pro Mac Mini's TDP is around 26.5 W) that have the same performance as what Apple offers as well as 75W-125W chips that will crush it. How? Simple: where Apple currently has only 1 performance core design (used for smartphones/tablets, laptops and PCs) Intel has 5: Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9/Xeon. (This is down from 7, as Intel ditched Celeron and Pentium.) Core i7 and Core i9 are bigger, meaning better performance but worse efficiency. Core i5 and Core i3? Smaller cores for better efficiency but worse performance. As Intel shrinks the die from 10nm to 3nm, they will keep the 125W base for Core i9 and Core i7 ... but reduce it for Core i5 and especially Core i3. The Intel core i3-13100F, for example, has unofficial single core scores of about 1700, or 95% of the M1 Ultra. They only need to maintain that while significantly decreasing the TDP for certain Core i3 and Core i5 versions. Granted, this will occur in the laptop versions of the chips - for desktops their competition will be AMD's Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, not Apple - but that doesn't matter because mini-PCs like the Intel NUC Extreme that are going to compete with the Mac Mini and Mac Studio will use laptop chips anyway. Wherever Apple is going to be in 2025 with 2nd gen TSMC N3E, Intel will be able to come up with a (likely) Core i5 to match it in 2026.  

    So long as Intel is inside 200 million Windows and Linux PCs sold each year, they aren't going anywhere. 
    It's as if somebody asked ChatGPT to imitate an Intel troll. 

    Here's my best attempt at a pro-Intel perspective. 

    Since Gelsinger's return, Intel has done a fantastic job of turning their lemons into lemonade. Lots of customers care about benchmarks, Apple has committed to keeping power and heat low, so Intel realized they can win single core benchmarks by overclocking one big core for brief periods of time. That doesn't lead to the best product or user experience, but it's good marketing. It gives OEMs something to say to keep people from going to Apple. 

    Besides running one core super hot to eek out a single thread benchmark win, Intel realized that they can compete on multi-threaded benchmarks if they throw in a large number of smaller cores running at lower clocks. And so we see products like the 13900K with 8 'performance' cores but 16 'efficiency' cores. Can software take advantage of all those little cores? Some can, for sure, but more importantly -- another benchmark win. 

    In theory, Apple could respond in kind -- they could run one of their big cores super hot for brief bursts to recapture the single core crown. They could also stuff in more of their far superior efficiency cores to win on multicore. But Apple's not doing that, leaving Intel some space for a 'win.' I suspect Apple will leave Intel with that space for quite a while because from Apple's point of view, creating a chip to beat Intel at their own game wouldn't actually lead to better Macs. 

    So in some sense, everybody wins. Intel is less profitable, but still in business and surviving to hopefully get their manufacturing back on track. Intel's customers 'win' in that they get cheap PCs that look good in benchmarks. Apple's customers win because they get computers that have excellent real world performance with low heat and great battery life. Apple wins because the customers that appreciate their products also happen to be highly educated and affluent. Happy happy joy joy. 
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 

    Apple has already lived through the Three Stooges, Motorola, IBM and Intel. They don’t need to live through a fourth on a rebound.
    edited January 28 watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 35
    ;) danox said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    thadec said:
    All right folks. Time to get out of the kiddie pool delusions and join the adults in reality.
    1. Intel's decline in 2022 are due to the recession and the stuff going on with China, Russia and Ukraine. We know this because it impacted iPhone sales too, as their sales were down 15% year-over-year.

    2. Even with one of the worst years in history, 286 million PCs sold in 2022. Even with one of their best years in history, Apple accounted for only 23 to 28 million of those depending on who you believe. OF the remaining 260 million or so PCs that did sell, Intel had 70% of those to AMD's 30%. Intel projects that this is going to rebound to 300 million next year. Analysts are railing (from their MacBooks and iPhones) that Intel is crazy to project this, but the 3 year replacement cycle for devices that were bought at the start of the pandemic will end in 2Q 2023. The enterprise "refresh the hardware we bought during the pandemic" will last through 2024.

