4 ms·

I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. There

I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. There are a lot of strategic shifts Intel could do but their timeline to paying off at the scale Intel needs is very long. What I see is a bunch of endeavours that get killed off too quickly because they were not paying off fast enough and this creates mistrust in the community around Intel’s new initiatives that are not core that make them harder to succeed going forward. It is a bit of a death spiral. Basically big companies find it hard to learn new tricks when their core offering starts to fail. The time to learn new tricks was a while ago, now it is too late.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. With this logic, Apple should have also stayed with making Macs when it had financial troubles in in 1999, since that's its focus, not venture into making stupid stuff like Mp3 players and phones, everyone knows that's the core focus of Sony and Nokia who will rules those markets forever.
- bhouston 2y ago
  Apple under Steve Jobs is exceptional and not the rule. Trying to use that the fact Einstein or Muhammad Ali or any other genius in his area could do something or did something is not a counterpoint.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Yes, Apple succeeded. But the number of companies that attempt such branching out and succeed are few compared to how many try. The CEO of company X may think that he's as talented as Steve Jobs, but is he really?
  - astrange 2y ago
    One way you can look at it is that Apple succeeded at those by taking things that weren't their product (radios, flashlights, calculators, etc) and turning them into their product (computers).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kergonath 2y ago
  > With this logic, Apple should have also stayed with making Macs when it had financial troubles in in 1999, since that's its focus, not venture into making stupid stuff like Mp3 players and phones, everyone knows that's the core focus of Sony and Nokia who will rules those markets forever. You’re off by a few years. Jobs axed any project not related to the Mac when he came back in 1997, so they actually did what you say they did not. The iPod project started around 1999-2000 when Apple was in a massive growth phase after the iMac and the G3 and then G4 desktops. Also, in the alternate reality where the iPod did not massively succeed, it would very likely have been killed or remain as a hobby like the Apple TV. Apple might not be as huge as they are now, but the Mac was doing great at the time.
brokencode 2y ago
I’d argue that focus is what Intel fundamentally lacks. Or any kind of real vision. If they had focused more on mobile CPUs, GPUs, or especially GPGPUs a decade ago, they could have more product diversity now to hold them over. Instead, they dipped their toes into a new market every few years and then ran away screaming when they realized how difficult and it would be to gain market share. If they had any actual vision, they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets. They should have listened to their customers and market forces instead of trying to force x86 down everyone’s throats.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets. Disagree. Selling ARM chips with high profit margins is tough. There's too much competition from the likes of Samsung, MediaTek and until the US ban, Hi Silicon(Huawei). ARM chips are a race to the bottom in terms of price with a market dominated by companies from Asia. There's no guarantee Intel could have had a competitive ARM design that could beat Apple's or Qualcom's.
  - everfrustrated 2y ago
    Intel did have an ARM license at one point. The margins would have never been acceptable to Intel. Annapurna Labs / P. A Semi probably sold to Amazon / Apple respectively for the same reason.
  - bhouston 2y ago
    > There's too much competition from the likes of Samsung, MediaTek and until the US ban, Hi Silicon(Huawei). ARM chips are a race to the bottom in terms of price with a market dominated by companies from Asia Yes, without proprietary technology, margins are slim. But Qualcomm has somewhat succeeded in this area anyhow. I guess they took the ARM base but innovated on top of it in order to command higher margins.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

Cumpiler69 2y ago

>I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. With this logic, Apple should have also stayed with making Macs when it had financial troubles in in 1999, since that's its focus, not venture into making stupid stuff like Mp3 players and phones, everyone knows that's the core focus of Sony and Nokia who will rules those markets forever.

bhouston 2y ago
Apple under Steve Jobs is exceptional and not the rule. Trying to use that the fact Einstein or Muhammad Ali or any other genius in his area could do something or did something is not a counterpoint.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Yes, Apple succeeded. But the number of companies that attempt such branching out and succeed are few compared to how many try. The CEO of company X may think that he's as talented as Steve Jobs, but is he really?
- astrange 2y ago
  One way you can look at it is that Apple succeeded at those by taking things that weren't their product (radios, flashlights, calculators, etc) and turning them into their product (computers).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kergonath 2y ago
> With this logic, Apple should have also stayed with making Macs when it had financial troubles in in 1999, since that's its focus, not venture into making stupid stuff like Mp3 players and phones, everyone knows that's the core focus of Sony and Nokia who will rules those markets forever. You’re off by a few years. Jobs axed any project not related to the Mac when he came back in 1997, so they actually did what you say they did not. The iPod project started around 1999-2000 when Apple was in a massive growth phase after the iMac and the G3 and then G4 desktops. Also, in the alternate reality where the iPod did not massively succeed, it would very likely have been killed or remain as a hobby like the Apple TV. Apple might not be as huge as they are now, but the Mac was doing great at the time.

brokencode 2y ago

I’d argue that focus is what Intel fundamentally lacks. Or any kind of real vision. If they had focused more on mobile CPUs, GPUs, or especially GPGPUs a decade ago, they could have more product diversity now to hold them over. Instead, they dipped their toes into a new market every few years and then ran away screaming when they realized how difficult and it would be to gain market share. If they had any actual vision, they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets. They should have listened to their customers and market forces instead of trying to force x86 down everyone’s throats.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets. Disagree. Selling ARM chips with high profit margins is tough. There's too much competition from the likes of Samsung, MediaTek and until the US ban, Hi Silicon(Huawei). ARM chips are a race to the bottom in terms of price with a market dominated by companies from Asia. There's no guarantee Intel could have had a competitive ARM design that could beat Apple's or Qualcom's.
- everfrustrated 2y ago
  Intel did have an ARM license at one point. The margins would have never been acceptable to Intel. Annapurna Labs / P. A Semi probably sold to Amazon / Apple respectively for the same reason.
- bhouston 2y ago
  > There's too much competition from the likes of Samsung, MediaTek and until the US ban, Hi Silicon(Huawei). ARM chips are a race to the bottom in terms of price with a market dominated by companies from Asia Yes, without proprietary technology, margins are slim. But Qualcomm has somewhat succeeded in this area anyhow. I guess they took the ARM base but innovated on top of it in order to command higher margins.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]