Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ron,
Looks like Andy wants to start a fan club.
Borusa,
that's right, you're the one pretending they can and they will.
The SNARMy, as you put it, is several players competing with each other as well as Intel.
Borusa, no projection here.
I'm not the one pretending that the Seven Nation ARMy can but won't do whatever it takes to extend into servers.
Tenchu
Tim,
Someone suggested ARM/Qualcomm should just cede the server market to Intel and that Intel should just cede the mobile market to ARM/Qualcomm.
That's right, Ibc, run away with straw men arguments.
Tenchu
Ibc, how many ARM servers do you need to match the performance of one Intel server?
Wake me up when the answer is "close to one."
Tenchu
Ibc,
$1000 Xeon or $100 ARM ?
Dmcq,
I will wait for people who have some experience with mobiles to give their opinion.
Borusa,
Maybe they would consider something like that unethical.
Ibc,
I seem to remember Intel attacking the higher performance RISC servers in the 90s with orders of magnitude cheaper CPUs and a software disadvantage. Intel did eventually exceed them in performance, but it took some time.
Ibc,
You've already spent a ton of money developing a mobile processor which has been paid for by the phone market. You only need to recover the incremental R&D costs for server.
AMD has a different business model where they couldn't leverage an existing wildly profitable adjacent business.
Ibc,
They're targeting the large distributed datacenters (Facebook, Google etc..) where the users control and write the entire software stack. They are able to recompile. They are even willing to build FPGAs to accelerate certain algorithms.
FPG, I agree with all of your points, but I do think ARM in servers is being overhyped. The main reason is because I don't see any technological advantages that ARM brings to the table. It's RISC vs. CISC all over again, and we all know who won that battle.
No, the real threat is strategic. ARM could open the doors to custom-built server platforms if there is software support for them. That can lower the prices of servers and cut into Intel's profit margins.
Of course, the real key is indeed the software support. Microsoft already proved with Surface RT that without the software, custom-built ARM-based platforms mean nothing.
To be sure, compatibility is king in the client space, and less so for servers, but it still means something.
Tenchu
FPG,
Samsung's planned $15B investment in bleeding-edge semi capacity is a clear sign of desperation, unlike Intel's $1B/q-losing but sure-to-win mobile strategy.
Unkwn,
Samsung failed big at establishing its own ecosystem (have they even tried?).
FPG,
ARM partners have barely even started fielding actual products for servers yet.
Michael,
A company with inferior products isn't going to be able to be arrogant.
FPG,
ARM server vendors don't have to win the game, they just need to score points.
FPG,
The real question is, why is it news that AWS isn't doing so yet?
Ideal_Inv,
Perhaps, you are right and Intel management has been extremely arrogant and/or stupid.
FPG,
Actually, the moment the long-relied-upon trends end is exactly when things get REALLY interesting. Just when everybody is stuck is when the next "just around the corner" breakthrough gains traction.
Ibc, there are fluctuations in the data from year to year. There may be some build-up in certain years, and there may be some reduction in others.
I don't see anything that supports the whole "channel-stuffing" argument. That's just the same old excuse analysts come up with to justify their bearish calls.
Anyway, I'm done arguing minutia over data points. If you want to continue defending what is clearly analyst nonsense, be my guest.
Tenchu
Ibc,
You didn't notice that 2H14 inventory build is different from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 2H's?
Ibc, so it's clearly a seasonal pattern. I see nothing that would suggest any disruption as of late.
Let's face it, Bernstein is trying to call a top.
Tenchu
Ibc,
The unanswered question is how can Intel grow units faster than the PC market?
Good points Unkwn. I keep forgetting that we're approaching a "late-game" when it comes to semiconductor manufacturing.
The few who can afford the latest-n-greatest fabs will be able to control the market.
Tenchu
P.S. - The dream scenario: Apple goes with Intel to fab its iPhone and iPad silicon ...
Unkwn,
Intel needs to enter the foundry business aggressively, that's for certain.
Thanks Unkwn. This is what I was thinking.
Unless Intel has some magic formula to apply to the emerging IoT market, it's going to drive the commoditization of silicon faster than ever before.
Tenchu
Tim, I'll have to look more into how Apple Pay works, but I'm pretty sure it is based on a system of public key exchange, of which the security protocols are in the public domain. (Proprietary protocols are never secure, since they don't have the benefit of external review.)
