Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Factory IoT Saves Intel $9 Million

Posted by samzenpus on from the passing-on-the-savings dept.

jfruh writes Want a good way to sell someone a new technology? Prove to them that you believe in it enough to use it yourself. Intel has been trying to get customers to buy into the concept of the "Internet of Things," in which tiny distributed networked sensors would improve manufacturing processes. To prove its point, they implemented such a system in one of their Malaysian factories, and claimed $9 million in savings.

50 comments

  1. I only need three things in my Internet by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    And that's a theme park, with blackjack and hookers.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:I only need three things in my Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a.k.a. games, gambling and porn.

  2. Saves Intel 9 million? by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

    When will the madness stop?

    I go to Ralph's - and spend $40.

    Yet they proudly circle 'saved $12' as if they'd given me a gift.

    The next time I went shopping, I went to the 99 cent store, and spent about $12 on roughly the same items.

    now did Ralph's save me anything? No. I SPENT $28 dollars more than I should have, but in a world where marketing is driving us right off a cliff, where 'preowned' means the same thing as used and 'saved' is a way of creating a smoke and mirrors diversion of how much you really spent.

    Marketers beware: MOST SHOPPERS do NOT buy based on savings.

    They buy off VALUE of what's offered (including savings). And products should be priced accordingly.

    1. Re:Saves Intel 9 million? by msauve · · Score: 1

      They learned it from the government, where when they raise taxes by $120 billion instead of the $180 billion they really wanted, call it a tax cut of $60 billion.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Saves Intel 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? They implemented their IoT and doing so reduced their costs by 9 million dollars. Are you suggesting they could go to the 99c store and spend 9 million dollars to get the same result from their factory?

    3. Re:Saves Intel 9 million? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And yet, armed to the teeth with this wisdom, you went to Ralph's and spent $40.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. THAT IS NOT AN IoT CASE! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a LANoT.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:THAT IS NOT AN IoT CASE! by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      Also, not new. I've visited several factories over the last 15 years. The systems on the production lines were all connected over ethernet running TCP/IP. Granted, 15 years ago, sensors and other small devices would be in clusters, each cluster connected to a (large) shoebox sized controller, but over time, as the networked controllers got smaller and less expensive, there were more controllers with fewer devices connected to each.

      I suspect the plant Intel "installed" IoT into was just in need of a major update to its existing IoT (by whatever name it was called).

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    2. Re:THAT IS NOT AN IoT CASE! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      now they connected all those sensors to the internet [they've got the IP addresses to do it].

      next, they may consider adding a router and/or firewall between the network these systems. or maybe a vpn. and then install virus scanners onto each one of the sensors.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  4. The Internet of Things, aka by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the next giant leap in ubiquitous mass surveillance.

    I just can't wait for all the devices that surround me to snitch on me and report all my life habits to their corporate or state masters 24/7...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:The Internet of Things, aka by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is just simple equipment monitoring with networked devices.This has been done for decades. Just a PR puff to get some brand names out.

    2. Re:The Internet of Things, aka by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      It's just a toilet seat that reports when somebody's on it. Everybody poops! There's nothing to worry about!

      Until you realize that it's able to find usage patterns, and your insurance rates go up because they think you may be getting colon cancer.

      Everything's connected, and I don't want every facet of my life being reported to some corporate overlord.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:The Internet of Things, aka by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      You would be correct if it weren't for the name of Intel. And I don't mean the name as such, I mean Intel as in Intel-rubbing-the-back-of-the-NSA.
      You owe Rosco P. Coltrane an apology for your red herring.

    4. Re:The Internet of Things, aka by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's just a toilet seat that reports when somebody's on it. Everybody poops! There's nothing to worry about!

      Just think about the other side of the coin, now your crapper can serve as your alabi when the police ask "Where were you last night at 10:00 p.m.?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:The Internet of Things, aka by gnupun · · Score: 1

      the next giant leap in ubiquitous mass surveillance.

      And to add insult to injury, we are supposed to pay the people spying on us by buying their products.

  5. Investment? by Quantus347 · · Score: 2

    As somebody who designs networks of sensors and controls for manufacturing processes, I want to know what the investment was, and what payback period they are using to calculate those savings. Depending on the size of the plant $9 million might not even come close to covering that kind of mass retrofit.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    1. Re:Investment? by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Informative

      I RTFA. They didn't go into specifics, but it seems to have been cheap WiFi point communications coupled with thermal sensors. So if a machine was running hotter than expected, they could stop that line and fix the problem before it broke completely and took that line down for a few days. So the "savings" could be what the cost of that line going down previously had been. Or something.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lay off 300 employees making $30,000/year who were monitoring the equipment in the past.

      They probably didn't have 300 employees doing this but I'm sure the cost saving from however many layoffs were factored in.

  6. Only 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oracle saved 1 billion when they used their own products.... Oh Intel and your PR ways.