    3. Intel did take a big hit in servers ... but from AMD, not ARM. Despite all the hype that you have heard - 99% of it typed on MacBooks and iPad Pros since November 2020 - ARM has only 3% of the server business. Marvell left the ARM server business because they weren't making any money, leaving Ampere as the last major player there. (And Ampere's "major" is "fewer than 1000 global employees.") Granted, Nvidia will join Ampere in a few months. But, AMD released their response to ARM servers in 2022. Intel's response won't come until 2024 but it will be mighty substantial: Sierra Forest, a Xeon with 334 efficiency cores on a 6nm process. It removes the sole advantage that ARM servers have over x86, which is better power efficiency per thread. 

    4. Apple Silicon fans do their best to evade this, but even Apple acknowledges that Intel has superior single core performance. The M1 Ultra scored 1780. The M2 Pro? 1952. Fine but the last gen Intel Core i9-12900K (1986) as well as the current gen Core i9-13900KS (2286), Core i7-13700K (2107), and Core i5-13600KF (2011) all clearly beat it. You should know that the latter is in a budget gaming desktop (16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060) that costs $1200. Yes, the 3nm M3 will come out this year. No, it will not beat the 10nm Core i9-13900KS. It won't beat the 14th gen Core i7 will be out by the end of the year either.

    5. This makes the "Combined they are aiming for 1.8x improvement in performance-per-watt. That only brings them to where Apple is now if they deliver" wishful thinking. Intel's 14nm chips were already beating the M2 Pro. This means that when Intel reaches 3nm, they will be able to make 28W chips (the M2 Pro Mac Mini's TDP is around 26.5 W) that have the same performance as what Apple offers as well as 75W-125W chips that will crush it. How? Simple: where Apple currently has only 1 performance core design (used for smartphones/tablets, laptops and PCs) Intel has 5: Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, Core i9/Xeon. (This is down from 7, as Intel ditched Celeron and Pentium.) Core i7 and Core i9 are bigger, meaning better performance but worse efficiency. Core i5 and Core i3? Smaller cores for better efficiency but worse performance. As Intel shrinks the die from 10nm to 3nm, they will keep the 125W base for Core i9 and Core i7 ... but reduce it for Core i5 and especially Core i3. The Intel core i3-13100F, for example, has unofficial single core scores of about 1700, or 95% of the M1 Ultra. They only need to maintain that while significantly decreasing the TDP for certain Core i3 and Core i5 versions. Granted, this will occur in the laptop versions of the chips - for desktops their competition will be AMD's Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7, not Apple - but that doesn't matter because mini-PCs like the Intel NUC Extreme that are going to compete with the Mac Mini and Mac Studio will use laptop chips anyway. Wherever Apple is going to be in 2025 with 2nd gen TSMC N3E, Intel will be able to come up with a (likely) Core i5 to match it in 2026.  

    So long as Intel is inside 200 million Windows and Linux PCs sold each year, they aren't going anywhere. 
    It's as if somebody asked ChatGPT to imitate an Intel troll. 

    Here's my best attempt at a pro-Intel perspective. 

    Since Gelsinger's return, Intel has done a fantastic job of turning their lemons into lemonade. Lots of customers care about benchmarks, Apple has committed to keeping power and heat low, so Intel realized they can win single core benchmarks by overclocking one big core for brief periods of time. That doesn't lead to the best product or user experience, but it's good marketing. It gives OEMs something to say to keep people from going to Apple. 

    Besides running one core super hot to eek out a single thread benchmark win, Intel realized that they can compete on multi-threaded benchmarks if they throw in a large number of smaller cores running at lower clocks. And so we see products like the 13900K with 8 'performance' cores but 16 'efficiency' cores. Can software take advantage of all those little cores? Some can, for sure, but more importantly -- another benchmark win. 

