Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/the-three-interlocking-problems-at-intel.23548/page-2
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

The Three Interlocking Problems at Intel

MKWVentures said:
As the CFO said. Intel is not really investable at this time. Lets see if 18A hurts or helps
Click to expand...
He said IFS is not investable. This could also mean that, at the moment, IFS is primarily focused on internal products. DZ should make that explicit. In the same conference, he also mentioned that SoftBank entered its position at a very attractive valuation. He also said 18A offerred much better cost profile.
 
This is a hard post to read due to the amount of dumb takes, let's start with the easy ones:
- Explain how INTC is a Going Concern? (For my engineering friends here, 'going concerns' means they will likely go bankrupt in sub-12 months)
- Liabilities of $32B, presumably this is gross and not net which makes this number completely useless and some sensational BS you'd expect from Yahoo. INTC has >$4b of Long Term debt coming due in '25 so if you could go ahead and show your notes for the rest that would be helpful. (NET)
-Deepseek won? I know this year is flying by but it ain't February anymore and the true "cost" of deepseeks training is well documented at this point. I think what's more illustrative is OpenRouter usage with DeepSeek at #5, not exactly a gold medalist.

There is a lot of other garbage in here (that Geo-political take :LOL: on South Korea neutrality, can't wait to launch attacks from the peninsula with out Chinese reprisals and let our THAAD run unencumbered). Anyway, let's start with the first three and go from there.
 
osnium said:
Foundry is not customer facing so the brand is not relevant. It could be TrumpFoundries and it would not matter to foundry customers. On the other hand, there are still people who look for Intel processors for their laptops. Also, I would argue that it’s the fab’s fault for all the problems that Intel has had for the past decade, starting with 10 nm delays.
Click to expand...

That's an odd comment. If the foundry team (IFS) doesn't talk directly to customers -- they will never succeed.
 
XYang2023 said:
He said IFS is not investable. This could also mean that, at the moment, IFS is primarily focused on internal products. DZ should make that explicit. In the same conference, he also mentioned that SoftBank entered its position at a very attractive valuation. He also said 18A offerred much better cost profile.
Click to expand...
IFS not Intel. Sorry my bad.

IFS doesnt have external because no one signed up for IFS foundry. Everyone looked at it and said no. The plan for for billions in external sales in 2026. IFS is very focused on external clients, there just are not any committed at this time.

Lets see what the 18A data says when it comes in.
 
MKWVentures said:
IFS not Intel. Sorry my bad.

IFS doesnt have external because no one signed up for IFS foundry. Everyone looked at it and said no. The plan for for billions in external sales in 2026. IFS is very focused on external clients, there just are not any committed at this time.

Lets see what the 18A data says when it comes in.
Click to expand...
Well, as a side note, it's not an extreme situation where there's no one there.
They have customers, but now they need big customers.
 
benb said:
It's not so much about IP protection, it's about freeing a competitor with a heavy burden, from that burden. If AMD or Nvidia help Intel, they help free Intel Products from a financial burden (Intel Foundry), potentially making them a much tougher competitor. Intel Foundry needs AMD and Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, all the US-based fabless chip companies, to use Intel Foundry, otherwise that is a financial burden. So separation has great strategic merit, that shows up in the form of burdens removed. That's how I look at it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I wanted to challenge the idea of intellectual property protection.
Whether you are a fab specialist or an IDM, confidentiality is important if you care about your customers.
It's not safe because it's a fab company.
Furthermore, why would they take any action that would damage customer trust?
I've always been skeptical of IDM's confidentiality argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top