    1. Re:Only 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, I just realized I saved $100 today by cleaning the house myself. Holy crap! I saved double-digit percentages in management fees by buying stocks myself rather than using a hedge-fund manager. Wow! I saved thousands by not buying a diamond ring. Best of all, I saved gasoline and health club membership by walking today. I must be filthy rich, but I fear I'm going to blow it all because I'll have to pay somebody to find that money I saved. I just can't seem to locate it.

    2. Re:Only 9 million? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      As an IRS agent, that sounds an awful lot like imputed income. Please don't leave the country, we'll be in touch.

    3. Re:Only 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a person with a lot of experience working in large companies, i am pretty sure any number of them much smaller than intel have a bureaucratic infrastructure that would reduce you to fucking tears, and eventually have your entire office closed down with a phone call. You see, the amount of information the goverment has on us pales in comparison to what we have on you. Lucky for you we don't spend a lot of time worrying about cubedwellers at the irs talking smack. Now fuck off before i decide to ammend my last 3 years of tax returns by $19.00 and smile as you spend the next 10 years on the favor of your reply gerbil wheel you blowhard.
      signed
      CEO, Fold, Bend,Spindle and Mutilate Corp.

    4. Re:Only 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap, I just realized I saved $100 today by cleaning the house myself.

      If the alternative was to spend $100 to get somebody to do it for you then yes, you should have $100 more than what you would otherwise have.

      I saved double-digit percentages in management fees by buying stocks myself rather than using a hedge-fund manager.

      Yes, instead of paying them fees you did it yourself and now have that amount rather than having spent it.

      Best of all, I saved gasoline and health club membership by walking today.

      Yes, if you were going to spend it there then now you haven't spent it so you have saved it.

      I must be filthy rich, but I fear I'm going to blow it all because I'll have to pay somebody to find that money I saved. I just can't seem to locate it.

      It should be wherever it was when the alternative was to spend it.

      Intel were spending an additional 9 million dollars, now they aren't, that saved them 9 million dollars. Really it's not difficult to understand, perhaps the terminology is confusing you and that inhibits your ability to understand what is going on here?

    5. Re:Only 9 million? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      In this thread, anonymous coward left his sense of humor at home, and posts.. let's step back and watch the hilarity!

  7. Saves Intel 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Was your rant against grocery stores leading to something or...?

  8. umm. details? by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    "...CPU tester modules in a semiconductor manufacturing line at the plant were retrofitted with sensors. They then sent data to Mitsubishi Electric C Controller gateway devices powered by Intel Atom chips. After some filtering, the data were then processed using software from Revolution Analytics. Putting the data results into practice resulted in a reduction in component failures, increased equipment uptime and productivity, according to Intel....."

    Could someone who actually knows something about what they did write the fucking article please? I have no idea what was improved using this technique by reading these sentences which are the only concrete part of the entire story linked.

  9. Internet of Stupidity by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    This story has pretty much nothing to do with the "Internet of Things" they are trying to sell us.

    I seriously doubt that any of the WiFi sensors in Intel's machinery required an account with a third party company which then collected data on how Intel used their machines.

    We already have an Internet of Things. It's called, "things".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Internet of Stupidity by Animats · · Score: 2

      This story has pretty much nothing to do with the "Internet of Things" they are trying to sell us.

      Right. It's ordinary industrial automation. It's also strange that Intel would have CPU testers that weren't networked and reporting to some machine aggregating statistics and looking for process variance. It's pretty much routine in factories today to network the machines. That's been going on since the 1980s.

      The Mitsubishi C Controller mentioned is just a CPU board packaged as a Mitsubishi Electric industrial automation module for convenient mounting in industrial automation cabinets. "It includes two Ethernet ports, an RS232 port, a USB port, a CompactFlash card slot and a 7-segment display for debugging and diagnostics. The (Intel Atom) CPU comes with the Wind River VXWorks real time operating system pre-installed." It's programmed in C.

    2. Re:Internet of Stupidity by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      The more precise term is Industrial Internet which is considered a subset of the Internet of Things. It is considered a subset because the same types of technologies are being used.

      The Internet of Things doesn't require third-parties, but such third-parties are often helpful if they provide useful services.

  10. I tried saved my company some money... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    As a software testing intern, I found a crash bug on the test server that I could reproduce 100% of the time. My supervisor couldn't reproduce the bug despite watching my steps, decided it wasn't important, and approved the code release to the production servers. The production servers ran for a day before entering a crashing loop. The company was forced to take the production servers offline and lost three days of revenue ($250,000+ USD). Three months later they declined to renew my contract and two-thirds of the division got laid off the following month. This cost cutting move saved the company more than $250,000+ USD for the year..

    1. Re:I tried saved my company some money... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Was that supervisor one of the people that got laid off?

    2. Re:I tried saved my company some money... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      He got promoted to run what was left of the division.

    3. Re:I tried saved my company some money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not usually how these things work.

    4. Re: I tried saved my company some money... by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      There's no justice in this world.

  11. Aren't we forgetting something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new fab costs on the order of 9e9 USD to build. Savings of 9e6 USD are of course revolutionary relevant in that context.