    In theory, Apple could respond in kind -- they could run one of their big cores super hot for brief bursts to recapture the single core crown. They could also stuff in more of their far superior efficiency cores to win on multicore. But Apple's not doing that, leaving Intel some space for a 'win.' I suspect Apple will leave Intel with that space for quite a while because from Apple's point of view, creating a chip to beat Intel at their own game wouldn't actually lead to better Macs. 

    So in some sense, everybody wins. Intel is less profitable, but still in business and surviving to hopefully get their manufacturing back on track. Intel's customers 'win' in that they get cheap PCs that look good in benchmarks. Apple's customers win because they get computers that have excellent real world performance with low heat and great battery life. Apple wins because the customers that appreciate their products also happen to be highly educated and affluent. Happy happy joy joy. 
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 

    Apple has already lived through the Three Stooges, Motorola, IBM and Intel. They don’t need to live through a fourth on a rebound.
    The fourth is Apple Within the rebounder!  o:)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 35
    JP234JP234 Posts: 1,482member
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 35
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    That brings up an interesting question; sell the parts to whom?
    The first in line with the most money would be from China. Domestic politics would (quite rightly) stop that. Same goes for most other foreign buyers. But who in the US or even the G20 would have the deep pockets needed, and would be deemed trustworthy enough to own the big American Chip Company’s design, and fab facilities? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 35
    omasouomasou Posts: 460member
    Marvin said:
    <snip>
    This was always the strength of Apple Silicon, they had 5x better performance-per-watt than Intel when they switched. Fractionally better performance numbers are meaningless if the computer sounds like a hairdryer and lasts 60 minutes on battery.

    <snip>

    ^^^This. Forget the whining about butterfly keyboards. I could NOT stand how the fans constantly ran on my previous MacBook Pro while doing nothing! I have yet to hear the fans on MacBook Pro as ALL Apple computer use to be and are again, SILENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
    edited January 28 rezwitsDAalseth
  • Reply 28 of 35
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,035member
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    This sounds like what Michael Dell said about Apple back in the 90s. Also, AMD seemed hopeless 10 years ago. Point being — recoveries are possible. Of course, DEC, SGI, and Sun are gone, so failure is also possible. 

    I think Intel has to regain the manufacturing lead — that’s their core competency. With US government support, I think they *might* be able to do it. Then get apple and nvidia as foundry customers and they could be back in the saddle. 

    The thing they have to realize (and I think maybe they do) is that x86 sucks. They just have to milk x86 for whatever they can to support the transition to being a foundry. And I think they are doing that. The current crop of ‘lemonade’ CPUs reminds me in some ways os MacOS 8 and 9 — a return to competency in their main legacy product that keeps them in the game until they complete their transition to the NeXT big thing. For apple, that was OSX. For Intel, it will hopefully be new process nodes. 

    edited January 29 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 29 of 35
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,918member
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    This sounds like what Michael Dell said about Apple back in the 90s. Also, AMD seemed hopeless 10 years ago. Point being — recoveries are possible. Of course, DEC, SGI, and Sun are gone, so failure is also possible. 

    I think Intel has to regain the manufacturing lead — that’s their core competency. With US government support, I think they *might* be able to do it. Then get apple and nvidia as foundry customers and they could be back in the saddle. 

    The thing they have to realize (and I think maybe they do) is that x86 sucks. They just have to milk x86 for whatever they can to support the transition to being a foundry. And I think they are doing that. The current crop of ‘lemonade’ CPUs reminds me in some ways os MacOS 8 and 9 — a return to competency in their main legacy product that keeps them in the game until they complete their transition to the NeXT big thing. For apple, that was OSX. For Intel, it will hopefully be new process nodes. 

    DEC, Sun, SGI, had OS’s to go with their hardware but they just gave up (refused to change) in the face of the seemingly overpowering Wintel duopoly. You are right without OS X and Steve Jobs Apple would’ve been dead. Steve seem to have learned on his second go round (after Pixar/Next) is that you just needed to build a good products that people wanted to buy and be profitable at it. You didn’t necessarily need to be the biggest computer company even though later, Apple became one of the biggest because of those products.

