na, it's all about resources. SK and tw both are small regions with 30 m ppls. it can't support too many R&D projects. samsung already put most of it's resources in memory. tw also failed in memory. so fair for both side.
Does the same issue wrt to lack of resources apply to the US and its inability to produce competitive logic technology? The US has more people but the median quality is much lower.
Maybe it has more to do with BOD capability.
Samsung has been trying how long and failed, nope not going to happen, but hope is a dangerous strategy.
not a lack of talent, resource, or ability to work hard! It was and is a failure of leadership.
It's very difficult for bean counters to understand the semiconductor industry, or impossible. The trend is that founders would train their sons or grandsons to inherit the business and pass down the know-how, as seen with companies like Qcom and Nvidia. Unfortunately, this didn't happen for INTC.
I think after Grove it has been a downhill
This is not correct. If Paul had said yes, Intel would have been bankrupt.... Intel was not and is not good at what Apple wanted. Intel needs to focus on what they do best and avoid what they are not good at. the Kansas City Chiefs cannot win a NBA championship no matter how hard they try and how good their leadership is. I am painfully aware of exactly what Intel could and could not do in Mobile and with Apple at that time.
As someone who has never been on the inside you sure seem to be the ideal armchair quarterback.
To make it clear, Intel did not say they wouldn't produce Apple chips. They said they would do it -- but only at a price higher than Apple would pay. Intel later said they underestimated Apple's volumes -- and so their assumptions about learning costs down over time was wrong.
100% correct on pricing. But the only way it would have broken even was with unrealistic cost reductions. It was a good call.
Craig Barrett wasn't as good for Intel as Andy Grove, but he was at least in charge when Intel bought the ARM stuff to create XScale. (Intel sold it in 2006 under Otellini - another shortsighted mistake imo). Craig also had to greenlight the Core 2 and probably Pentium M programs which really helped cement Intel for a decade+. Engineering in general seemed to remain solid under Craig's leadership, and Intel did serious public branding campaigns under him.
.If i remember pat hated Itanium he said x86 is good yeah i forgot him the guy who created copy exactly after that it's been disastrous decisionCraig Barrett wasn't as good for Intel as Andy Grove, but he was at least in charge when Intel bought the ARM stuff to create XScale. (Intel sold it in 2006 under Otellini - another shortsighted mistake imo). Craig also had to greenlight the Core 2 and probably Pentium M programs which really helped cement Intel for a decade+. Engineering in general seemed to remain solid under Craig's leadership, and Intel did serious public branding campaigns under him.
Also Itanium started development under Andy
CE! was Craig, but it is a good thing not a bad thing. Global manufacturing doesn't work without CE and it is a staple tool across the industry when transferring in already in production technologies to a new fab. Also I think people fundamentally don't really understand what that the point of CE! is structured change control and variability reduction (a prerequisite for statistical process control), and not just copying exactly and never changing anything. I don't know if CB was a Edwards Deming fan, but alot of the work CB did to re-invent intel quality and then reinvigorating intel's manufacturing align very well with Deming's 14 points.
