Usually I see government industrial subsidy as a good thing but… I have a question. Five years ago the technology to do what TSMC was doing existed since as they were doing it. Instead, the US chip companies rested on there laurels, thinking what they were doing as good enough and could not even develop the capability to do what TSMC was doing. Now the IS chip companies are 5 years behind and crying for help from the government to do what they couldn’t/didn’t do 5 years ago. So, why were they not developing this technology 5 years ago? Then would have continued to be a leader in the industry and not require government assistance to catch up. (This from a life long liberal)
Intel Acknowledges It Was ‘Too Aggressive’ With Its 10nm Plans
I don't think they were resting on their laurels. They were actually trying to get to 10nm too early and weren't able to deliver. Which was followed by years of delays...
"This requires a bit of a disclaimer. There does not exist a universal
standard to labeling nodes, and the measurement only tells part of the
story. Generally speaking, Intel's 10nm node is comparable to AMD's 7nm
tech. So in that regard, Intel isn't as far behind as it may seem".
"Nevertheless,
the point is, AMD is now the one that is pushing the envelope and
leading on process technology, rather than the other way around. Had
things gone to plan for Intel, it would have been at 10nm on the desktop five years ago,
with a dual-core version of Cannon Lake. Yes, in 2015! A series of
delays ultimately derailed Cannon Lake altogether, and the only 10nm
parts now and on the immediate horizon are laptop CPUs (Ice Lake
currently, and Tiger Lake soon). Getting to 10nm on the desktop is still
a year away."
They weren’t trying to get there “too early”
and they weren’t too aggressive.
They were not aggressive enough.
AMD surprised them.
TSMCs capabilities surprised everyone.
Intel got caught being lazy. The “we were trying too hard” is nothing but saving face in the midst of being shamed
if AMD and TSMC are already there and beyond, Intel has no excuse. Their 10nm timeline wasn’t even anything crazy.
They can simply be real, admit defeat, and come back with renewed motivation to win.
Until they admit failure, they won’t even have taken the first step back to success.
TSMC is laughing in the boardroom right now.
With the myriad reality distortion field excuses and misguided hate ads, Intel has become the once great athlete who loses a couple times and has every excuse in the book,blaming trainers, too many endorsement obligations, etc., but refuses to own the loss - thus guaranteeing future failure and burned relationship bridges along the way.
Stop it Intel. Grow up. You were on top forever. Either admit defeat and come back swinging for the fences, or sell off and go away
it they regroup and innovate, they can make it to the top again. If the live in denial, it’s over already.
Apples m series put them on notice with the first budget chips. The performance chips will put them on their seats.
Amd is still making strides and innovating in a more agile way.
Microsoft has signaled a desire to copy what Apple is doing.
The prognosis is not good. The only way to change it is for Intel to go deep to the core of what they want to be and do, prune the unprofitable and unnecessary, chart out what the future looks like, and move with a laser focus and agility. Reorganize and run to win.
Competition is great. It makes you better. So get better. Or get left in the dust.
Usually I see government industrial subsidy as a good thing but… I have a question. Five years ago the technology to do what TSMC was doing existed since as they were doing it. Instead, the US chip companies rested on there laurels, thinking what they were doing as good enough and could not even develop the capability to do what TSMC was doing. Now the IS chip companies are 5 years behind and crying for help from the government to do what they couldn’t/didn’t do 5 years ago. So, why were they not developing this technology 5 years ago? Then would have continued to be a leader in the industry and not require government assistance to catch up. (This from a life long liberal)
It is about the cost of the newest silicon fabs. Intel lost 10+ years ago when they decided not to develop an iPhone chip for Apple. The volume of chips Apple needs for their mobile devices is staggering. That provides a huge amount of money for R&D and infrastructure. Intel only has the traditional PC and server markets. That isn’t trivial but it is smaller than the mobile device market shared by Apple and Android.
Apple and their silicon fabrication partner TSMC can invest more in fabs and other R&D than what Intel can afford. AMD is taking advantage of the infrastructure that has been significantly funded by Apple to out compete Intel as well (on performance if not volume yet). This puts Intel in a very bad place where they are losing ground in their traditional markets and at the same time not making any progress in new markets.
Isn't it a basic rule that you punch up not down when adverting? When you are trying to argue that you are as good or better than something you are admitting that the something is the thing to beat. So they are reinforcing the fact/perception that Apple is the chip designer to beat.
A side note on Appleinsider's position on Intel:
Appleinsder describing Intel on Jan 15th 2021: “ The previously dominant processor giant is slipping into obscurity fast"
Appleinsider describing Intel on Feb 11th 2021: "With Intel in a dominant position -- at least for now -- in the chipmaking industry"
According to AI, Intel's position in the world has improved dramatically in the last month.
Well are they? Anyone with proper knowledge about processors are going to buy it? If you just said “x86 got a better environment” as a processor company, you might just say nothing at all.
No clue where you going with that or what it had to do with my comment.
There’s no “punch up not down” for them at all. The better way to do right now is shut up and build better processors.
