> nor is it indicative of anything particularly catastrophic for Intel. Well, it's indicative of the slow-moving catastrophe that was their 10nm farce. Intel i

> nor is it indicative of anything particularly catastrophic for Intel. Well, it's indicative of the slow-moving catastrophe that was their 10nm farce. Intel is spending a lot of money to recover from that, because they need to make drastic changes to regain their dominant position. If they weren't sacrificing profits in a big way right now, the most reasonable expectation for their future would be an IBM-style slow decline from relevance.