Intel was once a Silicon Valley leader. How did it fall so far?
Intel was once a Silicon Valley leader. How did it fall so far?
The semiconductor manufacturer announced huge job cuts and a dividend pause after losing out on AI.
The marketing and advertising and sales teams took over management from the engineering team, and decided to cut all the corners. It's a classic tale at this point, same thing happened to Boeing and Apple and Google and etc. It's why everything sucks nowadays.
There might be things that Apple is stagnating on, but silicon and ARM CPU transitions definitely ain’t one of those things. The rest of the industry is scrambling to catch up with them asap.
It’s not just the big tech, some startups are the same because they’re vying for VC cash and that’s the best way to do it
Vulture Capital will collapse capitalism.
If you're talking about the lastest gen desktop CPUs, they just clocked them too high.
This has been an ongoing problem ever since, like, Ivy Bridge/the 3000 series... and yes, probably has to do with management and marketing decisions tbh, so they can be 2% ahead of AMD in some stupid benchmark. AMD is guilty of this too, and you can see what "sanely" clocked chips look like with their X3D series.
That is absolutely not the only issue. They had oxidation issues in two successive generations of consumer CPUs, likely knew about it, and sold them anyways. They’re trying to get out of reimbursing, replacing, or compensating anyone for the fucked cores, and as a direct result, a massive class-action suit is starting to roll.
My point was that had proper engineers been in charge instead, they would have noticed and listened to the people on the ground that I am certain knew about the problem, and it would have been fixed before any consumers got their hands on the product.
Probably bureaucracy. Also an inability to pivot even when things make no sense. Everything is a giant freight train that has very little ability to change direction or stop.
Oh and of course a healthy taste of not being transparent or honest.
Source: I used to work there years ago.
This happens easily for big successful organisations. Over decades a strong culture aligned with how they succeed forms. Once the market changes requiring a culture change, a seemingly invincible company suddenly stumbles. They simply can’t respond even if they what they should change.
Ex. Rolls Royce CEO stated this phenomenon well: culture eats strategy for breakfast.
The company had always been run by engineers that came up from chip fab. Then they fired both the CEO and the head of fab for sexual harassment.
Then they make the CFO with a MBA the new CEO. A year or two latter and chip design is having problems and fab is falling behind.
The more I see MBAs taking c-suite positions, the quicker the company collapses. Seen it more than six times now in person, and countless in the news.
I wonder how long before they notice.
The people who make those decisions are insulated from the consequence
Forcing them to take responsibility is the only solution
Wall St destroys yet another company through sheer greed. Film at 11.
Well, when I was learning about economics being 8 or 9 year old, it seemed for me how it should be.
A person or a group knowledgeable in some area find a bottleneck, some problem to solve, start a company, it grows, it becomes big. Then the next generation is what they pick for leadership, and picking people is always worse than the evolutionary mechanism of a company finding some bottleneck to be widened being gunshot faster than the rest. Then they pick their replacement. And so on. Eventually it dies, but since technologies are patented, they do not become actual secrets, only commercial secrets, and by the time a company dies the patents expire, so everybody can replace it for the humanity.
The niche that company discovered thus becomes competitive.
In our world, if patents would expire as fast as they did initially by design, these big companies would already be dead.
But they've bent the rules to make patents virtually eternal and thus big zombie companies are strangling the humanity.
The system wasn't bad, but eventually power changed it.
Sounds similar to what happened to Boeing. Once ran by engineers now ran by people suckling the teat of board members. Quality goes down, profits go up for these assholes.
Intel fell behind on chip manufacturing while the CEO came from that department.
Allegedly because their strategy was too ambitious at the time, or at least that was the official excuse at the time.
So your summary is not entirely fair.
Bean counting?
Large amounts of greed, corruption, and complacency.
This is the handiwork of highly paid executives.
🌈 shareholders 🌈
Greed?
Capitalism
Comfort zone and believed in Microsoft's talk that the market of the future would be desktops, but Apple came and said: Not today
Apple killed Blackberry and Intel
You’re next republican-lead Qualcomm
Nice typo in their propaganda. Couldn’t quite figure out contractions versus ownership.
apple also killed productivity *lol but that has nothing to do with blackburied or ... *who the f is intel?
server: arm handy: arm desktop: amd laptop: amd
and happy with it, left intel 20years ago for at that time already obvious reasons why other companies products are better.
work notebook: impediment with a bitten fruit logo on it. i am very unhappy with its lack of stability/deterministic behaviour on even veery low basic things, and guess what, it also has an intel cpu... yeah (f**k), i unwillingly try to use that intel crap for work.
apple might have killed intel, but got infested with releasing crappy products on that path. what a gain!!! 🤦♀️
i'ld rather let a zombie go on walking than getting zombiefied while trying to stop it... but tbh its "only work" that is slowed down by the fruitlogozombie (well, am i zombiefied already?) at least that "bitten" part of its logo from now on makes fully sense to me 😁 😂
Sir this is a Wendy's
Anything they go after today is 18-24 months out. Chasing after AI would be pretty risky. Desktops and laptops are moving to ARM and RISC-V. Their best bet is to go after whatever enterprise data centers will need a couple of years from now.
If I were laying bets, it would be to go after power and heat efficiency. Like, hard. Take their time out in the wilderness, then come back with chips that save the planet from climate collapse.
Their ISA is not their only strong side, so they can reuse a lot of designs and expertise for making ARM and\or RISC-V ISA CPUs.
But they will have to do catching up in, ahem, making things that last more than 2 months again.
Going through a period of little competition in a space seems to do that to just about every company in that position.
I’ve only watched this from a great distance but what I saw was: Intel didn’t actually manufacture the chips. That was all TSMC. So Intel’s main thing was chip design. And their designs were all about making the transistors smaller. Around 3nm they started running into physical limits. Competitors started out-innovating them with things like GPU deigns and ARM based chips. End of story. They had their time. They ran x86 into the ground and they are fucking done. They would have had to do 5 or 6 things differently to stay on top, and they did none of those.
Intel didn’t actually manufacture the chips.
The chips with the oxidisation issue were manufactured by Intel at their Arizona fab plant.
Thank you
They always had their own fabs. Utilising TSMC for their GPU's was a recent thing. For all the mistakes they have done, their GPU efforts are actually noteworthy but you don't even have to compare them to ARM or other GPU manufacturers, just look at AMD, they've been killing it.
A lack of competition.
I’m personally in love with ARM. I choose it for my router, Raspberry Pi and my MacBook is also ARM.
…but this still saddens me. I want to see good competition in the sector and I still have a soft spot for x86_64 on the server.
Can’t remember the full details of the deal, but I seem to recall a story about how Apple approached Intel to manufacture a low-powered processor for mobile (for the first iPhone). At the time, Intel didn’t see money in mobile processors and passed on the deal. Additionally, for years, Apple asked for more powerful chips for the MacBooks. At the time, the iPads were surpassing MacBooks in speed on some tasks. Finally, Apple decided that since they were already designing their own silicon for iPhones and iPads, they might as well just do the same for the MacBooks as well since Intel couldn’t keep up.
Again, this is largely from memory. I can’t remember the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
G.P.U.
Mobile strategy, I.E. lack thereof.
if you keep look at the mirror you crash at the end.