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.
I think PO sees a long hard slug ahead, one that will take 4-5 years. He only has three. That said, he can leave now at the top before the proverbial SHTF,take credit for reducing costs and Intel superiority in x86, and fighting the Trust Dept and be known as an untarnished, effective ex-CEO of Intel. Or, he can wait, try to win the mobile battle with uncertain outcomes with lots of stress and maybe only a couple of million richer. It is, as we say, a no-brainer.
Stress free, BTDT, lots of money, house in SF, and who knows where else (Barbados anyone?) and private jet travel anywhere in the world while he still is kickin' good.
Loyalty, you say? Nah. PO is looking out for himself and his family. He's done his time.
Smooth
There were also other variants like the 80186 that was way ahead of the market... not to mention the 8048, 8051 and 8096...
Smooth
Well, they seem to have been well accepted with their reference phone designs...
[quoted were Intel to acquire the expertise, it would be folly to compete in market segments with their device customers. ][/quote]
I assume you are referring to the 2-3 customers they have?
Smooth
'Intel Inside' Needs Intel Outside
This has become nothing less than an existential crisis for Intel. Even Microsoft has acknowledged that, to compete, it has to make its own hardware, the Microsoft Surface. But if the Surface fails -- early indications are mixed, Business Insider writes -- that may well dissuade Intel from taking this necessary step.
It shouldn't.
Despite its problems, Intel is a big name brand in the minds of many consumers. To remain one, however, Intel needs to be a brand people can go into a store and buy, not an ingredient brand but a creator of leading-edge products that can compete on their own terms against Apple, Amazon (AMZN),Google (GOOG), and even its own OEMs.
Ted Turner, whom I was lucky enough to interview once in his heyday, called his early autobiography Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way. It's time for Intel to answer that question once and for all.
The advice here is to lead.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11758592/2/intel-inside-needs-intel-outside.html
Reposted b/c it's sooo good.
Smooth
Taiwan's PC Design Firms Brace for Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578120511727661562.html?KEYWORDS=taiwan
"New products are changing too quickly," says David Chang, chief financial officer of Taiwan-based Asustek. "The degree of difficulty is increasingly higher. Having your own R&D is now a must."
As the PC industry girds for the new mobile world, outsourcing innovation has changed from a cost-cutting advantage to a liability. The shift is forcing Taiwan's PC contractors to reconsider their role.
From the same article:
So which version of Surface is Microsoft currently pitching to businesses? If you guessed Surface Pro, you'd be wrong. Sources tell me company reps are pushing Surface RT to enterprise accounts because, frankly, they have no clue when Surface Pro will be ready.
There's another mess on the Windows 8 tablet front. Computer makers that developed systems based on Intel's new Clover Trail Atom platform are also scrambling. Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and others have announced Clover Trail-based tablets. But try and get any of them to commit to a specific ship date. I faux-ordered Dell's Latitude 10 Windows 8 tablet and received a "preliminary" date of Dec. 12.
The problem is Clover Trail. Intel just doesn't have it ready for mass production. Insiders say that, among other things, there's a problem with the chip's power management software. Intel ignored my request for a comment yesterday.
Most of these OEMs were smart enough to hedge their bets on Clover Trail, and also built Windows 8 tablets and convertibles that run Intel's proven Core architecture. I tested Dell's Ivy Bridge Core-based XPS 12 during Hurricane Sandy -- it stood up to the storm.
But the whole point of Clover Trail was that it was supposed to provide the Wintel ecosystem with a platform that could match ARM-based Android tablets and the iPad on power consumption, battery life and instant on/off, while still running Windows applications. Now it appears Clover Trail systems might not arrive in time for the crucial holiday shopping season.
Lest Microsoft try to claim it was never its intention to have Surface RT systems compete with Surface Pro and Clover Trail-based OEM tablets simultaneously, here's a quote from the company's Building Windows 8 blog, published on Feb 9. 2012. "Our collective goal is for PC makers to ship WOA PCs [i.e. Surface RT and other systems that run Windows on ARM] the same time as new PCs designed for Windows 8 on x86/64, using the latest generation of those platforms from low-power [i.e. Clover Trail] to high-performance [i.e. Core]."
