Intel Q213 Results

[Arachnotronic]

Qualcomm seems to be doing alright for themselves ($2B profit) selling their chips as well, without needing to pay any capex on R&D on fabs.



Maybe Otellini got pushed out the door for turning the company into a mobile laggard that has left them losing an uphill battle against stronger, entrenched opposition.

What's more, the smartphone market appears to have matured so they really did miss the boat completely. They've had 22nm for almost 18 months now and still don't have a 22nm phone chip out?

Nobody doubts Intel's technological expertise but the decision making and forward thinking is simply not there compared to the likes of Qualcomm and Samsung.

SiliconWars,

Let me educate you...

Here is QCOM's income statement from the most recent quarter,

QCT includes both modems and Snapdragon processors while QTL is royalty/licensing revenue from wireless patents. This means that for each cellular enabled device sold, Qualcomm scalps royalties from said device maker.

Note the "EBT" line - that's earnings before tax, just so we're clear. The QTL division milked $1.8B in EBT while the QCT (that's all those modems and Snapdragons combined) came out to a mere $681M.

Intel's $2B in net income, and $2.7B in operating income (which included non-cash excess capacity charges, 14nm startup costs, a significant R&D effort in a field in which they have not yet shipped competitive products but are about to, etc.) is all from selling silicon products.

Just a little heads up before you keep spreading the doom & gloom scenario for Intel..

 

[ShintaiDK]

If Qualcomm isn't making a profit selling chips then why are they selling chips? Why is Intel spending $billions in a desperate attempt to get into their market?

The obvious answer is, Qualcomm is making money selling chips.

By that logic companies like AMD should stop selling chips :awe:

 

[blackened23]

I can't help but find the doom and gloom predictions after a larger than 2 billion profit to be hilarious. Allllrighty then. I guess intel is done for.

 

[LegSWAT]

I can't help but find the doom and gloom predictions after a larger than 2 billion profit to be hilarious. Allllrighty then. I guess intel is done for.

"doom & gloom" is not quite the exact expression for 'intel's traditional business model less likely to succeed in a changed market environment under different circumstances over the next few years'.

 

[SiliconWars]

Note the "EBT" line - that's earnings before tax, just so we're clear. The QTL division milked $1.8B in EBT while the QCT (that's all those modems and Snapdragons combined) came out to a mere $681M.

A "mere" $681 million compared to an Intel loss of $600 million in the same segment.

How much did Qualcomm lose while attempting to break into Intel's markets?

Intel's $2B in net income, and $2.7B in operating income (which included non-cash excess capacity charges, 14nm startup costs, a significant R&D effort in a field in which they have not yet shipped competitive products but are about to, etc.) is all from selling silicon products.

Just a little heads up before you keep spreading the doom & gloom scenario for Intel..

All of these things they've always had (except the excess capacity charges, which is a direct result of being late to the phone game). By the end of this year Qualcomm will be making more profit than Intel. Qualcomm's profit goes up, Intel's goes down. That's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.

 

[Exophase]

Note the "EBT" line - that's earnings before tax, just so we're clear. The QTL division milked $1.8B in EBT while the QCT (that's all those modems and Snapdragons combined) came out to a mere $681M.

Nonetheless, I hope we can put to rest this bizarre claim that Qualcomm makes no profit selling chips.

Intel is clearly bringing in a lot more money selling chips than Qualcomm is. But I think this just shows all the more how much they need PC and server sales, where they have high ASPs and a near monopoly on both. Many agree that Intel needs to be strong in mobile to survive but if they started selling nothing but mobile SoCs and modems like Qualcomm does then I don't see how they could earn substantially more than Qualcomm-levels of income, unless they take off in full vertical integration or they move a lot of Haswell tablets. Otherwise their ASP would be like Qualcomm's and I don't expect they'll be able to get anywhere close to a monopoly in mobile.

That's not a doom and gloom prophecy for Intel though, because I don't think the PC market is going to suddenly collapse rather than gradually decline. I actually think mobile sales are going to start slowing down much more substantially. $200-300 off-contract phones are becoming more common alongside pre-paid plans non-contract plans. Hardware improvements are going to hit a major wall very soon. People will have a lot less incentive to constantly replace their phones and tablets. People have already had less incentive to replace their PCs for years, although businesses have reacted by only gradually lengthening their upgrade cycles. They're taking a hit from people replacing their PCs with tablets but I don't think the damage from that will keep accumulating.

