Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/how-intel-went-from-iconic-chimaker-to-ai-laggard.23417/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

How Intel went from iconic chimaker to AI laggard

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
1755292137359.png


Intel shares are rising on reports that the Trump administration is in talks to take a stake in the company. This comes as Intel has been struggling to compete with the changing tech landscape, facing increasing competition from tech giants like Nvidia. Joining Yahoo Finance tech editor Dan Howley. Dan, given everything that's been going on with Intel this week, we wanted to sort of take a step back, look at Intel's history, and figure out what went wrong, right? So what are some of Intel's sort of biggest failures over the past decade or even decades?

Dan Howley
Yeah, unfortunately, there's there's a good number of them, Julian, you know, let's just take it from basically the most important, uh, and that's its inability to capture the mobile market. Uh, you know, there was a time where Intel had the opportunity to go ahead and start investing, uh, in smartphone chips. Uh, it just completely missed the boat on that. Uh, and at one point, it had the opportunity to be the chip maker for Apple for the iPhone. Uh, decided not to go with that. Apple did went with arm and kind of, you know, that's that's the rest of its history. Uh, they did try to get into smartphones, by the way, at one point, but they they just couldn't figure out how to get it going. Uh, the the power and battery life wasn't good. It just never really seemed to take off. So, uh, they they missed out on that. They also missed out on just going into GPUs and AI.

They they've had opportunities over the years to go into this. They have built in graphics processing in their own chips, but dedicated graphics cards themselves, they never really got into. Uh, they tried to more recently under Pat Gelsinger. They still have some, but it's going to take a long time for them to catch up to Nvidia, AMD, and then obviously just not being able to advance their chip technology along with the likes of TSMC, which really is kind of the the leader now when it comes to that chip making process. So they they've just missed out on these three big kind of key areas. And smaller ones, sure, but really, you know, it started with missing out on mobile, and then just going into those GPUs, and then, you know, the process technology just isn't there. They're trying to reach it, but it's just not there yet.

So Dan, I was taking a look at the charts, the various charts for Intel, stock charts, revenue, net income, and all of it kind of peaked and then started to roll over only in the last, you know, four to five years really, uh, we have seen that happen.

Dan Howley
Yeah, I mean, look, during the pandemic, it was a boon for them, right? But that was a one-time thing. I mean, I hope that that's a one-time thing. Um, but the idea is that, you know, people went out, bought computers because they didn't have computers at home. Maybe they used them at work, or maybe they had them from school, or maybe they needed another one in the house because everybody was stuck at home. So they just went out and bought a bunch of PCs. And so that helped Intel momentarily. It also messed them up going forward because of all the pull forward in revenue that they'd seen. But other companies had to deal with that too, and they've straightened it out since then. Intel just hasn't been able to to get back to a level to where people are saying, okay, I need a new computer right now. I need to go ahead and get one. And look, the people's main kind of computing device now is is their smartphone. They don't spend too much time on their laptops unless, you know, maybe they're in school or they're they're in the office at home. You know, you're not sitting on the couch with your laptop. You're sitting on the couch with your smartphone. And so, you know, if people are going to upgrade something first, it's going to be their phone, not their laptop. They're hoping to see a lot more sales with the end life of Windows 10, Microsoft Windows 10 in October. We're just not seeing, you know, the kind of growth that we saw in 2020.
 

Attachments

  • 1755292001805.png
    1755292001805.png
    411.3 KB · Views: 48
The media is in a death spiral. I guess semiconductor chimaking is just too complex. :ROFLMAO: Dan Howley may be an award winning journalist but he knows nothing about the semiconductor industry and yeah, um you know, I mean, uh, maybe he should just ask ChatGPT. AI will replace this type of journalism in the next year or two, absolutely.

ChatGPT: What Went Wrong at Intel?
Intel’s decline is the cumulative result of strategic miscalculations, execution failures, and shifting market dynamics. Manufacturing misfires and procedural delays sapped leadership; a failure to adapt to mobile and AI trends cemented rivals' dominance. Mounting losses, cultural rigidity, and leadership upheaval now threaten its heritage status. Only bold restructuring, innovation, and renewed strategic clarity can reverse what Andy Grove might call “death by indecision.”

