6 ms·

> only to snap them back at the first sign of challenges. It's really quite impressive how bad Intel's track record has been. Would you say it's a broad cultur

> only to snap them back at the first sign of challenges. It's really quite impressive how bad Intel's track record has been. Would you say it's a broad cultural problem within Intel? Bad incentives? (I'b be interested if someone could come up with a list of all of Intel's failed ventures. StrongARM, Optane, Altera... Obviously some of these are par for the course for such a large company as Intel, but Intel still seems to stand out) (I know one reason Apple is so secretive about its ventures is because it knows many of them won't pan out, and it knows that due to its size anything it does has huge repercussions, and wants to avoid that)

1-6 3y ago
When Intel does something like this, it reveals how tight their operating margin is. This is not a good sign. Intel has never been able to push away from the fact that they'll always be a hardware first company. It's a very tight market out there. TSMC was able to make it with very tight partnerships with OEMs and I doubt Intel can pull off something like that.
ChuckMcM 3y ago
I agree with 1-6 that they have always been really focused on their margins, they were never a company that wanted to go into debt for something that was 'unproven.' They have had lots of things they stopped doing, the graphics chip I was involved in (82786) was one, the speech chips, the iAPX431, the modem chips, their digital watch was an early one. I always saw it as an exceptionally low tolerance for risk. When I was their the 386 had just fabbed and I was one of the people watching when the very first chip was powered up and it actually worked (which amazed pretty much everyone). Sun Microsystems was a little startup in Mountain View using the 68000 and getting some traction I suggested to Intel that if they used the graphic chip I was working on and the 386 they could build an Intel branded "Workstation" and both replace the VAXStations they were using for CAD work internally and sell them as part of Intel's initiative to become a "systems company." I got a response to my memo[1] from Dave House who was later CEO but at the time just the head of Microprocessor Operation (MIPO) Marketing explaining to this lowly NCG (new college grad) that Workstations were not much of a market and Intel was only interested in pursuing the "big" opportunities. Six months later I joined Sun (just after they IPO'd sadly) and didn't look back. :-) [1] Yes memo, as in typed up and printed out and put in a manilla envelope where on the last line of the front had it coming from Dave and being addressed to me. And yes, it started as a memo I had printed out and given to my manager because while Intel had "heard" of electronic mail they preferred the "durability" of actual mail and forcing people to use actual mail cut down on "frivolous" communications.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >I always saw it as an exceptionally low tolerance for risk. Big laugh at the claim of intel having a exceptionally low tolerance to risk when they're the only semi company left still running their own fabs, decades after AMD sold off their own for being too risky of a venture to keep running by themselves. And every fab company out there will vouch for how risky that line of business is. Even more so to pour billions into a business like this while knowing Samsung/TSMC might beat you. More correct would be that Intel has a low tolerance to risk for things that are way outside of their core competencies which have traditionally been designing X86 CPUs and fabbing them, and that's mostly it. I commend them for not giving up on advancing their fab nodes despite the massive issues and setbacks(they could have spun it off like AMD did), and for building the ARC GPUs and keep improving them despite low sales.
  - Grazester 3y ago
    I thought AMD had to spin off their fabs due to cost and cash flow issue because Intel was too busy playing dirty?
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      "Real men have fabs!" - AMD founder and CEO at the time, Jerry Sanders [1] He said this some time in the 80's to early 90's as a defence for their expensive commitment to still be running their own fabs when most big semi companies like Motorola were selling off their fabs and going fabless because it was eating their resources and it was impossible to compete with the likes of TSMC on node shrinks and value. So even without Intel screwing with them in anti-competitive ways, they could not have kept their fabs competitive much longer. The writing was already on the wall way back then but Jerry Sanders was just being stubborn. [1] https://archive.is/igC4r https://archive.is/igC4r
      - kimixa 3y ago
        I mean... Maybe? But Intel proved their success of owning fabs throughout the 90s and 2000s, only 20-30 years after that statement were Intel even considered to be possibly dis-advantaged by owning it's fabs. But that was also a very different market. So I don't think it's as direct a link as you seem to claim. Maybe it was the right decision even if AMD had the money to keep it going. But it will likely forever be one of those questions that has no solid answer either way.
drjasonharrison 3y ago
Wikipedia has a partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Intel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... what it is missing is the eventual disposition of the acquisition (product brought to market, unit pushed out, unit closed down, ...).

