Intel planning for thousands of job cuts, internal sources say

[NTMBK]

Thats because competition is awful at generating innovation. Or as IDC said so beautifully:

Yes, because Intel's near monopoly has lead to some great innovation. I really love their smart band and the same quad core CPUs we've had for years

 

[Snafuh]

Thats because competition is awful at generating innovation. Or as IDC said so beautifully:

Not even experts agree on the effect of competition on innovation but you came to the absolute conclusion in just one sentence.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes, because Intel's near monopoly has lead to some great innovation. I really love their smart band and the same quad core CPUs we've had for years

Its like saying cars and trains didn't really evolve the last 100 years.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Not even experts agree on the effect of competition on innovation but you came to the absolute conclusion in just one sentence.

The higher financial risk the less innovation is generated. Its quite simple.

 

[seitur]

The higher financial risk the less innovation is generated. Its quite simple.

It is not that simple.

Innovation is merely an burdening necessity from financial point of view.

Safe no-risk comfortable business don't spring innovation as well, because such safe business don't need much innovation in first place. (eg. no competition, so ppl have to buy from you anyway).


Truth is - that we don't exactly what market enviroment is best for innovation production.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It is not that simple.

Innovation is merely an burdening necessity from financial point of view.

Safe no-risk comfortable business don't spring innovation as well, because such safe business don't need much innovation in first place. (eg. no competition, so ppl have to buy from you anyway).


Truth is - that we don't exactly what market enviroment is best for innovation production.

We know exactly what market environment is best for innovation. Wall Street's problem is it doesn't include corporations.

 

[superstition]

Hopefully the person who came up with the idea of selling E series chips with cores that are older than the cores available on the desktop (e.g. Broadwell E and desktop Skylake) was given the slip.

 

[superstition]

Innovation is merely an burdening necessity from financial point of view.

Both for business and consumers.

The way the Nintendo Famicom, for instance, was on the market for such a long time was a boon to consumers in one respect: software compatibility. This had a variety of benefits, like not having to switch consoles to play games, not having lots of console clutter, not having friends have different systems if you wanted to share experience and games, etc. But, it also carried some drawbacks, like the way games were censored and withheld for America by Nintendo, and the fact that the NES was technologically outdated for most of its lifetime.

Another example is the Apple II (pre-IIgs). It was an overpriced computer for a long time with a very weak processor. Its graphics and sound were much for games was worse than the NES, a cheap console. But, it kept being purchased because of its large software library and because people felt it was capable of doing "just enough". It was nice, with the sea of incompatible systems from those days, to have most people on the same platform, even if it was overpriced. One of the drawbacks of the stagnation of the line was that people who owned them were orphaned when everyone switched to PCs for the superior technology. By the time PCs displaced the Apple II line that PC had gone from being obsolete at launch to being one of the three leading platforms in terms of tech, with the Apple IIgs being overpriced and underpowered on purpose.

Another example of it being a benefit is the Mac Plus, a machine that was on the market for a very long time without any changes to it. Those who bought them during much of their lifespan got a lot of potential use from them without them being orphaned — the opposite of Lisa buyers who were quickly orphaned even though the Lisa was a much more innovative machine and offered much more value-added to the market.

Innovation also increases environmental burden when it means accelerated planned obsolescence. It means a rapid pace of cultural change which can make it harder for people to share a common experience, an experience that can make it easier for people to relate to one another. It increases the cost in terms of how much energy people have to devote to tracking the changes and adapting to them.

In short, everything has benefits and drawbacks. There is no free lunch. However, some things clearly are improvements over what has come before. Those are the things that make technological progress exciting. It's like medications. Some medications have a lot of efficacy in contrast with minimal side-effects. Those are the best ones.

Cost-benefit ratio is at the heart of it all. Or, if you prefer: efficiency.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Its like saying cars and trains didn't really evolve the last 100 years.

Yeah, that analogy totally fits..... Because in your world, there is apparently only 2 companies than make automobiles or trains.

In everyone else's world, they probably realize that there are more than 200 car brands worldwide.

 

[Arachnotronic]

In everyone else's world, they probably realize that there are more than 200 car brands worldwide.

You do realize that those "200 car brands" are held by just a small number of companies, right?

BMW owns: Mini and Rolls Royce.

Fiat owns: Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Ferrari, Jeep, Lancia, Maserati, Ram and SRT.

Ford Motor Company owns: Lincoln and a small stake in Mazda.

General Motors owns: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC. GM owns a controlling interest in Opel and Vauxhall in Europe and Holden in Australia. (The U.S. Treasury Department is in the process of selling off the remaining GM stock holidngs.)

Honda owns: Acura.

Hyundai owns: Kia.

Tata Motors (India) owns: Jaguar and Land Rover.

Mazda mostly independently owned (Ford has small stake)

Mitsubishi is independently owned.

Daimler AG owns: Mercedes-Benz and Smart.

