Intel Admits To Falling Behind AMD

Vicegrip writes "CNN is carrying a Fortune story covering an analyst meeting held on Thursday. There, CEO Otellini admitted Intel has fallen behind AMD with lost market share, technological leadership, and recently profitability. Intel also announced cuts to 1 Billion in spending." From the article: "Intel's market share recently slipped below 80%, and Otellini strongly emphasized the need for market share gains in all his remarks. On the other hand, he also suggested that Intel's recent market share losses (to AMD, whose name was not mentioned) were in line with historical variations which tracked to Intel's product generations."

Comments

Intel had it coming

[Jason1729]

They've been screwing over their customers for 15 years. With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc, they've had an attitude of buy what we tell you or get lost. Not to mention price manipulation. They hold back each new iteration until prices slack off on the current product. AMD beat them to the 1 GHz punch because intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit. After AMD beat them, they released theirs 2 days later.

Now that it's coming back to bite them on the ass, I think it's wonderful.

Re:Intel had it coming

[Sebastopol]

Pfff...

With stuff like the spying serial number, tpa, etc,

Which is why AMD implemented the exact same thing, right up to virtualization "secure" computing.

intel was holding back their own 1GHz chip to squeeze more profit.

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

Re:Intel had it coming

[ScottLindner]

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

The OP didn't say there was anything wrong in making profit. The OP said it's wrong to use methods that are deemed illegal in our laws, and are typicaly not wise in a competitive market. Obviously Intel thought they still owned us all like M$ does... but AMD caught them with their pants down. That's the point of the OP. Intel had it coming to them for their arrogance. And they got exactly what they asked for.

No where in those facts... is the OP indicating that making a profit is a bad thing.

Re:Intel had it coming

[Changa_MC]

Shame on a corporation for making a profit. AMD is so pure and virginal white, they'd never do something this dastardly.

Any corporation causes damage to the market when they try to leverage their monopoly to maintain the monopoly. If AMD ever crushes all their competition (no that I'm worried) they will also slow innovation. Far better to have multiple competing companies, where you can buy whatever you want. Perhaps we could call it a "free market," since you can shop around.

Re:Intel had it coming

[Salandarin]

Oh PLEASE, give me a break!

I hate reading this kind of generic accusation on Slashdot. For whatever reason, most /.'ers seem to be under the impression that somehow, Intel is inexorably related to an evil scheme by Microsoft/SomeCorporation, Inc. to consistently screw over the consumer. Honestly, I've never experienced any direct "screwing over" from Intel. If the chip performs up to the specification that it says it will, then there's nothing wrong here. Just because you don't like their market tactics doesn't justify this kind of arrogance. Considering they still have 80% of the market, it seems that whatever they're doing is working, contrary to your opinions.

While I like AMD's desktop chips more, one must be fully aware of the fact that AMD is no less of a corporation than Intel is, and want your money just as badly as everyone else. As others have mentioned and will mention, AMD's hardware tactics are no less questionable than Intel's, and thus, it becomes a moot point.

Poor interpretation

[Sebastopol]

My god, the spin is breathtaking:

80% market share != Falling Behind

50% market share == Falling Behind

Are they falling behind thanks to Otellini

[ron_ivi]

He's the first Intel CEO with a non-tech background. What did you expect would happen.

The results are just what I would have though - they lose their technical edge, but retain their strong position in the market.

My guess is that Intel's business model quickly changes from designing and building chips to buying other company's designs ---- just like the large drug companies mostly get drugs by investing in and eventually buying small drug research companies.

I think that was the plan when the put a MBA in charge, and I think this is the expected result.

Re:Both Intel and AMD May Fall

[TekGoNos]

??? This post doesnt parse.

You, Sir, are a crackpot. From your site :

Due to its sheer astronomical complexity, the human brain is the most reliable behaving system in the world. Its reliability is many orders of magnitude greater than that of any complex program in existence.

Unfortunatly for your crazy theories, the human brain is a pretty UNreliable system. It contiously distords (and invents) memory, it makes some completly irrational decisions, etc ... Here's a starting point for lecture : List of cognitive biases.

What the human brain is good at, however, is to use its crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting functions to get a "good enough" response in a crazy, complex and seamingly contradicting world. In other words : to operate in uncertain situations with uncomplete data. This includes that it (most of the time) doesnt crash when something unexpected happens. Sometimes, however, it does crash and people get things like post-traumatic stress disorders.

So, if something similar to the brain (your "silver bullet") is "good enough" in uncertain situations, why dont we use such an architecture? Well, we do, its called AI (artificial intelligence), you might have heard of it.

Your silver bullet is simply an agent-based system. And I'm currently doing my master in artificial intelligence on such a system, VERY close to your silver bullet. And I can tell you that this system is NOT the solution. It can handle uncertainity. It probably wont crash.

But the problem is that it is impossible to debug.

With an algorithmic system, I know what it supposed to happen. I can test on the way. In an agent-based system, while I can test every agent, this isnt the problem. The working of the system emerges from the interaction of these agents. And this is something very magical. Every agent doubles the complexity, so nobody understands any more how they work exactly. A developper has to make guesses, put the entire system together and then hit run. If it works : cool, but nobody knows how. If it doesnt work : crap, because nobody knows what to change.

Also, these systems have to same problem as people : they make errors, they never work 100%. And a computer is supposed to work free from critical errors. A human might tell you : Oh, I forgot to send this letter. If your computer tells you : Oh, I forgot to send your email, most people will be shocked (or not, as they accept bugs far too easily nowaday).

Bottom line : tradional computers aim to be predictable : if they crash, they crash hard, and they need complet data to be able to work, but most of the time, they do exactly as expected.
AI (including your "silver bullet") no longer aims to be predictable. It can work under uncertainity, it might crash less often, but it results are unpredictable and instead of being as expected, they are only close to the expectation, most of the time.

And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".