Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel's failing has at least 3 vectors:

  1. Most aptly described by CB's as a "creosote bush" x86 and its high margins poisoned the ground. There were multiple attempts to diversify the product line from the mostly stupid toys, to the high end graphics chips, to the "me too" efforts to recapture phones, to acquisitions but the moment they failed to track toward x86 level margins investment and resources dried up and guaranteed their failure.
  2. BH's ill-fated decision to drive cost per transistor for 10nm along Moore's Law. While T and S were allowing cost to transistor to increase, B's decision committed Intel to radical degree of backend scaling. Had Intel been able to pull it off it's technology leadership would be today unquestioned and unthreatened. But it proved a reach too far exacerbated by
  3. An obsession to protect intellectual property. In this the module engineers were allowed to know only the specifics of their process steps. This placed the entirety of problem solving on the shoulders of a small number of integrators who knew about a specific process segment, and the one who knew the entire front half flow, the one who knew the entire backend (interconnect) flow, and the one who had access to the entire process flow. By "design" the number of people capable of solving problems was reduced as the number of problems created by #2 exploded and the development machine was self-strangled.

An on point post that needed its own thread. I hope @1wkq+1iOHER9S doesn't mind the repost.

by
| 1787 views | | 6 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1iU6zS2g

6 replies (most recent on top)

At the time Intel brought Christensen in to present the Innovator's Dilemma. ARM was identified then as the industries steel rebar. We discussed how it could move up the food chain, and if it failed then there would be another. PO got stared down. For while it seemed he had set things up for success by getting Apple to make the switch from PowerPC, but declining the iPhone business which effectively was the PC's "rebar" was a fatal decision.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @8jjc+1iU6zS2g

Regarding #3 Apple is the same way regarding IP and silos people even more than Intel. This hasn't been an issue for them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rlk+1iU6zS2g

Innovator’s dilemma. Look it up.

This happened to Intel despite all the warnings.

Andy Grove internalized the lessons from it, but it seems like his successors failed to learn anything from the master.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bcu+1iU6zS2g

Craig Barrett

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pyo+1iU6zS2g

Great post, nice analysis.

I'm an outsider here. Sorry, but what is "CB"?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @kbh+1iU6zS2g

The bigger the monopoly, the harder the fall.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sex+1iU6zS2g

Post a reply

: