I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach. I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit. I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined: * Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs. * Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers. * Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people. * Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up. * What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC. * Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive. It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.

Looks like they need to work pretty hard to acomplish many things in today's tech world.IoT sucks,anyway. Intel is a Goliath with clay feet,unfortunately (Im looking,aswell,at M$$$).Big company,big money stock,but only few useful ideas. They need to broke in pieces to work at today's useful tech.They think too much in the past,because they dont have a visionary CEO.

I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach. I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit. I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined: * Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs. * Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers. * Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people. * Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up. * What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC. * Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive. It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.

They have to diversify, their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off. So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3. So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was. Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.

They have to diversify because their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off. So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was. Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.

I completely get what you're saying, but many people seem to forget that Intel still makes around $11 billion in net revenue per year. I'm sure almost all of that is coming from CPUs, SSDs, NICs, and motherboards. Note how none of those are the products Intel is changing their focus toward. If Intel sticks with what they're known for, they will still remain over-powered for many more years. They have the money to really make a difference, but instead they're either playing it safe, or, they're dumping all their money into markets where they're severely behind. There are plenty of tech markets out there that don't have much competition, yet Intel decides to join the ones that are very competitive, well-established, and don't yield much interest to either the general public or industries.

So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3.

You're absolutely right - Intel isn't going to save themselves by continuously making faster CPUs. It's exactly that mentality why Intel is losing sight of what they should be doing - improving efficiency. We don't need faster CPUs anymore. We don't need more threads. What we need is to keep up the same performance while lowering the wattage. Intel is so blinded by "moar iz better!" that they had to drop out of the smartphone market. Their phone CPUs were over-complicated, over-powered, and were way too expensive. From what I recall, some had thermal problems too. Even AMD is putting more of an effort toward efficiency. As much as AMD is just a little ant that could be squished at the whim of Intel, I suspect they'll last longer as a company, because they're forced to adapt in order to stay afloat. Intel never needed to know how to do that, and these decisions they're making exemplify that.

Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip. I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.

Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip. I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.

Source?

they did invest $7 billion to finish a factory in Arizona it started in 2011 https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/02/intel-will-invest-7-billion-to-finish-a-factory-it-started-in-2011/

Source?

https://www.expert.no/content/kampanjer/cashback/ Looks like the money is coming from Microsoft, but the requirement still is an Intel CPU and Windows Home/Pro.

I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach. I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit. I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined: * Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs. * Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers. * Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people. * Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up. * What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC. * Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive. It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.

I agree about Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.

Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was. Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.

NVIDIA started diversifying when the GPU market was close to 50/50 actually, showing how their management was generally head and shoulders above Intel's. Intel has spent close to 40 billion dollars in various acquisitions and market efforts with close to zero return.

Well, I like what they're doing for tablets, however, there are plenty of problems that need solving like much better cooling in a limited space like in a tablet to prevent their soc's from throttling that they could invest in. Probably too "small fry" of a problem for them to look into. However, I haven't counted them out yet.