1-6 3y ago

When Intel does something like this, it reveals how tight their operating margin is. This is not a good sign. Intel has never been able to push away from the fact that they'll always be a hardware first company. It's a very tight market out there. TSMC was able to make it with very tight partnerships with OEMs and I doubt Intel can pull off something like that.

ChuckMcM 3y ago

I agree with 1-6 that they have always been really focused on their margins, they were never a company that wanted to go into debt for something that was 'unproven.' They have had lots of things they stopped doing, the graphics chip I was involved in (82786) was one, the speech chips, the iAPX431, the modem chips, their digital watch was an early one. I always saw it as an exceptionally low tolerance for risk. When I was their the 386 had just fabbed and I was one of the people watching when the very first chip was powered up and it actually worked (which amazed pretty much everyone). Sun Microsystems was a little startup in Mountain View using the 68000 and getting some traction I suggested to Intel that if they used the graphic chip I was working on and the 386 they could build an Intel branded "Workstation" and both replace the VAXStations they were using for CAD work internally and sell them as part of Intel's initiative to become a "systems company." I got a response to my memo[1] from Dave House who was later CEO but at the time just the head of Microprocessor Operation (MIPO) Marketing explaining to this lowly NCG (new college grad) that Workstations were not much of a market and Intel was only interested in pursuing the "big" opportunities. Six months later I joined Sun (just after they IPO'd sadly) and didn't look back. :-) [1] Yes memo, as in typed up and printed out and put in a manilla envelope where on the last line of the front had it coming from Dave and being addressed to me. And yes, it started as a memo I had printed out and given to my manager because while Intel had "heard" of electronic mail they preferred the "durability" of actual mail and forcing people to use actual mail cut down on "frivolous" communications.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>I always saw it as an exceptionally low tolerance for risk. Big laugh at the claim of intel having a exceptionally low tolerance to risk when they're the only semi company left still running their own fabs, decades after AMD sold off their own for being too risky of a venture to keep running by themselves. And every fab company out there will vouch for how risky that line of business is. Even more so to pour billions into a business like this while knowing Samsung/TSMC might beat you. More correct would be that Intel has a low tolerance to risk for things that are way outside of their core competencies which have traditionally been designing X86 CPUs and fabbing them, and that's mostly it. I commend them for not giving up on advancing their fab nodes despite the massive issues and setbacks(they could have spun it off like AMD did), and for building the ARC GPUs and keep improving them despite low sales.
- Grazester 3y ago
  I thought AMD had to spin off their fabs due to cost and cash flow issue because Intel was too busy playing dirty?
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    "Real men have fabs!" - AMD founder and CEO at the time, Jerry Sanders [1] He said this some time in the 80's to early 90's as a defence for their expensive commitment to still be running their own fabs when most big semi companies like Motorola were selling off their fabs and going fabless because it was eating their resources and it was impossible to compete with the likes of TSMC on node shrinks and value. So even without Intel screwing with them in anti-competitive ways, they could not have kept their fabs competitive much longer. The writing was already on the wall way back then but Jerry Sanders was just being stubborn. [1] https://archive.is/igC4r https://archive.is/igC4r
    - kimixa 3y ago
      I mean... Maybe? But Intel proved their success of owning fabs throughout the 90s and 2000s, only 20-30 years after that statement were Intel even considered to be possibly dis-advantaged by owning it's fabs. But that was also a very different market. So I don't think it's as direct a link as you seem to claim. Maybe it was the right decision even if AMD had the money to keep it going. But it will likely forever be one of those questions that has no solid answer either way.

drjasonharrison 3y ago

Wikipedia has a partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Intel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... what it is missing is the eventual disposition of the acquisition (product brought to market, unit pushed out, unit closed down, ...).