 

[pelov]

That's not a doom and gloom prophecy for Intel though, because I don't think the PC market is going to suddenly collapse rather than gradually decline.

I feel like that's what the vast majority of us 'doomsayers' are stating. Clearly Intel relies very heavily on high-margin server/consumer chips, but those aren't going to see much growth in the near future. Some growth in emerging markets, but those consumers are going to be able to afford a tablet before they buy a $750 Ultrabook.

It isn't that Intel is going to fade into nothingness in the next 2 years, but rather their core business is being threatened from below and their margins are inevitably going to take a hit whether they do well in mobile or not. The Bay Trail platform is going to strip sales from Haswell, that doesn't depend on whether it succeeds or not. Ultimately, that's something Intel will have to live with.

It's not going to be business as usual for Intel.

I actually think mobile sales are going to start slowing down much more substantially. $200-300 off-contract phones are becoming more common alongside pre-paid plans non-contract plans

This is where I'd disagree. Smartphones still have another several years of market penetration before they'll have satiated both the stable and proven, as well as emerging markets. What we're seeing from carriers is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. The carriers are providing more incentive for users for upgrades at an accelerating rate. If anything we're seeing the opposite and should see a higher volume of smartphones in users' hands over the next few years.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510570/t-mobile-to-introduce-jump-unlimited-phone-upgrade-plan
http://bgr.com/2013/07/19/t-mobile-jump-att-next-comparison/

Hardware improvements are going to hit a major wall very soon. People will have a lot less incentive to constantly replace their phones and tablets. People have already had less incentive to replace their PCs for years, although businesses have reacted by only gradually lengthening their upgrade cycles. They're taking a hit from people replacing their PCs with tablets but I don't think the damage from that will keep accumulating.

I do think we'll hit a wall soon, and in smartphones before tablets, but it's an arena that's vibrant and has cutthroat competition. We're currently in a phase in smartphones and tablets where we're getting double the performance of an SoC on the same node within just a year and a half (Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 > 600/800, Apple's SoCs, and even the bargain bin Android ones via A15 and PowerVR/Mali).

This is a lot like what we saw in the vibrant PC space back in the mid-2000's. Remember when you could upgrade your CPU and GPU every two years and see a huge performance increase? That's what we're getting right now in the mobile world. There's still a lot of room for growth with respect to just what those form factors can do (smartphone + wireless periphery = PC?) as well as performance.

But whichever way I look at it, I don't see consumers suddenly wanting to spend $1000 on laptops or desktops. Those consumers that want a new PC aren't going to disappear, but they'll decrease in number as we move forward. As much as some of us hate it, cheap, prepackaged mobile computing is the future. Device makers are realizing that they don't have to have the cutting edge performance and that the vast majority of consumers could care less what X SoC/CPU scored in Cinebench 11.5 or what the raw GFLOPs of the GPU is. What matters is the entire package and how it's presented to the consumer, and on that side Intel has very little, if any say at all. An additional $50 spent on the display or aluminum body would net you more sales than another $50 to the SoC maker for that extra bump in performance. Intel experimented with this via Ultrabooks, but again those are/were priced too high and offer nothing but a slimmer body at a higher price coupled with worse performance with nothing else.

On the server side, Intel is going to have a harder time selling large quantities of Xeons for cloud computing or web hosting, where dense clusters of microservers offer better perf-per-watt

 

[StrangerGuy]

Nonetheless, I hope we can put to rest this bizarre claim that Qualcomm makes no profit selling chips.

Intel is clearly bringing in a lot more money selling chips than Qualcomm is. But I think this just shows all the more how much they need PC and server sales, where they have high ASPs and a near monopoly on both. Many agree that Intel needs to be strong in mobile to survive but if they started selling nothing but mobile SoCs and modems like Qualcomm does then I don't see how they could earn substantially more than Qualcomm-levels of income, unless they take off in full vertical integration or they move a lot of Haswell tablets. Otherwise their ASP would be like Qualcomm's and I don't expect they'll be able to get anywhere close to a monopoly in mobile.

That's not a doom and gloom prophecy for Intel though, because I don't think the PC market is going to suddenly collapse rather than gradually decline. I actually think mobile sales are going to start slowing down much more substantially. $200-300 off-contract phones are becoming more common alongside pre-paid plans non-contract plans. Hardware improvements are going to hit a major wall very soon. People will have a lot less incentive to constantly replace their phones and tablets. People have already had less incentive to replace their PCs for years, although businesses have reacted by only gradually lengthening their upgrade cycles. They're taking a hit from people replacing their PCs with tablets but I don't think the damage from that will keep accumulating.