“Most companies don’t die because they are wrong; most die because they don’t commit themselves. They fritter away their valuable resources while attempting to make a decision. The greatest danger is standing still.” Only the Paranoid Survive, first published in 1996.
 
I was involved in designing the "board design guidelines" for mobile (1997/1998) for Pentium II when Intel launched simultaneously for the first time a CPU and a product based on that CPU. The biggest mistake in the mobile was that the management said that "we accomplished our mission to enable the industry in the mobile field (laptops) and the department will be disbanded" and such everybody scattered in Intel and outside. It took a while for Intel to realize the mistake they did and started to create a few different mobile dept/groups which all failed after wasting billions of dollars.

I had a chance to work later for GPU design and refused it because I realize Intel is trying to reinvent the wheel which others were mastering (Nvidia and ATI at the time). Intel also invested in all sorts of other wheels which were "off the shelf tools" in the industry (ex: TCAD while TMA was widely used in the industry, all sort of simulation tools, all in the fear to protect their technology secrets) and such they wasted many billions of dollars. In my opinion, the management screwed up big time for their lack of vision and bad decision making so now Intel is paying the price. It is sad because Intel had very smart and hard working engineers but the upper management with very poor technical skills and vision.
 

Attachments

  • Mobile Module Operation award.jpg
    Mobile Module Operation award.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 45
In a sense, Gelsinger can also be said to be a victim of the Board of Directors....
I'm very sorry that the Larrabee project, which was the Intel GPU, which was led by Gelsinger, was canceled.
You can feel the frustration in later interviews
 
The bad thing about this industry is that it's easy to give up.
It's true that we have to consider the cost and profitability, but no matter what, this company gives up quickly.
 
I was involved in designing the "board design guidelines" for mobile (1997/1998) for Pentium II when Intel launched simultaneously for the first time a CPU and a product based on that CPU. The biggest mistake in the mobile was that the management said that "we accomplished our mission to enable the industry in the mobile field (laptops) and the department will be disbanded" and such everybody scattered in Intel and outside. It took a while for Intel to realize the mistake they did and started to create a few different mobile dept/groups which all failed after wasting billions of dollars.

I had a chance to work later for GPU design and refused it because I realize Intel is trying to reinvent the wheel which others were mastering (Nvidia and ATI at the time). Intel also invested in all sorts of other wheels which were "off the shelf tools" in the industry (ex: TCAD while TMA was widely used in the industry, all sort of simulation tools, all in the fear to protect their technology secrets) and such they wasted many billions of dollars. In my opinion, the management screwed up big time for their lack of vision and bad decision making so now Intel is paying the price. It is sad because Intel had very smart and hard working engineers but the upper management with very poor technical skills and
Reminds me of Boeing.
 
In a sense, Gelsinger can also be said to be a victim of the Board of Directors....
I'm very sorry that the Larrabee project, which was the Intel GPU, which was led by Gelsinger, was canceled.
You can feel the frustration in later interviews
They removed the graphics parts and it continued to be developed as the Xeon Phi family for HPC i.e. the 'Knights' chips. But it was a niche marginal market which did not pay for itself so it got eventually canceled.
 
I'm surprised that nobody had the same idea as me. Just as AMD bought and integrated ATI, a brilliant move, I think, Intel should have bought NVIDIA back in the days when that was still possible. What a powerful move that would have been.
 
I'm surprised that nobody had the same idea as me. Just as AMD bought and integrated ATI, a brilliant move, I think, Intel should have bought NVIDIA back in the days when that was still possible. What a powerful move that would have been.

I lobbied for that before Intel hired BK. That would have been epic. Jensen Huang running Intel? This was in May of 2003. Intel would be a trillion dollar company!
 
I lobbied for that before Intel hired BK. That would have been epic. Jensen Huang running Intel? This was in May of 2003. Intel would be a trillion dollar company!
If Intel bought Nvidia, it would not be Nvidia today. Jensen would never put up with Intel non-sense. The company would have been Intelified Intelinated (monthly roadmap changes, Designs based CPU roadmap, products miss window).
 
