Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/buffett-has-chosen-the-winner-and-it-isnt-intel.17077/
        )

    [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] => 2021171
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Buffett has Chosen the Winner and it isn't Intel

Arthur Hanson

Well-known member
Expertise in making semis and business are two totally different endeavors and Warren Buffett being the world's leading expert on business knows this. This is why he invested five billion in TSM instead of Intel. Intel has to make a choice; they can't be both. If Intel tries to do both, there is a good possibility they will fail at both. Many don't fully realize it, but Morris Chang was not only a technical genius, but a business genius as the results have very clearly shown. TSM has a very tight laser like focus, while Intel is still looking for answers. I would like to see both companies prosper for the good of the industry, but see Intel being a bit lost. Not having a visionary like Andy Grove has really hurt Intel and all we can do now is hope Gelsinger can join the ranks of Andy Grove and Morris Chang. The greater the progress of the semi sector, the better chance for a better world for all. The ecosystem that semis of all types have built give mankind the best chance of dealing with the severe social and environmental challenges before us. We need all the success and progress we can get if we are to survive on this planet. Success can come in many forms and I hope Gelsinger can attract the funds and resources he needs to do this, but as of today TSM is winning, and Warren Buffett is an expert at picking winners. Any thoughts, comments or additions sought and welcome for they will help me in my personal endeavors. SemiWiki and its readers have been a valuable resource for me.
 

nghanayem

Active member
Expertise in making semis and business are two totally different endeavors and Warren Buffett being the world's leading expert on business knows this. This is why he invested five billion in TSM instead of Intel. Intel has to make a choice; they can't be both. If Intel tries to do both, there is a good possibility they will fail at both. Many don't fully realize it, but Morris Chang was not only a technical genius, but a business genius as the results have very clearly shown. TSM has a very tight laser like focus, while Intel is still looking for answers. I would like to see both companies prosper for the good of the industry, but see Intel being a bit lost. Not having a visionary like Andy Grove has really hurt Intel and all we can do now is hope Gelsinger can join the ranks of Andy Grove and Morris Chang. The greater the progress of the semi sector, the better chance for a better world for all. The ecosystem that semis of all types have built give mankind the best chance of dealing with the severe social and environmental challenges before us. We need all the success and progress we can get if we are to survive on this planet. Success can come in many forms and I hope Gelsinger can attract the funds and resources he needs to do this, but as of today TSM is winning, and Warren Buffett is an expert at picking winners. Any thoughts, comments or additions sought and welcome for they will help me in my personal endeavors. SemiWiki and its readers have been a valuable resource for me.
I don't think Intel's goal is to win foundry. They do say number 2 foundry for a reason. My opinion I think they are gunning to be what Samsung was in the early finFET era. This will also allow Intel to have a pricing advantage over AMD and Apple products, and if Oregon does it's job it will no longer need to compete with inferior silicon.

As for WB I would assume a large part of investing in TSMC as opposed to Intel is not necessarily that Intel is doomed, but rather that TSMC isn't going anywhere; and that it synergies well with his one other semiconductor investment (Apple).

I would like to see both companies prosper for the good of the industry, but see Intel being a bit lost. Not having a visionary like Andy Grove has really hurt Intel and all we can do now is hope Gelsinger can join the ranks of Andy Grove and Morris Chang. The greater the progress of the semi sector, the better chance for a better world for all.
I also hope for the best for Samsung. I don't want to see there only be a two man race still. As for the trailing edge foundries I also hope all of those little guys continue to prosper and can keep some of their customers in this new environment.
 

Beinglass

New member
Intel will fail in it's humongous experiment to enter into the foundry world. This is a probably third attempt but as with the other attempts that failed miserably the faith of this one is already written.
Foundry is not in the DNA of Intel, they can't handle many customers design, just writing the reticles and control them on many EUV systems is a nightmare that Intel's can't handle. This is just one example and there are many more. The choosing of Ohio as the center of the world foundry (according to Intel) is another big mistake. They can't get to the proficiency that TSMC had been getting to, nor they can even get to a small part of it. Intel was plaged with so many problems within the last 10 years so it will take them at least 5 more years to be n-2 of TSMC. One of the key hurdle to Intel success is the unbelievable arrogance of the company to their suppliers and their customers, so unless they will become somewhat humble the many billion that they are throwing right now into this experiment will wash to the drain.
 

blueone

Well-known member
Intel will fail in it's humongous experiment to enter into the foundry world. This is a probably third attempt but as with the other attempts that failed miserably the faith of this one is already written.
Foundry is not in the DNA of Intel, they can't handle many customers design, just writing the reticles and control them on many EUV systems is a nightmare that Intel's can't handle. This is just one example and there are many more.
I must be in a weird mood this morning, because you've aroused my curiosity. How do you know these things? Have you ever worked in Intel manufacturing, or even in an Intel design group, where you were a user of Intel's fabs?
The choosing of Ohio as the center of the world foundry (according to Intel) is another big mistake.
More than Oregon? Having lived in Oregon and Ohio, I think Ohio will be at least as good a location for manufacturing. More than 2x the population, IMO better universities, and a much larger manufacturing industry community.
They can't get to the proficiency that TSMC had been getting to, nor they can even get to a small part of it. Intel was plaged with so many problems within the last 10 years so it will take them at least 5 more years to be n-2 of TSMC.
Intel 7 is already at N-2 of TSMC.
One of the key hurdle to Intel success is the unbelievable arrogance of the company to their suppliers and their customers, so unless they will become somewhat humble the many billion that they are throwing right now into this experiment will wash to the drain.
A high level of arrogance used to be part of Intel's vendor relationships, though my information may be out of date. I agree that if they haven't improved in this area they're going to be at a disadvantage. Do you work for a supplier of Intel's?
 

jmlobert

Member
A high level of arrogance used to be part of Intel's vendor relationships, though my information may be out of date. I agree that if they haven't improved in this area they're going to be at a disadvantage. Do you work for a supplier of Intel's?
It is still very much "my way or the highway", but I am seeing the development team to be more listening and more open to suggestions and new things. If that is just curiosity to see what could potentially be done for future reference or truly seeking advise to make changes, I don't know (yet).
 
Top