If PC demand keeps falling costs of parts other than CPU will go up steadily as part suppliers cuts back production and ASPs will have to increase if Intel still wants their mucho margins. Lose-lose for Intel and the OEMs. We are already seeing this effect in DDR3 pricing.

 

[Exophase]

This is where I'd disagree. Smartphones still have another several years of market penetration before they'll have satiated both the stable and proven, as well as emerging markets. What we're seeing from carriers is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. The carriers are providing more incentive for users for upgrades at an accelerating rate. If anything we're seeing the opposite.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/10/4510570/t-mobile-to-introduce-jump-unlimited-phone-upgrade-plan
http://bgr.com/2013/07/19/t-mobile-jump-att-next-comparison/

To me carriers offering new incentives to upgrade smells precisely of their user base losing interest in upgrading. It's not that I think the phone market hit saturation, I just think people will be less eager to replace their phones that do what they want them to do. T-Mobile can wager on letting people upgrade whenever they want for an additional fee that surely nets them more earnings precisely because they know people won't upgrade that much.

But to me that extra fee seems like a hard sell. I know that there's no way something like this would move me from my pre-paid $30/month plan. Even if the phone upgrade only costs $100-200 for how long are people going to want to keep upgrading their phones?

Phones are more or less at their power wall now - same one PCs hit around 2005 and GPUs a few years after that - and the ones sporting high end GPUs have terrible battery life in high end games (we're now seeing figures like ~1 hour). I think the days of routine doubling performance in phones are pretty much over.

 

[pelov]

Brian Klug talked about the ~1 hr rumor on the latest Podcast and called it BS. Your phone won't run out of battery in under an hour unless it's very old and you've beaten the Li-Polymer battery hard for years. In short, it's BS. The TDP is still the same, though some have pushed it to its limits in order to differentiate - which is why we see so many different clock speeds for the Snapdragon S4 SoCs in smartphones. The device makers have to offer something to appeal to consumers, and that extra 200mhz looks real good in benchmarks and is pretty easy to do

I really don't think, certainly from a business perspective, that T-Mobile and AT&T are offering these because they know it won't sell. They're offering these upgrade paths because they can make a large chunk of money off users who want to go through more than one phone every two years (or whatever the contract length is). Otherwise why bother? Keep in mind that the average upgrade cycle is directly tied to the contract length

http://mobilefuture.org/wp-content/...re.publications.handset-replacement-cycle.pdf

In areas where contracts are unpopular, the upgrade cycle is logically longer. Still, though, it's been relatively stagnant in developed countries and in some it's actually dipped. The countries where the upgrade cycle is very long are emerging markets where a faster upgrade cycle would be expected in the near future (bear in mind this is from 2010). I think it'll stabilize in places like the US or UK, but in other nations where people are getting enough cash to buy their first smartphone (China, Brasil) these people are likely buy their next one even sooner.

We tend to have a very jaded view towards some of these gadgets, but the majority of the globe has yet to reach where we were a few years ago. The opportunity for growth is massive and can't be understated, we just need to look outside of our own borders

 

[Exophase]

I'm not talking about a rumor here, I'm talking about actual experiences people have with current phones - new phones like HTC One. You don't see it in reviews because they rarely test games that push the GPU to the limits. Remember, that's all I'm talking about here, GPU at full tilt. But look at what people are saying about what kind of battery drain they get running Real Racing 3. They act like it's an anomaly, but it's really just the GPU doing real work.

The peak power draw definitely hasn't stayed the same as they've increased GPU capability several times.

As for T-Mobile and AT&T offering upgrade plans, they're offering them because they think people want the plans but won't actually upgrade that much. They're basically selling upgrade insurance. If they thought people were going to upgrade all the time THEN they wouldn't be selling it... And yes I do think some people will go for these plans but if they don't end up upgrading more because of it that's just more money in the carrier's pockets..

 

[pelov]

As for T-Mobile and AT&T offering upgrade plans, they're offering them because they think people want the plans but won't actually upgrade that much.

So you're argument is that T-Mobile and AT&T are offering upgrade paths to consumers because they know they won't use them...

 

[Exophase]

So you're argument is that T-Mobile and AT&T are offering upgrade paths to consumers because they know they won't use them...

Yes, that is my argument. Do you not get that they're charging higher monthly rates for this privilege? Getting people who think they may want to upgrade but not bothering because they're actually comfortable with their phones is the ideal scenario for the carriers - they LOSE money when people actually upgrade.