Nissan owns: Infiniti. (Nissan, in turn, is owned by Renault.)

Saab is owned by National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS).

Subaru: Owned by Fuji Heavy Industries with Toyota a minority partner.

Tesla: Toyota is a minority partner. Partnership with Daimler AG.

Toyota Motor Company owns: Lexus, Scion, Daihatsu and Hino Motors, with a stake in Fuji Industries (Subaru's parent company) and Isuzu.

Volkswagen owns: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, and overseas-brands SEAT and Skoda.

Volvo is owned by Chinese-automaker Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, aka Geely.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/06/car-brands-who-owns-what/index.htm

Also, the revenue opportunity in the automotive industry is many, many multiples of the entire x86 MPU opportunity, supporting a larger # of competitors. Ford alone is expected to bring in ~$150B this year in revenue.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yes, because Intel's near monopoly has lead to some great innovation. I really love their smart band and the same quad core CPUs we've had for years

You'll be able to buy up to a 10 core BDW-E in about a month's time. You can get relatively affordable six-core 5820K processors today. Interesting that Intel introduced the 5820K at the $390 price point even without any competitive pressure from AMD.

The vast majority of the market wants 2-4 fast cores + ever improving graphics/media + smaller form factors and lower power consumption. The success of all-in-one PCs, NUCs, and other non-tower form factors should be a pretty clear indicator of this. For people who want more cores (and PCIe lanes, cache, etc.), the HEDT line is there to serve them.

 

[Khato]

And there's an official news release on the subject - https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/news-release-intel-announces-restructuring/

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You do realize that those "200 car brands" are held by just a small number of companies, right?

Since when are the 17 companies you just rattled off qualify as a small number of companies for a respective industry? That sounds like a hell of a lot of competitors to me. We are getting a hell of a lot more innovation from car makers right now by car. Cars that have auto pilot, park themselves, hybrid powertrains, pure electrics and hydrogen powered cars. Carmakers make Shintai's argument about monopolies and innovation look even more ludicrous.

I mean -- seriously... Compared to CPU's..... Where there are barely 2 - 3 competitors...... where performance, price and innovation have all stagnated.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Since when are the 17 companies you just rattled off qualify as a small number of companies for a respective industry? That sounds like a hell of a lot of competitors to me. We are getting a hell of a lot more innovation from car makers right now by car. Cars that have auto pilot, park themselves, hybrid powertrains, pure electrics and hydrogen powered cars. Carmakers make Shintai's argument about monopolies and innovation look even more ludicrous.

I mean -- seriously... Compared to CPU's..... Where there are barely 2 - 3 competitors...... where performance, price and innovation have all stagnated.

You list small changes to cars, while claiming that CPUs have stagnated.

What should a CPU be according to you? Because obviously no CPU maker can currently deliver that.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You list small changes to cars, while claiming that CPUs have stagnated.

So let me get this straight -- a car that can actually drive itself like the Tesla is a small change? A car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell is a small change? We've seen massive changes within the last 5 years -- that may make gasoline and drivers themselves obsolete in the very near future.

Are you trying to write Meme worthy silliness for every post -- or is it simply by accident?

Intel has basically been milking nearly the same Core architecture for six generations now. LOL Intel hasn't done jack**** in about a decade worth calling home about.

 

[pablo87]

Tough times. My thoughts are with the folks affected.

 

[NTMBK]

Anyone seen any more news about which divisions are seeing big losses?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Intel has basically been milking nearly the same Core architecture for six generations now. LOL Intel hasn't done jack**** in about a decade worth calling home about.

This is an extremely ignorant statement.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So let me get this straight -- a car that can actually drive itself like the Tesla is a small change? A car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell is a small change? We've seen massive changes within the last 5 years -- that may make gasoline and drivers themselves obsolete in the very near future.

Are you trying to write Meme worthy silliness for every post -- or is it simply by accident?

Intel has basically been milking nearly the same Core architecture for six generations now. LOL Intel hasn't done jack**** in about a decade worth calling home about.

You haven't learn yet that you belong to the "gasoline" drivers. Besides your complete lack of understanding about progress.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Since when are the 17 companies you just rattled off qualify as a small number of companies for a respective industry? That sounds like a hell of a lot of competitors to me. We are getting a hell of a lot more innovation from car makers right now by car. Cars that have auto pilot, park themselves, hybrid powertrains, pure electrics and hydrogen powered cars. Carmakers make Shintai's argument about monopolies and innovation look even more ludicrous.

I mean -- seriously... Compared to CPU's..... Where there are barely 2 - 3 competitors...... where performance, price and innovation have all stagnated.

What kind of "innovation" do you expect from a CPU, exactly? Also, comparing components to full devices is completely silly. Go do some research into the common components that go into a car and tell me what kinds of improvements they see year-over-year. You may be disappointed to find that many such components don't change much year-to-year.