    1. Re:Aren't we forgetting something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't fabs.

    2. Re:Aren't we forgetting something? by EvanTaylor · · Score: 1

      Regardless of this not being a Fab, this is Intel highlighting their technology in a factory similar to that of their target customers.

      --
      Sleep is for the weak.
    3. Re:Aren't we forgetting something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does the 9e6 usd saved reduce the selling price of their CPU's by even a penny or do the executives and shareholders pocket it all? This is just a general question about capitalism.

    4. Re:Aren't we forgetting something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That money was spent on buying a slashvertisement, and a new boat for the VP of marketing.

  12. Saves Intel 9 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marketers beware: MOST SHOPPERS do NOT buy based on savings.

    Sorry, but no. Marketers aren't dumb. They split test, they experiment. They like money, and are VERY interested in getting it right**

    **for values of right like "makes the most money".

  13. uh huh... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    I've been through these sales pitches before.
    Ok Intel, how much did it COST to install?
    Did you factor in that you sent in all of your Intel experts for free? And that you'll charge me $200 per hour just to ask them what kind of outlet to plug this into?
    What was the volume of that plant? Is it producing $10million in product? Or $300 million? Scale matters.

    $9 million in savings in a large production plants is shit. They have single machines that cost more than that. To take a gamble on a large change like this, the savings need to be insane. Cut my costs in half and it might be worth the risk. Saving $9 million when my costs average $300 million and, yes... that's nice... but its not worth the risk of new tech.

    1. Re:uh huh... by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $9 million in savings in a large production plants is shit. They have single machines that cost more than that. To take a gamble on a large change like this, the savings need to be insane. Cut my costs in half and it might be worth the risk. Saving $9 million when my costs average $300 million and, yes... that's nice... but its not worth the risk of new tech.

      Actually $9million is $9million regardless how how you cut the pie. Just because a business turns over several orders of magnitude more means they should stop factoring in potential savings as *small* as $9million?

      I ask you, what is a gamble? How are you gambling when you monitor your equipment? What is the risk when it goes wrong? Back to potential $9million outages? Oh calamity!

      The only reason people are up in arms about this is because someone used the phrase "Internet of Things". If this article was started with "Lean Six Sigma", "Kaizen", or "a Continuous Improvement Project" no one would bat an eye. I am a reliability engineer and creating this type of monitoring is my day to day activities. Sometimes they pay off really well, sometimes they produce no benefit and we wasted a few $100k, but all of a sudden when someone says it's an "Internet of Things" project rather than project everybody shouts about risk?

      Get a grip. Oh and I work for a plant that turns over approximately $4bn in product annually, yet if I could save $9m I guarantee there would be prizes, parades, and all sorts of untold honours directed my way. Never under-estimate how hard it is to squeeze the last bit of financial efficiency out of a place.

    2. Re:uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually $9million is $9million regardless how how you cut the pie.

      No, it isn't. If you "save" $9mn then pay for it with one (extra) outage costing a day's worth of production, add the cost of the outage plus ripple effects from "JIT"-production, perhaps totalling $27mn, all you've done is cut yourself for $18mn. Oh, and cheered to the world that you've "saved" $9mn, that too. Since you're self-professing to be a "reliability engineer" I'm completely missing you discussing the cost of risk.

      If this article was started with "Lean Six Sigma", "Kaizen", or "a Continuous Improvement Project" no one would bat an eye.

      Nobody here would read it. (True to style, didn't read this one either. Why bother? It's a buzzword-enabled press release, also intel.)

    3. Re:uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually $9million is $9million regardless how how you cut the pie. Just because a business turns over several orders of magnitude more means they should stop factoring in potential savings as *small* as $9million?

      They should save the $9M. But adding another "cost-saving" measure to your process is adding another risk that could cost you money in the end. If $9M is less than a day of production, you have to think hard about the cost how long you'll be able to keep it reliable enough to not cost you. That, when not hiring the experts to evaluate those risks would earn you just as much.

  14. how much data do they send to marketers? by alen · · Score: 1

    isn't that why you deploy IoT?

  15. Re:umm. details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >Could someone who actually knows something about what they did write the fucking article please?
    Yes. Hence the A.C.

    Real time SPC. It's actually pretty cool.
    Understand that the Malaysian factories are predominantly test and assembly. The chips are made in the US.

    The real differentiation is the installation. Just scatter them around the machines and meshy wireless protocols get the data home. Manually hooking scada crap up to scada networks would be a nightmare and then they'd get hacked like the Iranians.

    Making retrofitting easy and secure by default is a worthy and important feature of any new factory automation solution. It's a shame the article didn't comprehend this.
     

  16. SCADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's a SCADA system, but with intel inside?

  17. Wrong name by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    It shouldn't be called the Internet of Things; it should be honestly called the Panopticon of Things.

    But expecting honesty from the largest tech company is like expecting the DOJ to prosecute bankers.