 

[pelov]

Yes, that is my argument. Do you not get that they're charging higher monthly rates for this privilege? Getting people who think they may want to upgrade but not bothering because they're actually comfortable with their phones is the ideal scenario for the carriers - they LOSE money when people actually upgrade.

So you're assumption is based on another, and quite a big, assumption.

Or we can go with the logical explanation and state that they're offering it because they see a pool of customers who are willing to pay more money to upgrade their smartphones more than once every two years. Consumers don't HAVE to sign up to these plans, yet they're still offered. How does that make any sense to you?

Or we can just tinfoil hat some more and try explaining it in some other bizarre way... like a corporation offering a product because users don't want it :whiste:

Some light reading for you.

It's always about money, and they feel they can make more money this way. It's not being done because carriers feel like it won't work -- quite the opposite, in fact. They feel like they can get away with charging more $$$ by providing a quicker upgrade cycle. Pre-paid customers in emerging markets are likely to upgrade quicker than they have before, whereas here it's saturated and they have to offer something else to make more money (whereas pre-paid is still a slim minority). The upgrade cycle will lengthen, but only in saturated markets where pre-paid is dominant, and that's not here.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I can't help but find the doom and gloom predictions after a larger than 2 billion profit to be hilarious. Allllrighty then. I guess intel is done for.

Nobody is saying Intel is done for, but from the evidence it looks like the Itanic (lol sorry couldn't resist :awe is not crashing into a giant iceberg, but rather suffering a death by a thousand cuts so to speak. While Qualcomm, Samsung, ARM, AMD etc. are all expanding into their niche, Intel appears to be left as a one trick pony (high end x86) and that pony looks like it is getting weaker and weaker and unable to sustain such a large company.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Nobody is saying Intel is done for, but from the evidence it looks like the Itanic (lol sorry couldn't resist :awe is not crashing into a giant iceberg, but rather suffering a death by a thousand cuts so to speak. While Qualcomm, Samsung, ARM, AMD etc. are all expanding into their niche, Intel appears to be left as a one trick pony (high end x86) and that pony looks like it is getting weaker and weaker and unable to sustain such a large company.

How in your above analysis, you manage to see AMD causing Intel major problems, I'll never know.

The cuts you see Intel receiving now, are the same cuts that will see AMD go out of business within a decade.

 

[Exophase]

So you're assumption is based on another, and quite a big, assumption.

Or we can go with the logical explanation and state that they're offering it because they see a pool of customers who are willing to pay more money to upgrade their smartphones more than once every two years. Consumers don't HAVE to sign up to these plans, yet they're still offered. How does that make any sense to you?

Or we can just tinfoil hat some more and try explaining it in some other bizarre way... like a corporation offering a product because users don't want it :whiste:

Some light reading for you.

It's always about money, and they feel they can make more money this way. It's not being done because carriers feel like it won't work -- quite the opposite, in fact. They feel like they can get away with charging more $$$ by providing a quicker upgrade cycle. Pre-paid customers in emerging markets are likely to upgrade quicker than they have before, whereas here it's saturated and they have to offer something else to make more money (whereas pre-paid is still a slim minority)

Okay I really feel like this point is lost on you. Offering a monthly rate for a service they hope people don't use is not a tinfoil hat theory, it's an obvious way to make more money while looking like you're making a consumer friendly move.

This happens all the time. Aside from insurance operating on this principle. Look at mail-in rebates, are they not selling you something that they hope you won't actually take advantage of?

The article speculates that carrier plans are threatened because people can't upgrade with them. I wonder if they're not actually threatened because off-contract plans make a lot more sense financially now that good unsubsidized phones are coming in at < $300.

They're offering plans because they think users will pay for the plans, I totally agree. That's not the same as thinking that users will put the plans to good use. I daresay T-Mobile may see the following - users have upgraded rapidly in the last couple years think they're going to keep upgrading rapidly in the next couple years, but actually won't because phones are going to start changing a lot less.

Just look at the changes in phones over the last couple years. The SoCs got a lot more powerful, but the peak power consumption ballooned while idle efficiency has improved a lot - both are hitting their limits and will slow down a lot, more dictated by relatively slow advances in manufacturing. RAM capacity expanded a lot but now they need 64-bit CPUs to even keep expanding, only soon after it'll hit PC-level (8GB) and people will have a hard time justifying more than that. Displays expanded greatly up to 1080p, now are you seriously going to argue that there's big demand for resolution to keep increasing? Phones got larger but that too hit a consensus point and I don't see that that will keep changing. The OSes and app stores matured a lot and also will be stabilizing much more.