Even in-vehicle infotainment systems use components that are quite old due to the very long gap between design-in and actual deployment.

Take a look at how the PC has evolved over the last several years. Computing power that was once exclusively limited to large desktop towers can now be found in an extremely thin and light notebook. This is a direct result of the work that Intel did to try to "innovate" in the PC market.

You only look at processors that go into desktop towers, whine that there hasn't been a huge increase in performance, and then say ignorant things like "Intel is still using the same Core architecture for six years, LOL."

You ignore that desktop PCs have evolved from being big hulking towers to being built directly behind the screen in quite nice/sleek all-on-ones. There is very little reason for the average PC buyers (i.e. not a gamer, prosumer, or a CAD engineer) to even buy a tower these days. You also ignore the amount of compute power that can now be packed into something as small and compact as a NUC.

You also conveniently ignore the big boosts in GPU performance Intel's chips have delivered, which has allowed for even common, low-cost systems to play a very broad set of games at good image quality/resolutions.

Even for gaming desktops, you ignore that we still get performance boosts each year and, if you are so inclined, you can purchase specific "High End Desktop" processors derived from server-grade chips that you can overclock quite nicely and get an insane amount of multi-core performance.

If you buy desktop chips derived from chips aimed at notebooks, expect the trade-offs that you would reasonably expect from a notebook processor: 2-4 fast CPU cores w/ high single-threaded performance and an integrated GPU.

Look at how the PC for the mainstream has evolved and if you are honest with yourself, you will see that Intel has done a ton of work to try to enable better systems for most people.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

What kind of "innovation" do you expect from a CPU, exactly?

How about keeping Moore's Law alive for starters? Intel flat out isn't investing in improving performance -- and people flat out have stopped buying.

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy -- neglecting the desktop CPU's and making them less desirable to consumers.

Look at the pathetic Mac lineup. Is it any wonder why Apple desktop sales are declining? Many quad core machines are being replaced with slower dual cores -- and many models that previously had dedicated GPU's are being replaced across the board by slower integrated graphics. Apple people are getting performance regression with new model introductions -- it's a bad joke.

No wonder desktops are dying -- because the current product offerings mostly suck.

 

[Abwx]

snip

There s no innovation that has been done since the early 2000s, current CPUs have 100x the transistor count of Pentium3/Athlon but all these were wasted to gain some useless peak IPC that rarely occur in legacy code, instead they should had concentrated in inflating the core count as frequency and IPC gain are limited anyway...

For the 1000th time, you cant beat multicore powered phones and tablets by using IPC and frequency, this latter parameter is the most dreadfull as you gain 40% perf with 100% higher power and twice the perfs at the expense of 4x the power.

By keeping the same frequency and increasing the core count you get a linearly scaling device, this way a 100W DT CPU will have 20x the throughput of a 5W phone/tablet CPU, the resulting perfs ratio being more than one order of magnitude would make sure that a lots of apps would be out of reach for phablets, and hence would keep the PC its past relevancy.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

You haven't learn yet that you belong to the "gasoline" drivers. Besides your complete lack of understanding about progress.

My car doesn't run on gasoline. So yet another totally wrong statement from you. My car is literally powered by sunshine (I'm in Florida with a fairly large solar array on my roof).

 

[Arachnotronic]

How about keeping Moore's Law alive for starters? Intel flat out isn't investing in improving performance -- and people flat out have stopped buying.

What do you think the roughly $12B in R&D that Intel spends each year is in pursuit of?

It's a self-fulfilling prophesy -- neglecting the desktop CPU's and making them less desirable to consumers.

Please actually listen to Intel's earnings calls and follow the business before you go off like this.

Gaming desktops (and by extension CPUs for gaming desktops) are growing quite quickly, so the very area where you say performance isn't improving/Intel sucks is one in which Intel is seeing quite a lot of success.

In areas where consumers actually care about performance, Intel is doing well. It's segments/sub-segments where performance/features don't matter where Intel/the rest of the industry is doing poorly.

Look at the pathetic Mac lineup. Is it any wonder why Apple desktop sales are declining?

Reality doesn't agree with your imagination:

Look at the trend in Mac sales over the last three years. It's been growing quite nicely.

No wonder desktops are dying -- because the current product offerings mostly suck.

No, it's because fundamental industry demand is slowing down. People's PCs last longer and they have other stuff to spend their money on, so they are not inclined to upgrade at historical paces.

To give you an example: with the iPhone 6s, Apple literally gave people 70% more CPU perf year-over-year, 90% more GPU performance, added 3D Touch, doubled Wi-Fi speeds, and dramatically improved storage performance.

Nobody gave a crap. iPhone sales declined. The high end of the smartphone market is just not growing these days.

Ditto with iPad.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So yet another totally wrong statement from you.

Pot, meet kettle. I have been proving many of your statements flat out false, complete with citation/sources to back me up.

Up your game, do your homework.