Replies to post #148155 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[This Causes an Error]

mas, did you see this from IDF 2016?

Today, we are furthering these ecosystem efforts with new foundational IP that our customers can use. Our 10 nm design platform for foundry customers will now offer access to ARM® Artisan® physical IP, including POP™ IP, based on the most advanced ARM cores and Cortex series processors. Optimizing this technology for Intel’s 10 nm process means that foundry customers can take advantage of the IP to achieve best-in-class PPA (power, performance, area) for power-efficient, high-performance implementations of their designs for mobile, IoT and other consumer applications.

https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/accelerating-foundry-innovation-smart-connected-world/

Intel's new strategy in mobile seems to be to try to play it with foundry/Spreadtrum (since it owns a stake in the latter). We'll see if that works any better than the in-house Atom SoC efforts did.

[fastpathguru]

Even now I can't believe after all the money and time spent in getting atom to be respected and sold as serious tablet/phone competitors to arm chips he just abruptedly dropped them all [...]

The only reason anyone ever gave Atom any attention at all in mobile is because they came wrapped in a $20... Stop kidding yourself.

Since Grove all the CEOs have been hit and miss.

I take it nobody wants to take a shot at when design would have had to start on a mobile chip that BK could have actually sold without the special wrapping?

How far back do we have to push the "poor execution" blame to avoid contemplating the simple fact that Intel is not structurally equipped to beat ARM "from below?" That their currently diminished manufacturing lead might just trace back to CAPEX cuts that were coincident with the worst of the mobile bloodletting?

fpg

[Andy Grave]

Even now I can't believe after all the money and time spent in getting atom to be respected and sold as serious tablet/phone competitors to arm chips he just abruptedly dropped them all when airmont at least would still have been competitive in some market segments and the other divisions would have paid for the die process giving Intel an innate cost advantage over its fabless competitors.

abruptly dropped?......after $4B cumulative mobile losses....then $6B.....then $8B.....then $10B .....then $12B.....I think even BK had a clue that mobile was lost.....although he had to bring in Murphy at $25M+ to tell him to pull the plug. What absolutely amazes me is the total incompetence of Intel management (must have been at many levels) to even understand what features are required in a mobile SOC and at what time scale mobile SOC development must take place.............also hubris of Intel engineering.....always skating to the area of the ice where the puck had already exited.....either due to poor instincts or slow skating