With the hardware having much less room to grow in every way imaginable I simply don't see how you're going to compel people to upgrade as frequently as they have.

 

[pelov]

Okay you really don't seem to understand any of what I'm saying. Offering a monthly rate for a service they hope people don't use is not a tinfoil hat theory, it's an obvious way to make more money while looking like you're making a consumer friendly move.

This happens all the time. Aside from insurance operating on this principle. Look at mail-in rebates, are they not selling you something that they hope you won't actually take advantage of?

They're offering plans because they think users will pay for the plans, I totally agree. That's not the same as thinking that users will put the plans to good use. I daresay T-Mobile may see the following - users have upgraded rapidly in the last couple years think they're going to keep upgrading rapidly in the next couple years, but actually won't because phones are going to start changing a lot less.

Despite what they say, these are still contracts. Whether you upgrade every 6 months or not, you're still going to pay the fee that's on your bill. It's priced in such a manner that the carrier won't be losing money either way. It's a money grab and it's there to entice people who want to upgrade more frequently than the average 2-year upgrade cycle tied to a contract. Now you'll also have the option of upgrading more frequently at a higher price tag. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a grand scheme by carriers because they know you secretly won't upgrade but you'll still sign up to it. That's idiotic. Why pay for something you won't use when they offer another vanilla 2-year cycle? If that were the case then they'd have pushed that on everyone, yet they haven't and nor will they.

With the hardware having much less room to grow in every way imaginable I simply don't see how you're going to compel people to upgrade as frequently as they have.

That's true, but you're mainly looking at the hardware side that relates directly to benchmarks and crap normal users don't care about. We're still likely to see 4k pixels on a smartphone (that's a few years away), more NFC, wireless peripherals and charging, folding displays, and more advancements with respect to overall power consumption (the CPU and GPU are only a small part of the entire package).

You're focusing far too much on the stuff that the average user really doesn't care about and wouldn't compel them to upgrade anyway but gets nerds like us stiff boners.

 

[sushiwarrior]

How in your above analysis, you manage to see AMD causing Intel major problems, I'll never know.

The cuts you see Intel receiving now, are the same cuts that will see AMD go out of business within a decade.

AMD is not causing Intel major problems, AMD is finding their own niche and avoiding Intel. They are giving Intel problems to some limited extent with low-end laptops and tablets (Jaguar products), and with low-end servers (again, Jaguar), but that's besides the point.

The cuts Intel are receiving now are cuts that AMD has already avoided. AMD is going up quarter by quarter (cutting expenses, marginal increases in sales, etc.) while Intel is starting to lose its grip and beginning to post losses. Intel needs to cut it's fat and find a way to make it's very, very expensive process lead work for other markets.

It would take a lot of convincing for me to believe that Intel isn't a massive company which rides upon a shrinking market, with no success at branching out so far. AMD is able to cover tablets, laptops, desktops, servers, consoles, GPU's etc. all under a much smaller budget, while Intel is left with just x86 laptops, desktops and servers, unless Bay Trail actually gains them any traction. (I am not trying to argue AMD is better off, they may be too unfocused for their own good, what I am saying is that Intel only has one real market)

 

[Exophase]

Despite what they say, these are still contracts. Whether you upgrade every 6 months or not, you're still going to pay the fee that's on your bill. It's priced in such a manner that the carrier won't be losing money either way. It's a money grab and it's there to entice people who want to upgrade more frequently than the average 2-year upgrade cycle tied to a contract. Now you'll also have the option of upgrading more frequently at a higher price tag. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a grand scheme by carriers because they know you secretly won't upgrade but you'll still sign up to it. That's idiotic. Why pay for something you won't use when they offer another vanilla 2-year cycle? If that were the case then they'd have pushed that on everyone, yet they haven't and nor will they.

Yes, they're priced such that even routine upgraders won't end up costing them more. That doesn't mean they don't make more money the less frequently people upgrade.

You really think no one ever pays for services that they make poor use of? If their customers had so much common sense they wouldn't be buying contract plans to begin with, they're never a better deal but they look good because people are more attracted to higher prices when they're spread out over longer times. And yes, I do think people can easily overestimate how much they'll want to upgrade in the next two years based on how much they've wanted to upgrade in the last two years - but when push comes to shove, if the phones stop improving as much they won't upgrade as much. Even if they've paid for the upgrade plan that doesn't mean they'll automatically drop another $100-200 on new phones if they aren't compelling upgrades.

