Replies to post #148112 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[This Causes an Error]

mas, I agree with you that BK is the worst CEO Intel has ever had. There were some reports floating around about his management style and they don't look good. Check this out: http://temlib.org/pub/Canard/Canard_Intel.pdf

[This Causes an Error]

Usual mobile destroys desktop market nonsense which has been thoroughly disproved by the reality of the last few years. If the most powerful cores that Apple, Arm and Qualcomm have produced have not dented Intel's core markets and business model then Intel using cheaper less powerful Atoms will not do it either.

Mobile hasn't destroyed the desktop/notebook markets, but it's pretty undeniable that smartphones have taken wallet share from PCs.

What I mean is: people only make so much money, only allocate so much of their annual salaries to tech purchases. If they spend $800 in one year for a new iPhone or iPad, they are less likely to be willing to go out an buy a new computer that year, too -- they'll stretch what they've got.

In emerging markets, too, mobile devices really put the brakes on PCs. One of the big growth stories that management hyped up in the 2010/2011 timeframe was that as people made more money in emerging markets and PC price points came down, those people could begin to afford them more easily, driving increased PC penetration and ultimately growth.

The rise of the cheap, portable, always-connected phablet really struck at the heart of that thesis. A lot of people's "first time" computing devices are no longer laptops or desktops, they are smartphones and to a lesser extent tablets.

[fastpathguru]

Usual mobile destroys desktop market nonsense which has been thoroughly disproved by the reality of the last few years. If the most powerful cores that Apple, Arm and Qualcomm have produced have not dented Intel's core markets and business model then Intel using cheaper less powerful Atoms will not do it either.

Have you not been paying attention? Mobile has been depressing the PC market literally for years. Intel has had to cut CAPEX repeatedly. Everyone here is blaming Intel's current issues on "execution". Manufacturing execution. Do you really think these are all unrelated?

I can see how you could hold such a narrow view of Intel's "dominance", if you stubbornly cling to the notion that the "PC" market is defined as "WINTEL"... In the bigger picture, i.e. reality, Intel is now facing competition from ARM top to bottom. You just refuse to see it, because the competition doesn't run Windows (yet, although MS is running Windows on ARM internally for servers(!!)) or MacOS (yet.)

Intel was second in the tablet market using them at 22nm and it could have continued this policy at 14nm in phones if not with the goldmont core then with the airmont one which is more then adequate to compete successfully against A53 at the sub $10 chip range.

Please. They paid OEMs to buy their chips.

Of course Intel would not have made much money at those prices if any but that's not the point. It's about establishing a market presence both with OEMs and software vendors and maintaining it for future more profitable products.

They TRIED that and failed miserably. You're repeating the exact same argument that was being made as the failure was occurring... Have you learned nothing?

Now Intel just looks like an amateur fair weather mobile competitor whose participation cannot be relied on. The damage that BK has done to Intel's reputation is incalculable and he is undoubtedly the worst CEO Intel has ever had.

Yeah, I'm sure Intel could have pulled out of that nosedive if they had just had a different pilot at the helm.

fpg