4 ms·

I understand the point that Ben Thompson is making: that a vertically integrated Intel lost out in the mobile revolution because it wouldn't unbundle it's manuf

I understand the point that Ben Thompson is making: that a vertically integrated Intel lost out in the mobile revolution because it wouldn't unbundle it's manufacturing from its processor design. But its current crisis (not referring to the CEO's affair) has nothing to do with vertical integration. It has everything to do with Moore's law scaling coming to an end. This gives fabs like TSMC and increasingly SMIC from China the ability to catch up. Unless there is a breakthrough in technology -- molecular transistors or some such, Intel's ability to dominate will end soon.

pdpi 8y ago
> But its current crisis (not referring to the CEO's affair) has nothing to do with vertical integration. It has everything to do with Moore's law scaling coming to an end. Why not both? Their current business model is threatened by a technical challenge, but the company's exposure to that threat could've been mitigated by making small changes to the business model — by unbundling and diversifying.
- sumanthvepa 8y ago
  Unbundling and diversifying are both viable strategies. I just don't know if Intel can pull off both simultaneously while maintaining market share, and current levels of profitability.
- macintux 8y ago
  "small changes" would seem to be a significant understatement, however. The innovator's dilemma.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rwmj 8y ago
From the quoted tweet in the article: "I said that ICL should be taken to 14nm++, everybody looked at me like I was the craziest guy on the block, it was just in case". Imagine if Intel were two companies, Intel Design and Intel Manufacturing. This wouldn't have arisen - Intel Design would have produced the new ICL design and could have worked with Intel Manufacturing and TSMC on how to build it, ultimately using TSMC if IM couldn't make it.
- sumanthvepa 8y ago
  I suspect you may have hit on Intel's eventual fate. The company may indeed split up into a design unit and a manufacturing unit. That might unlock significant shareholder value.
  - PedroBatista 8y ago
    It would take many years since the spinoff that significant players would be comfortable enough to manufacture their designs with "Intel Foundry" since they known damn well there would be several hot-lines between Intel Foundry and Intel Designs.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - quanticle 8y ago
      Was that true of AMD/Global Foundries, when they split?
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The same was said of Microsoft, as Office was held back by the need to always be in lock step with Windows. Microsoft got past that problem, and I’m sure Intel will too. Like 1990-2010 intel, the foundry companies have been able to hide a lot of their warts through growth. IMO, the smartphone revolution will peak much more quickly than PCs, and Intel competitors will gave their own life threatening challenges.
  - sumanthvepa 8y ago
    I agree. Performance in cellphone processors will peak even faster than the PC. And the semiconductor industry as a whole either becomes a commodity industry (like electricity) or they have to discover new technologies.
mattthebaker 8y ago
Intel lost out on the mobile revolution because the mobile revolution was about radio technology and not processor technology. Outside of buying Qualcomm for patents and radio designs, anything Intel could have tried was doomed to fail.
- chasil 8y ago
  I'm not sure if this was required for low-power mobile, but it certainly helped: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2012/05/03/unsung_heroes_of_tech_arm_creators_sophie_wilson_and_steve_furber/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2012/05/03/unsung_heroes... When the first test chips came back from the lab on the 26 April 1985, Furber plugged one into a development board, and was happy to see it working perfectly first time. Deeply puzzling, though, was the reading on the multimeter connected in series with the power supply. The needle was at zero: the processor seemed to be consuming no power whatsoever. As Wilson tells it: “The development board plugged the chip into had a fault: there was no current being sent down the power supply lines at all. The processor was actually running on leakage from the logic circuits. So the low-power big thing that the ARM is most valued for today, the reason that it's on all your mobile phones, was a complete accident." Wilson had, it turned out, designed a powerful 32-bit processor that consumed no more than a tenth of a Watt.
- imtringued 8y ago
  Just take a look at a product page of qualcomm [1]. The CPU gets 3 bullet points, meanwhile the cellular modem has 1/3 of the entire page. Also here is a nice picture that shows the irrelevance of the CPU compared to the rest of the SoC [2]. If intel wants to compete they not only need the best cpu, they also have to be a champion at everything else. [1] https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sdm845 https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sdm845 [2] https://www.qualcomm.com/sites/ember/files/styles/optimize/public/components/one-column-hdi/background/sdm845_chip_small.png?itok=mArbTiXe https://www.qualcomm.com/sites/ember/files/styles/optimize/p...

