6 ms·
Intel's Death and Potential Revival
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Dalewyn 2y ago[flagged]
- pavlov 2y ago> “No government ownership? No public funding” And since everyone should play by the same rules, this would apply to SpaceX and Tesla too. Right?
- Dalewyn 2y agoUnlike Intel, SpaceX and Tesla actually deliver (and then some) on government grants. I'm willing to give successful parties that hold their end of the deal more benefit of the doubt. All else being equal, nationalization is overall bad for commerce (see: USPS). But Intel? They got their fucking money and dropped the fucking ball. Fool me once? Shame on you. Not again, if Intel wants further public money then I as a taxpayer want my share of Intel as collateral for that money spent. No taxation without representation. TSMC can get away, for now: At least they are on track to open CHIPS-funded fabs soon. If they fail too, then no further funds without ownership too.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoWhy? The US government funds SpaceX by buying rocket launches. They buy a rocket launch and they get a rocket launch. You don't expect the government to get a share of Ford every time they buy an F-150 for the Forest Service, do you? And US subsidies to Tesla are consumer subsidies. Tesla doesn't get the money directly, but they definitely benefit indirectly. The important part is that Tesla only benefits if the consumer gets an EV. Tesla is not getting money for nothing, the quid pro quo is maintained.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xattt 2y agoFolks are really cheering on Intel to win, because no one wants to be left holding the bag. We all bought Intel because we all thought it was ol’ faithful, but they’ve really, REALLY shit the bed.
- pavlov 2y agoWhat do you mean, holding the bag? Intel’s products have compatible alternatives from other vendors. If they went away, AMD would surely continue providing x86 compatible chips.
- cheeseomlit 2y agoThey probably mean Intel shareholders 'holding the bag' as their once-valuable stock tanks. Which is probably a lot of us through 401ks alone
- pavlov 2y agoOh. Well, the stock already tanked. If a stock loses 75% of its value and you barely notice, then the remaining 25% doesn’t matter either. For most passive investors, an individual stock’s weight is a technical detail that’s handled by automatic portfolio adjustments. The total market cap of semi sector stocks is way up despite Intel, so anybody who didn’t try to actively pick winners has done well.
- magicalhippo 2y agoI assume holding the bag of stocks.
- gjvc 2y agononsense. Just buy AMD from now on, then ARM.
- xattt 2y agoI meant stockwise. It just seemed like a sure bet a decade ago, like RIM the decade before that, and Kodak the decade before that.
- rbanffy 2y ago> up to that point most new processors came with their own instruction set Kind of. 8080 and 8085 share also the same ISA. Other families that did that were the 6502 (the 6510, the 6504), Z-80 (Hitachi's HD64180, which became the Z-180, Z-280, R800), and Texas' TMS9900, which was part of a whole family that spanned from the ill-fated TI-99/4 to the TI-990 minicomputers.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe 8088 and 8080 are not binary compatible, they're mostly source compatible.
- rbanffy 2y agoI didn't say that - I mentioned that, previously, 8080 and 8085 shared the same ISA with different implementations.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoAnd I didn't contradict you, I clarified.
- rbanffy 2y agoBeing source compatible was quite clever, BTW. Still, I wish the ia432 succeeded, or the TMS9900 was picked for the IBM PC. Would be a much nicer world.
- klelatti 2y agoDylan Patel comes to essentially the same conclusions (and this is a better post I think): https://semianalysis.com/2024/12/09/intel-on-the-brink-of-death/ https://semianalysis.com/2024/12/09/intel-on-the-brink-of-de... The problem is there are two distinct objectives: 1. Maximise shareholder value 2. Maintain and extend Intel's (close to) leading-edge fab capability. These are not necessarily consistent! The Intel Board (bad as it is) is trying to deliver 1. and probably now doesn't care about 2. That's not what the US needs, so some sort of government intervention is inevitable if 2. is to be achieved. And I'm not convinced that PG's IDM 2.0 strategy would have delivered either.
- ableal 2y ago> Dylan Patel comes to essentially the same conclusions (and this is a better post I think): https://semianalysis.com/2024/12/09/intel-on-the-brink-of-death/ https://semianalysis.com/2024/12/09/intel-on-the-brink-of-de... Thanks, good reading. Sharp retrospective and analysis, hopeful blueprint for the future: """ Intel Foundry won’t be laden with Intel’s lagging product team, Mobileye, or Altera. Intel Foundry will have one clear function, and it’s vital to national security and the future of America and the West. Who should lead the charge here? Maybe a “Chip Czar” charged with restoring American logic prowess. We know someone with a great CV who has just become freed up for new opportunities… """
- Farfignoggen 2y agoLooks like the Next administration is more interested in rewarding billionaire donators with government positions regardless of if they are actually qualified for those positions! So look for even worse things to happen at those Technology Companies as the MBA types managing/running them only look for extracting from the Tech Companies the money and all other things be damned! (Que that Simpsons Schoolhouse Rock Parody of how a Bill Passes Congress and gets signed into law) So How are all of you enjoying this new Guided Age of Technology Trusts and that new age that started in earnest beginning with the 1980 election and is really coming into its own with the election of 2024! Say hello to the Robber Barron Cabinet come Jan 20th 2024, and maybe 2029 will be a year not to dissimilar from the one that occurred one century before!
- jmclnx 2y agoI still do not really get this hand wringing over Intel. The only thing I see are these institutional investors are very upset Intel is not like Nvidia. So they are complaining and these investors will eventually destroy Intel because their stock is not rising 500% per year. So all this pressure on Intel since Nvidia became a thing is distracting Intel from focusing on their business. Causing more harm than good.
- diziet_sma 2y agoIntel products have been losing x86 to AMD in servers, desktop, and laptops. x86 itself is losing market share to ARM in the server and laptop space. Intel has no foothold in the fastest growing chip space (GPUs). Intel foundry has fallen behind TSMC to the point the latest Intel laptop chip (Lunar Lake) was manufactured using TSMC. Recent attempts to attract external client s to fab using Intel Foundry have not met expectations. Given all this, I think quite a lot of hand-wringing is warranted.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- miohtama 2y agoLet's not forget Intel share buybacks https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/bypn9cdrc https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/bypn9cdrc How Intel's $108 billion buyback gambit backfired—a cautionary tale for tech giants Intel’s focus on stock price over innovation left it playing catch-up in the AI race—and tech leaders should take note. Buybacks artificially pumped the share price, which means any correction is/has been very brutal, more "bubble" like.
- kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago[dead]
- mikewarot 2y agoEveryone assumes the next generations of chips that run AI are going to be horrifically complex and require superhuman levels of talent to optimize. What if they're wrong, and there's a much, much simpler architecture that could be found, that could scale almost infinitely, and make better use of Dennard scaling?
- DebtDeflation 2y ago>The fundamental flaw with Pat Gelsinger’s 2020 return to Intel and his IDM 2.0 plan is that it was a decade too late. Correct, but if a decade ago was the right time to do it, then 2020 was the second best, and now is the third best. >Gelsinger’s plan was to become a foundry, with Intel as its first-best customer. The only real alternative to this is to split Intel into two companies - a Foundry and a Products company - and effectively achieve the same thing via contracts rather than ownership. I have a feeling that in 18-24 months we're going to be reading articles about how the best time to split the company was 2 years ago and now it's too late.