Smooth
Sharp may reach an agreement as early as the end of this month with Qualcomm, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified as they were not authorized to speak to the media, adding talks with Intel are less concrete amid the chipmaker's unclear financial picture.
Intel is promoting ultrabooks to counter tablet computers from Apple and earlier this year signed deals with several panel makers to ensure adequate supplies for a wave of ultrabooks with touch screens that use Microsoft Corp's Windows 8.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/11/14/source-intel-qualcomm-could-sink-378m-into-sharp/#ixzz2CKK0Yjlo
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2012/11/14/source-intel-qualcomm-could-sink-378m-into-sharp/#ixzz2CKHvXk47
I hope that is Intel's plan. But I have no idea.
That will allow small(mostly) companies to gain their foot on the ground, which will increase volumes and make prices go down.
AMD had between 15% to 20% of the PC market. The mathematical model that determined the value on Intel’s share will be adjusted to reflect the sudden rise in it's sale of microprocessors. The model will have to recognize the decreased pressure on the price charged by Intel. The cost of marketing Intel’s product will be reduced.
Intel may need to secure screens for it's cell phones.
This is what Apple provided to developers when they moved from IBM to Intel.
Does Apple write all the software for the Mac or the iPhone ? Does Microsoft write all the software for the Windows PC ? Does IBM write all the software for the IBM mainframe ? No ! All depend upon Independent Software Vendors(ISV). ISV take a long time to migrate to a new instruction set and new hardware. Windows RT sales will suffer because there isnt any third party software for the RT. Microsoft has produced its own Office suite for RT, and even that will not be enough.
It looks like profits on phones are made from selling a vertically integrated unit. Is there any profit for the component makers ? I really doubt that Apple will leave anything but pennies for them.
Without touch screen devices for Win8 products, Intel doesn't have any processors in Win8 devices. If that's the case.
Smooth
Why on earth would Intel want to do this?
Smooth
If Apple moves the Laptops to ARM it will have to perform emulation of x86 code for legacy applications,which will dramatically reduce the performance. So the performance of ARM based Macbook will fall off dramatically. The Native Macbook applications will be handicapped by moving to a low end processor, and if emulation is used for legacy code, that will be a disaster. The best way to view this is that a move to ARM even for native applications is a move away from the high end processor to a low end processor,and that gets worse with emulation. You can already see the disappointing performance of Windows RT which is based upon ARM. More than a year ago,Microsoft had announced that the RT machine was going to run legacy applications via emulation, but obviously they abandoned that approach because of the performance penalty. Apple sells to the masses by exploiting the image it has cultivated of 'superior quality'. It cannot afford to give up on performance without destroying its brand.
Aside from your insinuations of me about which you have no idea, you may want to hide the fact that Intel has had delays in entering the phone market with a chip that represents its supposed lead in manufacturing, but I don't. They are late. And you know what late means; lost market share. BTW, that's still affects the future, not the past.
Smooth
Outside of alternative business models (such as Apple's/Samsung's vertical level integration, Google's ad subsidization, or Amazon's content subsidization), traditional OEMs will be on a level playing field to deliver configs at a given price point. They will depend on silicon to give them differentiation, and Intel's silicon will be better than nVidia's or Qualcomm's. If Intel could win Samsung, then they would have their best chance to go head to head with Apple and the rest.
well.....it's not like they have the $26+ BILLION in cash as does QCOM.
History has shown that consumers prefer horizontal models, and that they result in the most innovation and choice. Intel has been investing in their model for several years now. The products just entering the market are proof points for what's in store, but nowhere near the pinnical of what is possible. These products will be used in devices that offer far more choice to the consumer. We have seen it before, many times. People here doubt that it can work, but we're about to see history repeat itself - again!
Honestly, I don't think this campaign is as large as some others. I've seen "some" ads previously, but lately it seems to have tapered off. Maybe $300M doesn't buy much anymore...