    Intel, AMD and Nvidia are in the same position chipmakers without a in house OS. It is just a matter of time the fusion of a in house OS to go along with in-house hardware is just too strong with a motivated company because of the flexibility of changing direction and designing new devices for the future, which is where Apple has typically been strongest.

    Recently, there have been more rumors about Qualcomm, and Broadcom, in regards to modems and Wi-Fi type chips, and Apple, I think it’s nothing personal, just business, but Apple probably or is working on new devices or is iterating on existing devices, and that is the main motivation behind them leaving those two companies behind probably because they want to incorporate or make something smaller, how do you make everything fit in a pair of eyeglass frames? both those companies are happy to supply existing chips or are happy to collect money on patents from you, but they’re not gonna do the hard work to miniaturize anything for a new Apple device which is why Apple probably is looking to replace them in their designs.
  • Reply 30 of 35
    JP234JP234 Posts: 1,482member
    DAalseth said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    That brings up an interesting question; sell the parts to whom?
    The first in line with the most money would be from China. Domestic politics would (quite rightly) stop that. Same goes for most other foreign buyers. But who in the US or even the G20 would have the deep pockets needed, and would be deemed trustworthy enough to own the big American Chip Company’s design, and fab facilities? 
    Prediction: Hedge fund billionaire leverages a buyout, taking Intel Private. Intel shareholders agree to sell to him for around $100 billion. (About 15% less than current market cap, but well above the value in 2024, say). There are physical properties, IP, patents and parts offered at fire sale prices, netting his fund around $150 billion when sold off to a raft of competitors, including nVidia, Apple, AMD, Microsoft and others. The name Intel becomes a legacy brand like Coleco, Netscape, Compaq and so many others. Billionaire buys 500 foot yacht and a rocket ship!

    You read it here first.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    thttht Posts: 4,809member
    danox said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    This sounds like what Michael Dell said about Apple back in the 90s. Also, AMD seemed hopeless 10 years ago. Point being — recoveries are possible. Of course, DEC, SGI, and Sun are gone, so failure is also possible. 

    I think Intel has to regain the manufacturing lead — that’s their core competency. With US government support, I think they *might* be able to do it. Then get apple and nvidia as foundry customers and they could be back in the saddle. 

    The thing they have to realize (and I think maybe they do) is that x86 sucks. They just have to milk x86 for whatever they can to support the transition to being a foundry. And I think they are doing that. The current crop of ‘lemonade’ CPUs reminds me in some ways os MacOS 8 and 9 — a return to competency in their main legacy product that keeps them in the game until they complete their transition to the NeXT big thing. For apple, that was OSX. For Intel, it will hopefully be new process nodes. 

    DEC, Sun, SGI, had OS’s to go with their hardware but they just gave up (refused to change) in the face of the seemingly overpowering Wintel duopoly. You are right without OS X and Steve Jobs Apple would’ve been dead. Steve seem to have learned on his second go round (after Pixar/Next) is that you just needed to build a good products that people wanted to buy and be profitable at it. You didn’t necessarily need to be the biggest computer company even though later, Apple became one of the biggest because of those products.

    Intel, AMD and Nvidia are in the same position chipmakers without a in house OS. It is just a matter of time the fusion of a in house OS to go along with in-house hardware is just too strong with a motivated company because of the flexibility of changing direction and designing new devices for the future, which is where Apple has typically been strongest.
    Having lived through the era, I don't think there was anything that the workstation vendors could have done to survive. I think the only reason Apple survived was because Microsoft Office and Adobe CC made the transition to Mac OS X. Without that, Apple would either be dead or is remembered as an iPod and maybe iPhone company. Having MS Office was critical to an OS in the PC market. If you didn't have Office, you could not survive in the PC market. Zero chance. The one good that the MS antitrust case did was probably giving MS a reason not to stop developing Office for Mac.