pdpi 8y ago

> But its current crisis (not referring to the CEO's affair) has nothing to do with vertical integration. It has everything to do with Moore's law scaling coming to an end. Why not both? Their current business model is threatened by a technical challenge, but the company's exposure to that threat could've been mitigated by making small changes to the business model — by unbundling and diversifying.

sumanthvepa 8y ago
Unbundling and diversifying are both viable strategies. I just don't know if Intel can pull off both simultaneously while maintaining market share, and current levels of profitability.
macintux 8y ago
"small changes" would seem to be a significant understatement, however. The innovator's dilemma.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rwmj 8y ago

From the quoted tweet in the article: "I said that ICL should be taken to 14nm++, everybody looked at me like I was the craziest guy on the block, it was just in case". Imagine if Intel were two companies, Intel Design and Intel Manufacturing. This wouldn't have arisen - Intel Design would have produced the new ICL design and could have worked with Intel Manufacturing and TSMC on how to build it, ultimately using TSMC if IM couldn't make it.

sumanthvepa 8y ago
I suspect you may have hit on Intel's eventual fate. The company may indeed split up into a design unit and a manufacturing unit. That might unlock significant shareholder value.
- PedroBatista 8y ago
  It would take many years since the spinoff that significant players would be comfortable enough to manufacture their designs with "Intel Foundry" since they known damn well there would be several hot-lines between Intel Foundry and Intel Designs.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - quanticle 8y ago
    Was that true of AMD/Global Foundries, when they split?
Spooky23 8y ago
The same was said of Microsoft, as Office was held back by the need to always be in lock step with Windows. Microsoft got past that problem, and I’m sure Intel will too. Like 1990-2010 intel, the foundry companies have been able to hide a lot of their warts through growth. IMO, the smartphone revolution will peak much more quickly than PCs, and Intel competitors will gave their own life threatening challenges.
- sumanthvepa 8y ago
  I agree. Performance in cellphone processors will peak even faster than the PC. And the semiconductor industry as a whole either becomes a commodity industry (like electricity) or they have to discover new technologies.

mattthebaker 8y ago

Intel lost out on the mobile revolution because the mobile revolution was about radio technology and not processor technology. Outside of buying Qualcomm for patents and radio designs, anything Intel could have tried was doomed to fail.

chasil 8y ago
I'm not sure if this was required for low-power mobile, but it certainly helped: https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2012/05/03/unsung_heroes_of_tech_arm_creators_sophie_wilson_and_steve_furber/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2012/05/03/unsung_heroes... When the first test chips came back from the lab on the 26 April 1985, Furber plugged one into a development board, and was happy to see it working perfectly first time. Deeply puzzling, though, was the reading on the multimeter connected in series with the power supply. The needle was at zero: the processor seemed to be consuming no power whatsoever. As Wilson tells it: “The development board plugged the chip into had a fault: there was no current being sent down the power supply lines at all. The processor was actually running on leakage from the logic circuits. So the low-power big thing that the ARM is most valued for today, the reason that it's on all your mobile phones, was a complete accident." Wilson had, it turned out, designed a powerful 32-bit processor that consumed no more than a tenth of a Watt.
imtringued 8y ago
Just take a look at a product page of qualcomm [1]. The CPU gets 3 bullet points, meanwhile the cellular modem has 1/3 of the entire page. Also here is a nice picture that shows the irrelevance of the CPU compared to the rest of the SoC [2]. If intel wants to compete they not only need the best cpu, they also have to be a champion at everything else. [1] https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sdm845 https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sdm845 [2] https://www.qualcomm.com/sites/ember/files/styles/optimize/public/components/one-column-hdi/background/sdm845_chip_small.png?itok=mArbTiXe https://www.qualcomm.com/sites/ember/files/styles/optimize/p...