That's true, but you're mainly looking at the hardware side that relates directly to benchmarks and crap normal users don't care about. We're still likely to see 4k pixels on a smartphone (that's a few years away), more NFC, wireless peripherals and charging, folding displays, and more advancements with respect to overall power consumption (the CPU and GPU are only a small part of the entire package).

You're focusing far too much on the stuff that the average user really doesn't care about and wouldn't compel them to upgrade anyway but gets nerds like us stiff boners.

No I'm seriously not just focusing on crap that relates to benchmarks. What I listed has to do with pretty much every aspect of the phone that anyone would be interested. See where I said a whole load of stuff that was NOT just CPU and GPU?

Maybe you're right, maybe phones really will start using 4k displays and maybe people really will be stupid enough to buy them. Kind of funny though, you think people won't purchase plans they end up under-utilizing but they'll happily fork over money on display technology that gives them no benefit whatsoever. Power consumption improvements have been tapping out on all fronts barring major technological breakthroughs that don't look anywhere around the corner. Folding displays are useless for phones if the rest of the thing can't fold with it, and I don't see how this is a hot feature that everyone will demand.

 

[Arachnotronic]

A "mere" $681 million compared to an Intel loss of $600 million in the same segment.

Yes, see, Intel hasn't even shipped its first real "efforts" into this space yet. Penwell, Cloverview, all of these are nice proof-of-concept stop gaps, but you're finally going to see the fruits of the significantly increased R&D effort by year's end with Bay Trail, then in Q1 with Merrifield for phones.

How much did Qualcomm lose while attempting to break into Intel's markets?

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm now sells server and/or PC chips in any meaningful quantity?

By the end of this year Qualcomm will be making more profit than Intel. Qualcomm's profit goes up, Intel's goes down. That's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be.

Qualcomm's full year guide tends to disagree with you. At the high end of the GAAP EPS range, and assuming a share count of 1.73B, we are looking at $6.6B in net income versus what will likely be ~$9B for Intel ($1.80/share EPS x 4.97B share count).

Now will you kindly stop spreading FUD, SiliconWars?

 

[Exophase]

I don't think it's fair that every time Intel releases a mobile platform people get to say they weren't really trying or it was just a practice run just because they didn't sell that many of them.

That crap may have flown for Moorestown, but Medfield? Clover Trail+? How are these not real efforts? Just because they didn't change the CPU uarch doesn't mean they didn't work like crazy on everything else, think of all the effort that went into power management, integration, even migrating their fabs to SoC capability.

In my mind the move from Moorestown to Medfield was much more significant than the move from Medfield to Merrifield will be, even if one came with much sexier CPU PPT slides.

 

[Nothingness]

Just posted a link in another thread regarding what Otellini was saying back when Atom got announced in 2008: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2182d7a8-05cf-11dd-a9e0-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz2ZnbR9ddO
Intel has definitely tried but failed. Does that mean they'll keep on failing? Obviously not. But pretending they didn't try is delusional.

 

[SiliconWars]

Yes, see, Intel hasn't even shipped its first real "efforts" into this space yet. Penwell, Cloverview, all of these are nice proof-of-concept stop gaps, but you're finally going to see the fruits of the significantly increased R&D effort by year's end with Bay Trail, then in Q1 with Merrifield for phones.

Oh god this again? And when Bay Trail goes the same way as the rest, it'll all be about 14nm right?

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm now sells server and/or PC chips in any meaningful quantity?

No I'm suggesting that Qualcomm isn't leaking $billions on trying to, and won't be either.

Qualcomm's full year guide tends to disagree with you. At the high end of the GAAP EPS range, and assuming a share count of 1.73B, we are looking at $6.6B in net income versus what will likely be ~$9B for Intel ($1.80/share EPS x 4.97B share count).

I didn't say full year guidance, I said by the end of the year.

 

[Arachnotronic]

SiliconWars,

Oh god this again? And when Bay Trail goes the same way as the rest, it'll all be about 14nm right?

No. If Intel isn't competitive at the 22nm generation, then there's a serious problem with the strategy/execution.

No I'm suggesting that Qualcomm isn't leaking $billions on trying to, and won't be either.

Have I suggested this?

I didn't say full year guidance, I said by the end of the year.

Doubtful, but we'll see.