And in any case, it's gotta be more secure than credit cards these days. Anyone who has your credit card number and home address code can make purchases on your behalf. They don't need to physically possess your card. They can just enter the info online and go to town.
The only two safeguards against this are:
1) Algorithms that the credit card company uses to flag "suspicious" transactions. But then this gets annoying if you really did make these transactions, as then you have to call the card company and clear up the confusion.
2) The fact that credit card companies are good at refunding fraudulent transactions on your account. But this costs them money, which then gets transferred onto everyone else. Don't forget about the costs to actively pursue the crooks.
Considering how insecure credit cards and ATM cards are these days, I'm pleasantly surprised that fraud isn't a bigger problem than it is today. But we really ought to move away from this archaic system.
Tenchu
P.S. - We can talk about the privacy issue some other time.
Thanks Tim, but as I see it, the fingerprint sensor is more of a convenience feature, not an extra layer of security. After all, if after several tries the sensor fails to recognize your fingerprint, it will just ask you for your 4-digit code.
And it's really easy to spy on someone entering that code. No need to lift fingerprints like the way you see it done on TV and in the movies.
As for privacy, yeah, right now the only way to avoid having your purchases tracked is by paying cash. I feel like we're still 10 years away from having an electronic pay system that is both secure AND private.
And that's being optimistic given how profitable it is for companies to data-mine our purchasing habits. So you know they're going to resist any attempts to have privacy "regulated" upon them.
Tenchu
Muzosi,
you are interpreting what he said incorrectly, or misunderstanding what he said
he is saying iphones are adding to the delta in gdp
By the numbers, Apple sold 35.20 million iPhones, 13.27 million iPads, 4.41 million Macs and 2.96 million iPods. During the same quarter last year, Apple sold 31.24 million iPhones, 14.62 million iPads, 3.75 million Macs, and 4.57 million iPods.
OMG, that guy, Michael Feroli, is repeating the SAME DAMNED LIE he made two years ago. From the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/your-money/when-iphones-ring-the-economy-listens.html
“The iPhone is having a measurable impact,” said Michael Feroli, the chief United States economist for JPMorgan Chase. “It’s a little gadget, but it costs a lot and it seems that everybody has one. When you do the multiplication, it’s going to matter.” He estimates that iPhone sales are adding one-quarter to one-third of a percentage point to the annualized growth rate of the gross domestic product.
Sales of the new iPhone could add between a quarter and half a percentage point to annualized economic growth in the fourth quarter, J.P. Morgan JPM -0.05%’s chief U.S. economist Michael Feroli estimates. That could help cushion the U.S. economy from other risks in the final months of the year.
In a note to clients today (titled “Can one little phone impact GDP?”), Feroli walks through the math: J.P. Morgan’s equity analysts expect Apple to sell about 8 million iPhone 5 units in the final three months of the year. If the phone sells for around $600, with about $200 of it counted as imported components, then $400 per phone would figure into the government’s measure of gross domestic product. (Even though consumers may not pay that much for the phone, because of subsidies from wireless carriers, Feroli explains that phone-selling companies often report the sales based on the price of the standalone product.)
The bottom line: The new iPhone sales could boost GDP by $3.2 billion in the fourth quarter, or $12.8 billion at an annual rate. That is an increase of 0.33 percentage point in the annualized rate of GDP growth. It could be even higher, he says. Even a third of a percentage point would limit the downside risk to J.P. Morgan’s fourth-quarter growth projection of 2%.
FPG,
Yes, "in an undifferentiated market where only Intel makes any profit."
FPG,
The ability to not have to compete in an undifferentiated market where only Intel makes any profit.
Tim,
Seems destined to fail.
AG,
her 20 year industry career is an open book......google Lisa Su...
AG, I'm still waiting on you to tell us how Lisa Su, the new CEO of AMD, is going to save that company from ruin.
So far, all you have told me is how she is more accomplished at the age of 44 than I could ever hope to be given that I apparently do nothing but troll these forums.
Tenchu
P.S. - If you want to accuse Tim May of being a bigot, be prepared to hide your own skeletons ...
Chipguy,
Like subsidized pricing/contra revenue?
FPG,
Aren't all the market players all trying to get an edge over each other and that process is what we call "competition"?