If Intel bought Nvidia, it would not be Nvidia today. Jensen would never put up with Intel non-sense. The company would have been Intelified Intelinated (monthly roadmap changes, Designs based CPU roadmap, products miss window).
That said, it was terrible at the time, but I don't think it was as bad as it is now...
Also, in the Products Miss Window, I think this applies to NVIDIA as well...
 
If Intel bought Nvidia, it would not be Nvidia today. Jensen would never put up with Intel non-sense. The company would have been Intelified (monthly roadmap changes, products miss window).

Jensen would have done a massive re-org like Lip-Bu for sure. Nvidia has a very flat organization. BK was the worst Intel CEO of all time in my opinion so that would have been avoided.

I worked with ATI when AMD acquired them in 2006. There were two teams, AMD was green and ATI was red (Radeon). It was hugely dysfunctional in the beginning but ended up working out okay. ATI definitely made AMD better. They hired Lisa Su in 2012 as SRVP then promoted her to CEO in 2014 replacing Rory Read. Rory and Lisa were both IBM'ers. The rest as they say is history....
 
In a sense, Gelsinger can also be said to be a victim of the Board of Directors....
I'm very sorry that the Larrabee project, which was the Intel GPU, which was led by Gelsinger, was canceled.
You can feel the frustration in later interviews
Gelsinger was a "champion" of Larrabee, but he did not lead it or architect it. Doug Carmean was the chief architect. Gelsinger liked Larrabee because it was a derivation of an x86 CPU, which is Gelsinger's preferred basis for everything in computing. Even if it wasn't cancelled, I don't think it would be a leadership product in any market.

 
Jensen would have done a massive re-org like Lip-Bu for sure. Nvidia has a very flat organization. BK was the worst Intel CEO of all time in my opinion so that would have been avoided.

I worked with ATI when AMD acquired them in 2006. There were two teams, AMD was green and ATI was red (Radeon). It was hugely dysfunctional in the beginning but ended up working out okay. ATI definitely made AMD better. They hired Lisa Su in 2012 as SRVP then promoted her to CEO in 2014 replacing Rory Read. Rory and Lisa were both IBM'ers. The rest as they say is history....
If you remember when Intel lost the lawsuit against DEC, the architect of Alpha CPU left to work for AMD and I think that helped AMD designing a better processor.
 
If you remember when Intel lost the lawsuit against DEC, the architect of Alpha CPU left to work for AMD and I think that helped AMD designing a better processor.

Right, I remember that. Intel lost and ended up buying DEC's Hudson Fab and did a cross licensing deal. Intel also got DECs StrongArm group which was later sold to Marvell and was quite successful. Intel tried to sell the Hudson fab but ended up demolishing it. No Intel joy for this deal.
 
I lobbied for that before Intel hired BK. That would have been epic. Jensen Huang running Intel? This was in May of 2003. Intel would be a trillion dollar company!
Do you think Jensen will stick around? He seems like a go getter type who wants to build something from the ground up instead of taking over.
 
Right, I remember that. Intel lost and ended up buying DEC's Hudson Fab and did a cross licensing deal. Intel also got DECs StrongArm group which was later sold to Marvell and was quite successful. Intel tried to sell the Hudson fab but ended up demolishing it. No Intel joy for this deal.
I believe that was called "Fab 7".
 
Right, I remember that. Intel lost and ended up buying DEC's Hudson Fab and did a cross licensing deal. Intel also got DECs StrongArm group which was later sold to Marvell and was quite successful. Intel tried to sell the Hudson fab but ended up demolishing it. No Intel joy for this deal.

Then Compaq bought DEC for $9.6B cash in 1998 and failed. HP bought Compaq in 2002 for $25B in stock and the brand died a slow death. I owned an early Compaq PC. Now I have HPs. Great history lesson!
 
Then Compaq bought DEC for $9.6B cash in 1998 and failed. HP bought Compaq in 2002 for $25B in stock and the brand died a slow death. I owned an early Compaq PC. Now I have HPs. Great history lesson!
At the time, I thought that DEC management missed the boat of PC market and Compaq basically ruined DEC business (I was using the VAX system was very happy with it) and was surprised that HP swallowed the bad pill. But that was my opinion at the time. I don't know what would have happened if DEC would have gone the PC market way.
 
Back
Top