this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
371 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
4067 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think they'll recover. Letting them fail would be a national security problem.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh they won't die. The question is will they recover to their old market position, will they downsize and be second fiddle to AMD but remain generally profitable, or will they have a slow managed decline like IBM?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think IBM was different because its lunch was eaten almost entirely by other American companies (chiefly Microsoft). That probably wouldn't be the case if Intel were allowed to declined in a similar manner.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

A lack of competition.

[–] kaotic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Can’t remember the full details of the deal, but I seem to recall a story about how Apple approached Intel to manufacture a low-powered processor for mobile (for the first iPhone). At the time, Intel didn’t see money in mobile processors and passed on the deal. Additionally, for years, Apple asked for more powerful chips for the MacBooks. At the time, the iPads were surpassing MacBooks in speed on some tasks. Finally, Apple decided that since they were already designing their own silicon for iPhones and iPads, they might as well just do the same for the MacBooks as well since Intel couldn’t keep up.

Again, this is largely from memory. I can’t remember the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

[–] tostos@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

if you keep look at the mirror you crash at the end.

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 1 points 3 months ago

Mobile strategy, I.E. lack thereof.

[–] jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I’ve only watched this from a great distance but what I saw was: Intel didn’t actually manufacture the chips. That was all TSMC. So Intel’s main thing was chip design. And their designs were all about making the transistors smaller. Around 3nm they started running into physical limits. Competitors started out-innovating them with things like GPU deigns and ARM based chips. End of story. They had their time. They ran x86 into the ground and they are fucking done. They would have had to do 5 or 6 things differently to stay on top, and they did none of those.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›