    As for the workstation vendors, Linux, Windows NT and Moore's law killed them. I don't know how they could have survived. You need money to develop the next fab node. Every next fab node (basically defined as a doubling in transistor density per unit area) required 2x the money as the old fab node. Intel owned the PC space, and it continually ate into all adjacent markets, resulting in Intel accruing all the money to go to the next fab node, and starving RISC workstation vendors of money to get to the next fab node.

    Then, the Unix derived platforms were locked into the workstation niche. They couldn't grow out of it without Office software, without games, etc. And, Linux came along and made them irrelevant. Hard to compete against free and some company selling services to a free OS running on commodity hardware. And, NT was more than good enough to grow into the workstation market, and it had Office software and integrated with MS server platforms fine.

    Intel is now a victim of Moore's law. The thing that favored them is now threatening them with an existential crisis because Otellini said no to making smartphone chips at the wrong time. The smartphone market has more money in it than the PC market. I don't think the US gov't will let them go fabless. The USA will subsidize their fabs until there is something different from CMOS semiconductor manufacturing. The only way the USA lets Intel go fabless, or possibly out of business, is if TSMC and Samsung agreed to put equivalent fabs in the USA.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,035member
    tht said:
    danox said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    This sounds like what Michael Dell said about Apple back in the 90s. Also, AMD seemed hopeless 10 years ago. Point being — recoveries are possible. Of course, DEC, SGI, and Sun are gone, so failure is also possible. 

    I think Intel has to regain the manufacturing lead — that’s their core competency. With US government support, I think they *might* be able to do it. Then get apple and nvidia as foundry customers and they could be back in the saddle. 

    The thing they have to realize (and I think maybe they do) is that x86 sucks. They just have to milk x86 for whatever they can to support the transition to being a foundry. And I think they are doing that. The current crop of ‘lemonade’ CPUs reminds me in some ways os MacOS 8 and 9 — a return to competency in their main legacy product that keeps them in the game until they complete their transition to the NeXT big thing. For apple, that was OSX. For Intel, it will hopefully be new process nodes. 

    DEC, Sun, SGI, had OS’s to go with their hardware but they just gave up (refused to change) in the face of the seemingly overpowering Wintel duopoly. You are right without OS X and Steve Jobs Apple would’ve been dead. Steve seem to have learned on his second go round (after Pixar/Next) is that you just needed to build a good products that people wanted to buy and be profitable at it. You didn’t necessarily need to be the biggest computer company even though later, Apple became one of the biggest because of those products.

    Intel, AMD and Nvidia are in the same position chipmakers without a in house OS. It is just a matter of time the fusion of a in house OS to go along with in-house hardware is just too strong with a motivated company because of the flexibility of changing direction and designing new devices for the future, which is where Apple has typically been strongest.
    Having lived through the era, I don't think there was anything that the workstation vendors could have done to survive. I think the only reason Apple survived was because Microsoft Office and Adobe CC made the transition to Mac OS X. Without that, Apple would either be dead or is remembered as an iPod and maybe iPhone company. Having MS Office was critical to an OS in the PC market. If you didn't have Office, you could not survive in the PC market. Zero chance. The one good that the MS antitrust case did was probably giving MS a reason not to stop developing Office for Mac.

    As for the workstation vendors, Linux, Windows NT and Moore's law killed them. I don't know how they could have survived. You need money to develop the next fab node. Every next fab node (basically defined as a doubling in transistor density per unit area) required 2x the money as the old fab node. Intel owned the PC space, and it continually ate into all adjacent markets, resulting in Intel accruing all the money to go to the next fab node, and starving RISC workstation vendors of money to get to the next fab node.

    Then, the Unix derived platforms were locked into the workstation niche. They couldn't grow out of it without Office software, without games, etc. And, Linux came along and made them irrelevant. Hard to compete against free and some company selling services to a free OS running on commodity hardware. And, NT was more than good enough to grow into the workstation market, and it had Office software and integrated with MS server platforms fine.