Smooth
From a design decision process viewpoint, you go with a safe alternative, known success, easily achievable goals. The other choice is more risky, a lesser known choice in the market.
But then, you knew that answer.
Smooth
Many companies succeeded that way.
So,you don't see these changes as something about which we should be concerned?
Smooth
That's what I'm saying. I think that method is falling apart. Why else the proliferation of alternatives and the failure of Ultrabooks?
Smooth
It's amazing to me that in light of things falling off a cliff for Intel, that they have said nothing and are doing nothing in advertising. Where is the huge Win8 campaign they said they would have? Do they see enough doom and gloom that they are now holding back their campaign to save money?
Smooth
For now, you may have a point. All things change, eventually. Make like a Boy Scout.
Smooth
Dunno. I see it as two competing architectures. One ARM, one Intel, no difference in specs. You go with ARM for the same reason people went for IBM.
Smooth
I still don't like the idea of Intel becoming a device manufacturer.
I really hope(and think) Intel and the manufacturers can do it. The Gen "2.5" Ultrabooks featuring Touch and Convertible features are showing an improvement in almost every way - from reliability, functionality, and even the ads are better.
You are expecting that just b/c the chip exists, the phone will. First, it needs to be adopted by OEMs and they can't do that until they have chip in hand. Then comes compliance and testing, etc. No one says you are going to have great adoption. It's happened before.
Intel could short circuit this time when building their own.
Smooth
The difference is that you trust the OEMs to do what you think is right. I'm not sure Intel can come up with a more compelling product in the PC space.
Of course, being late in the other spaces has a lot to do with it. So many have denied this for so long.
Smooth
I am also concerned that all ODMs are selling ARM based tablets as well. I am not sure their mind is set on windows based tablets yet.
This is what you get when you put the power of what to manufacture in the hands of others. This also is happening in the phone/tablet market. Part of the consequence is 22nm devices in 2014. Way late.
Smooth
But I think you are being very pessimistic considering that they are being competitive on their 32nm process on a design that's 4 years old.
2014.
Smooth
Yep. The Intel lead is not as big as everyone says. Intel paves a lot of roads and that allows others to short circuit their process changes. You would need a significant 2 year lead to make a difference. The net result is that having a one year old technology is pretty impressive and able to meet many of the computing demands...
Smooth
What is coming out in 2013 that is 3X faster than what is out now?
Smooth
It may well be that the "we have enough computing power" paradigm of the PC market has already hit the phone/tablet market, maybe in a lesser way. Certainly, one can see that with today's present processor and co-processor power that the "enough" level comes much sooner such that we are not going to have one or two decades of exponential demands.
That said, there is little incentive to move to Intel's processors. Clearly, it's a me-too situation, certainly not a full frontal, order of magnitude situation. Future silicon roadmaps show that to continue.
Given lack of incentive and Apple and Samsung cozy with what they are doing, wouldn't you have to create a market of your own by adopting the "vertical" methodology? If the present scenario outlined doesn't give incentive, what do you see as inflection points for Intel moving fully in this direction?
Smooth
Gee, do I detect a shift here? :)
You are right in that when we talk of going vertical it doesn't necessarily mean "become an Apple". There is a good demand for the telecom providers wanting a phone that they could brand (meaning adding their own software). That phone would need to be manufactured by someone (in China) and therefore it makes sense that Intel would be the manufacturer. There would be better margins in that market as opposed to simply providing semiconductors and "giving away" the market expertise, something I alluded to in past posts. BTW, Google doesn't make hardware. Other advantages are obvious. The closer you get to the hardware and software, the more inventive you become.
One of the problems with this approach is witnessed with how Verizon screwed up the Motorola phones with their software, making them hardly useable. But, maybe they've learned more sense since.
Smooth
You are heading in your car at 100mph directly into a brick wall that is 400' long. At some point before the wall, you can assume it is a fact that you will hit the wall. In mobile, we are 30' from the wall.
Smooth