In the context of advertising, which is what I’m talking about, attacking a smaller player is punching down while attacking a bigger one is punching up. Generally speaking punching down is seen as a bad route to go as it gives credence to the smaller player.
Intel is a bit bigger in the PC space than Apple so they are most certainly punching down. Conversely when Apple did switcher and Mac vs PC ads they were punching up. You will notice Apple doesn’t punch down once it takes a more dominate position and just advertises on the strengths of their products. They didn’t respond when Microsoft and Samsung ran attack ads on the iPhone because it would have only served to elevate those products. They don’t make attack ads for the Apple Watch, AirPods ... because they don’t need to elevate them to their status.
Intel is absolutely punching down and it’s a really stupid idea. Unless your Apple, for Apple it is great as it is basically free advertising for the Mac.
Oh, sorry I misunderstood, I know nothing about advertisements. I can say, though, they can’t fool experts with these ads — they know what cherry-picking is, nor this one particularly give anyone else any confidence.
What they should do, either just be silent and focus on their work, or just like what they did back in days with Pentium 4, admits they’re wrong and apologize.
M1 is for low end Macs. They’re comparing their best against the low end of the bar. Better work harder Intel. Apple silicon is packing in new things annually. That puck is ever moving.
Apple’s June 2021 developer conference will be the start of the end for Intel a long slow fade like Motorola (gone) and IBM (now fading).
It baffles me why Intel is targeting Apple. They have little competition from Apple. It's not like most PC buyers are now going to switch to a Mac. What a waste of money. I'd say the consumer market is the least of Intel's problems.
The ads go with an aggressive, pushy tone that doesn’t mention the chips. Instead, they go with the idea that a generic PC is better than a Mac. Presumably they’re including AMD machines in this PC soup.
Sounds like they’ve thrown in the towel on performance and are going to focus on the touted advantages of PCs (the lack of a touch screen on the a Mac is nothing to do with it no longer having an Intel chip)
EXACTLY. They are touting Windows advantages that have nothing to do with their chips. If you choose Windows because you want to play PC games or want a convertible tablet, don’t go with intel, go with AMD.
this advertising campaign is just a big exercise in whataboutism
Five years from now, generic PCs and Windows will be running on ARM, not Intel. Keeping people on Windows is going to do nothing for Intel except maybe buy a little more time.
Maybe. That would require somebody — most likely Qualcomm or Nvidia — to design ARM chips that beat Intel and AMD. That could happen but it’s not certain. Those guys are probably more interested in servers than client PCs.
Another possibility is that the PC ends up like Android, with an inferior processor but most PC users not knowing or caring. I actually think this is most likely.
Another possibility is that Intel or AMD starts changing the x86 ISA to make it more competitive with ARM. They could include 1 or 2 “compatibility cores” that use the full, old ISA and then lots of modern cores that use a more RISC-like ISA. The OS would need to know what to send where, but I imagine MS would cooperate.
The thing that could really light a fire under Wintel is Apple jumping in with both feet on Mac gaming. I think there are tons of people who would happily go Mac if the games they want to play were available. Apple should buy Aspyr and spend a few billion getting all the AAA games running great on the Mac. It’s low hanging fruit
Apple making a in house gpu, that performs at a high level is all Apple needs to do, in combo with better software tools, wasting money on buying a existing gaming company is a waste of time.
The threat to Intel isn't Apple as a manufacturer, it's the viability of ARM as a general-purpose CPU platform.
Going after Apple is an extremely short-term strategy. Is the thinking really trying to drive Apple into failure and thus deny ARM its status as a legitimate option?
That can't be the idea.
ARM isn’t there yet.
Apples custom chips are. In spades.
Apple uses the basic premise as the small ARM footprint starting block and that’s it. From there, Apple has created their own thing. It’s why no other ARM chip can compete - even though it’s more memory or higher clocks.
Intel doesn’t have to worry about ARM. They have to worry about Apple and the idea that other partners might be envious of apple and try to make custom SOCs too.
Microsoft is the only one with an in house OS and the money, the question is. Do they have the will.
A tad weak campaign....but I think they know they're slipping. Apple is a minor player at the moment in the desktop PC chip market, but maybe not for long. If MS releases Win for ARM. in the next yr or so, it's game over I bet.
The problem for Microsoft is ARM as it stands now isn’t good enough, they need to put in the work and money to make it so, off the shelf ARM won’t work. Qualcomm, Intel, and AMD are even further behind they have no in house OS.
A tad weak campaign....but I think they know they're slipping. Apple is a minor player at the moment in the desktop PC chip market, but maybe not for long. If MS releases Win for ARM. in the next yr or so, it's game over I bet.
The problem for Microsoft is ARM as it stands now isn’t good enough, they need to put in the work and money to make it so, off the shelf ARM won’t work. Qualcomm, Intel, and AMD are even further behind they have no in house OS.
ARM is definitely "good enough" it's Windows that isn't yet "good enough" to run efficiently on ARM and be backwards compatible with x86.
I really don’t understand the point of this marketing piece. If it’s for potential Mac buyers, I feel that most are either, previous Mac users who use Macs because of the OS and not the processor, or current PC users who absolutely hate windows and remember the budget PCs that they were conned into buying because of Intel’s slick marketing.