    Intel is now a victim of Moore's law. The thing that favored them is now threatening them with an existential crisis because Otellini said no to making smartphone chips at the wrong time. The smartphone market has more money in it than the PC market. I don't think the US gov't will let them go fabless. The USA will subsidize their fabs until there is something different from CMOS semiconductor manufacturing. The only way the USA lets Intel go fabless, or possibly out of business, is if TSMC and Samsung agreed to put equivalent fabs in the USA.
    I agree with all the economies of scale stuff. But I think there was a path to survival for the workstation guys — all go Alpha and consolidate manufacturing with AMD and IBM.

    The reason I think that could have happened is that in a way it did — lots of Alpha tech ended up in K7 and K8, and AMD partnered with IBM on fabs. 

    One huge mistake the workstation guys made was believing the Itanium hype. They all just rolled over and died from Intel huffing and puffing. 
  • Reply 33 of 35
    thttht Posts: 4,809member
    blastdoor said:
    I agree with all the economies of scale stuff. But I think there was a path to survival for the workstation guys — all go Alpha and consolidate manufacturing with AMD and IBM.

    The reason I think that could have happened is that in a way it did — lots of Alpha tech ended up in K7 and K8, and AMD partnered with IBM on fabs. 

    One huge mistake the workstation guys made was believing the Itanium hype. They all just rolled over and died from Intel huffing and puffing. 
    I would have to go back and find who was fabbing chips for the workstation vendors. Motorola, Texas Instruments, IBM, Hitachi? Who was fabbing for DEC? It is very much a money play. Not only do the workstation vendors, all of them, had to collaborate on architectures and software, the foundries had to share resource and technology too. Interesting that IBM PowerPC is the last one standing, though probably because they live in their own niche that Intel can't touch for some reason. Long term enterprise IBM customers? Hmm, is there still a Fujitsu SPARC system that still comes out?
    edited January 30
  • Reply 34 of 35
    tht said:
    danox said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    blastdoor said:
    JP234 said:
    Both of you ignore the obvious. Intel is a company in terminal decline. You're right that won't belly up, but only because it's "too big to fail." Kind of like Sears. All it's going to take is an activist CEO to break it up and sell it off for parts.
    I don’t think they are necessarily in terminal decline. I think under previous management they were living a lifestyle that was killing them. It was as if they were eating too much and not exercising — focused only on short run pleasure not long run health. They were kind of like Rocky at the start of Rocky 3, but worse (imagine Rocky 50 pounds over weight eating pizza and drinking beer all the time). 

    I think Gelsinger is trying to get this fighter back in shape and restore the eye of the tiger. There’s no guarantee he will succeed, but I think it’s at least possible that he might.

    I hope he does because it would mean we get better manufacturing nodes faster. And apple could use Intel to fab apple silicon. 
    It's not looking good. Intel stock reached all-time high of $73.19 on July 14, 2000. It closed Friday, 23 years later at $28.19, roughly a third of that long-ago high. The movement pattern I've identified shows that share price increases leading up to earnings releases, and then crashes on disappointing results. This has held true on virtually EVERY quarterly earnings report. The latest, from this week, was the worst in both earnings and forward-looking projections, made by the company itself.

    Intel has no chance whatsoever under its present business model, leadership or technology. They'll have to scrap everything and start from the ground up, or break up and sell off the parts. It truly makes me sad to contemplate, both as a (former) shareholder and as a product user.
    This sounds like what Michael Dell said about Apple back in the 90s. Also, AMD seemed hopeless 10 years ago. Point being — recoveries are possible. Of course, DEC, SGI, and Sun are gone, so failure is also possible. 

    I think Intel has to regain the manufacturing lead — that’s their core competency. With US government support, I think they *might* be able to do it. Then get apple and nvidia as foundry customers and they could be back in the saddle. 

    The thing they have to realize (and I think maybe they do) is that x86 sucks. They just have to milk x86 for whatever they can to support the transition to being a foundry. And I think they are doing that. The current crop of ‘lemonade’ CPUs reminds me in some ways os MacOS 8 and 9 — a return to competency in their main legacy product that keeps them in the game until they complete their transition to the NeXT big thing. For apple, that was OSX. For Intel, it will hopefully be new process nodes. 

