This likely means they’ll kill their GPUs? Don’t think those are particularly profitable
Not enough profit when they can chase other, more profitable avenues.
My statement is that good customer research kills bad ideas before they hit the market (so you don't see the failure). However, it can also be the case that it won't spot a good opportunity, therefore there is no product in the market to succeed or fail.
Basically, your statement of there not being a case of a product failing does not prove that market exists. It also doesn't prove that there's no evidence that the market doesn't exist. It just means that there's no publicly available evidence that the market does or does not exist.
A lot of made up numbers now have a min(50.0) equivalent somewhere :P
If they actually execute this strategy, sales implode and the CEO is gone.
If they don’t, he demonstrated he can’t set policy, so he’s gone.
I'm sort of surprised, for example, that LTS embedded is not more of a thing. Sell something like those little N50/100/150 mini-PCs, (or more likely an ITX mainboard with the same specs) but for an astronomical price and guarantees "we'll stock and support it for 10 years" for firms who need certifiable fixed platforms. Small volume but probably easy to get name-your-price margins.
And Apple is silently reducing prices by making the cheap Macbook Air close in specs to the Pro. So they're likely to start taking more and more of the midrange market as well.
You forgot gamers. I know plenty of people with beefy and expensive notebooks that are not Apple.
Even today a mid-tier CPU is way more than enough to handle even the most demanding games so long as you've got a beefy CPU. Over the past twenty years games have demanded far more in the way of GPUs than they have in CPUs.
That market doesn't make Intel zero dollars or anything but I don't really see it a market that's going to drive a bunch of growth in Intel's revenue or specifically their margins. Long gone are the days where buying the Extreme Edition CPU got some appreciable extra performance in games.
I was saying that more about your argument about Apple products.
I don't think Intel benefits from the gamer segment, my point is only that there is a significant segment that donown computers and that segment has no interest in Apple notebooks.
In fact, basically everyone I know that owns a laptop has a laptop primarily to play games, not macbooks.
> After years of innovation and community collaboration, we’re ending support for Clear Linux OS. Effective immediately, Intel will no longer provide security patches, updates, or maintenance for Clear Linux OS, and the Clear Linux OS GitHub repository will be archived in read-only mode.. Intel remains deeply invested in the Linux ecosystem, actively supporting and contributing to various open-source projects and Linux distributions to enable and optimize for Intel hardware.
5 million downloads of the Docker image, https://hub.docker.com/_/clearlinux/
It was a reference distro for performance optimizations, which will hopefully find their way into upstream projects and mainstream distros, https://www.phoronix.com/news/Intel-Ends-Clear-Linux
Clear Linux has delivered many great out-of-the-box performance optimizations for Linux systems and shown what can be done for packaging with profile guided optimizations / link-time optimizations, various kernel tweaks, and other innovations over the years. At least the likes of CachyOS have picked up some of these optimizations. Intel engineers are also working with other major Linux distributions on enhancing their Linux distribution performance too.If those tweaks did anything under a container, they might risk your data for performance. Clear as a container is a niche of a niche.
The only thing I can spot in the article that wouldn't come up in a psychic's cold read is speculation that there might be a 20% layoff coming hidden towards the end. I'd suggest reading this sort of article is a waste of attention better spent elsewhere.
MBA influenced shareholders set random profit margins, when the fiscal year comes to an end and the targets weren't met, a selected random set of employees gets punished due to missing the desired margins.
Yep, I already went through this %@#££! a couple of times, and seen also happen to others.
I am guessing this is the board's decision again.
Zen 6c is about to come out for server. That is 256 Core per socket. I haven't followed Intel's roadmap for a long time, mostly due to it be very confusing and not exciting. But I am not even aware of any grand plans with TSMC. Which means they are betting their foundry to deliver, both on cost, capacity, and performance.
But AMD needs to work harder. I have been saying this for so many years it is tiring. They need to further increase market shares in every single market, Servers especially hyperscalers, PC, Laptop, OEMS players. I have given them benefits of doubt for so many years Zen 6 generation will be the last of it. I am not even mentioning GPU.
The Tesla board is a similarly mindless rubber stamp operation, for better or worse.
Throw the financial people out. Get the builders and chip designers back in control. Andy Grove is rolling in his grave. FFS.
Ouch. Although Investopedia rates them as #5.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-ceo-says-it...
Pat Gelsinger killed the royal cores project which handed CPU dominance to AMD. Without leadership in CPUs to keep the company going, there would be no Intel. They reportedly lost their entire Oregon design team to a startup developing RISC-V processors as a result of the cancellation, which will have repercussions for many years. Intel’s stock had been on a small recovery until Zen 5 made it clear that Intel could no longer compete with AMD CPUs on performance, which caused the stock to crater. The power management bugs that were killing nearly all of the high end rocket lake CPUs just prior to this also did not help, as they erased some of the gains during the recovery, before it was entirely wiped out by Intel’s lack of competitiveness against Zen 5. There was nothing in Intel’s pipeline to compete with Zen 5, because Gelsinger had cancelled the project that could compete with Zen 5.
The loss of the TSMC discount did not predate Gelsinger. TSMC pulled the discount directly in response to comments made by Gelsinger that they considered disrespectful. This became public knowledge. As I recall, there had been a rumor/leak around summer of 2024 that the board had been very unhappy about that.
While there were issues that predated Gelsinger, he did nothing to fix them. There is a great writeup on that here:
https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2024/12/08/why-gelsinger-was-wr...
The only thing that predates Gelsinger that Gelsinger cannot be considered responsible for failing to fix is Intel’s reputation as an IP thief from the 80s and 90s. It is likely a major reason nobody wants to use Intel’s foundries.
Depressing. Intel is going to die under this guy's "leadership". I wonder what company will swoop in and buy them? I wonder how much his golden parachute will be.
So that means they're going to start paying well and treating people well? Right?
Because compared to FAANG Intel is a big paycut. Particularly in ML the gap is quite large.
So you need to experiment and try different things to not become a Dinosaur. Not just the obvious things.
0cf8612b2e1e•6mo ago
More seriously, isn’t this signaling that all experimental R&D is out? Nothing but incremental progress can deliver anything but an approximation of profit margin.
impish9208•6mo ago
oarla•6mo ago
sheepscreek•6mo ago
AstralStorm•6mo ago
sheepscreek•6mo ago