If you’re thinking about purchasing a Mac, you probably already know that you’re not buying it for gaming and not buying it for touch screen usage even though you can use the touchbar if you buy a model that has that feature.
This is just another chest thumping ad from a company that knows if they are not careful, their days are numbered. It’s odd that they are burning their bridge with Apple when Apple was one of the few companies who was buying their crappy cellular modems when everyone else was buying Qualcomm.
All it would take is for Microsoft to make a full blown version of windows that runs on ARM and not that RT crap. Now that they see the benefits that ARM has when married with an OS that can support it, it could be just a matter of time that they cozy up with someone like Qualcomm to make that happen.
A tad weak campaign....but I think they know they're slipping. Apple is a minor player at the moment in the desktop PC chip market, but maybe not for long. If MS releases Win for ARM. in the next yr or so, it's game over I bet.
The problem for Microsoft is ARM as it stands now isn’t good enough, they need to put in the work and money to make it so, off the shelf ARM won’t work. Qualcomm, Intel, and AMD are even further behind they have no in house OS.
Actually the problem for MS is they have too much cruft in Windows (x86) that cannot be ported over to ARM without incurring a huge performance penalty via an abstraction layer around the said cruft. They could just deprecate the old code but that would cripple their vaunted backward compatibility. It’s not as much of a catch-22 as it sounds though. They could take a page from Apple’s playbook and do some serious auditing in order to figure out which specific functions need trimming and then lay down some custom blocks in silicon to accelerate the wrappers for the cruft. It’s hella expensive (time, research, production) and would be just a band-aid until they can come up with a real solution (rewriting Windows into a truly portable codebase unhindered by legacy crap).
Or they could keep trying their own take on Pink, Taligent, and Copeland—doubt they have much more luck than Apple did though.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
How many users actually stilll rely upon Bootcamp, though? Things are really very different from fifteen years ago.
Well, yeh, those are two critical weaknesses in the M1 Mac line.
Nothing else matters if your computer cannot do the computing you need it to do.
Likewise, Apple has fallen behind the industry as it failed to produce a viable 2 in 1. Telling people to just buy a second computer is silly.
Yeh, the iPad definitely has the innate capability to be a very capable 2 in 1. But so far weaknesses in iPadOS are constraining it from reaching its full capabilities.
Come on Apple! You opened the door for the Mac to take full advantage of Apple's cohesive Ecosystem. But, you can't keep it handcuffed. You need to: 1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
2) Upgrade the iPad so it can compete with the 2 in 1's. The best way to do that might be to let it switch from iPadOS to MacOS as it goes from tablet mode to laptop mode. It can be done. Others have already done similar.
Steve knew that it was more important to give users what they needed rather than simply producing a slick product.
Apple needs to remember that.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
No, Apple doesn't need them -- but Apple customers do.
And, instead of walking away from Intel and thumbing their noses at Microsoft (very childish!) they need to help them build/upgrade a version of Windows that an M1 Mac can boot from Bootcamp. For an Apple customer, its a fall back, an insurance policy, in case they have to run something that won't run on MacOS.
It's mind-blowing how you still don't understand that it's MS responsibly to want to get Windows to be licensable on ARM.
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.
Comments
and they weren’t too aggressive.
if AMD and TSMC are already there and beyond, Intel has no excuse. Their 10nm timeline wasn’t even anything crazy.
it they regroup and innovate, they can make it to the top again. If the live in denial, it’s over already.
What they should do, either just be silent and focus on their work, or just like what they did back in days with Pentium 4, admits they’re wrong and apologize.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Next up in house GPU and in house modem....
Apple making a in house gpu, that performs at a high level is all Apple needs to do, in combo with better software tools, wasting money on buying a existing gaming company is a waste of time.
Microsoft is the only one with an in house OS and the money, the question is. Do they have the will.
Qualcomm, Intel, and AMD are even further behind they have no in house OS.
a company that knows if they are not careful, their days are numbered. It’s odd that they are burning their bridge with Apple when Apple was one of the few companies who was buying their crappy cellular modems when everyone else was buying Qualcomm.
All it would take is for Microsoft to make a full blown version of windows that runs on ARM and not that RT crap. Now that they see the benefits that ARM has when married with an OS that can support it, it could be just a matter of time that they cozy up with someone like Qualcomm to make that happen.
1) Support Microsoft in producing a viable ARM edition of Windows. To simply blame Microsoft after Apple moved away from it is silly.
He was wrong occasionally, but it was always more important to build something useful, than to add options that didn't add value.
Apple doesn’t need Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Intel to sell a great product, soon Qualcomm, and AMD will join that list in the rear view mirror.
And by the way the Surface is a placeholder like the Pixel line of smartphones a me too product going nowhere.
Helping Microsoft a what laugh.....
Steve biggest gift was saying no.....
You're like the people that file in a Texan district lawsuit that would claims Apple treated MS unfairly by switching their processor architecture without ever considering that MS has complete control over how it licenses their OSes.