    DEC, Sun, SGI, had OS’s to go with their hardware but they just gave up (refused to change) in the face of the seemingly overpowering Wintel duopoly. You are right without OS X and Steve Jobs Apple would’ve been dead. Steve seem to have learned on his second go round (after Pixar/Next) is that you just needed to build a good products that people wanted to buy and be profitable at it. You didn’t necessarily need to be the biggest computer company even though later, Apple became one of the biggest because of those products.

    Intel, AMD and Nvidia are in the same position chipmakers without a in house OS. It is just a matter of time the fusion of a in house OS to go along with in-house hardware is just too strong with a motivated company because of the flexibility of changing direction and designing new devices for the future, which is where Apple has typically been strongest.
    Having lived through the era, I don't think there was anything that the workstation vendors could have done to survive. I think the only reason Apple survived was because Microsoft Office and Adobe CC made the transition to Mac OS X. Without that, Apple would either be dead or is remembered as an iPod and maybe iPhone company. Having MS Office was critical to an OS in the PC market. If you didn't have Office, you could not survive in the PC market. Zero chance. The one good that the MS antitrust case did was probably giving MS a reason not to stop developing Office for Mac.

    As for the workstation vendors, Linux, Windows NT and Moore's law killed them. I don't know how they could have survived. You need money to develop the next fab node. Every next fab node (basically defined as a doubling in transistor density per unit area) required 2x the money as the old fab node. Intel owned the PC space, and it continually ate into all adjacent markets, resulting in Intel accruing all the money to go to the next fab node, and starving RISC workstation vendors of money to get to the next fab node.

    Then, the Unix derived platforms were locked into the workstation niche. They couldn't grow out of it without Office software, without games, etc. And, Linux came along and made them irrelevant. Hard to compete against free and some company selling services to a free OS running on commodity hardware. And, NT was more than good enough to grow into the workstation market, and it had Office software and integrated with MS server platforms fine.

    Intel is now a victim of Moore's law. The thing that favored them is now threatening them with an existential crisis because Otellini said no to making smartphone chips at the wrong time. The smartphone market has more money in it than the PC market. I don't think the US gov't will let them go fabless. The USA will subsidize their fabs until there is something different from CMOS semiconductor manufacturing. The only way the USA lets Intel go fabless, or possibly out of business, is if TSMC and Samsung agreed to put equivalent fabs in the USA.
    It is not hard or expensive for Microsoft developing Office for Mac. 
  • Reply 35 of 35
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,035member
    tht said:
    blastdoor said:
    I agree with all the economies of scale stuff. But I think there was a path to survival for the workstation guys — all go Alpha and consolidate manufacturing with AMD and IBM.

    The reason I think that could have happened is that in a way it did — lots of Alpha tech ended up in K7 and K8, and AMD partnered with IBM on fabs. 

    One huge mistake the workstation guys made was believing the Itanium hype. They all just rolled over and died from Intel huffing and puffing. 
    I would have to go back and find who was fabbing chips for the workstation vendors. Motorola, Texas Instruments, IBM, Hitachi? Who was fabbing for DEC? It is very much a money play. Not only do the workstation vendors, all of them, had to collaborate on architectures and software, the foundries had to share resource and technology too. Interesting that IBM PowerPC is the last one standing, though probably because they live in their own niche that Intel can't touch for some reason. Long term enterprise IBM customers? Hmm, is there still a Fujitsu SPARC system that still comes out?
    Back then, far more firms fabbed their own chips. DEC fabbed for DEC, for example. But the implications of economies of scale were obvious, so folks knew consolidation was coming. 

    I think POWER survived because IBM was the only one not to be fooled by Itanium. Alpha should have survived on technical merits, but the business guys couldn’t figure out how to capitalize on that asset. Maybe if Linux were more of a thing back then alpha could have made it.
Sign In or Register to comment.