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

Technology

58063 readers
3097 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

They always had their own fabs. Utilising TSMC for their GPU's was a recent thing. For all the mistakes they have done, their GPU efforts are actually noteworthy but you don't even have to compare them to ARM or other GPU manufacturers, just look at AMD, they've been killing it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Intel didn’t actually manufacture the chips.

The chips with the oxidisation issue were manufactured by Intel at their Arizona fab plant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 84 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The company had always been run by engineers that came up from chip fab. Then they fired both the CEO and the head of fab for sexual harassment.

Then they make the CFO with a MBA the new CEO. A year or two latter and chip design is having problems and fab is falling behind.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Sounds similar to what happened to Boeing. Once ran by engineers now ran by people suckling the teat of board members. Quality goes down, profits go up for these assholes.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The more I see MBAs taking c-suite positions, the quicker the company collapses. Seen it more than six times now in person, and countless in the news.

I wonder how long before they notice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, when I was learning about economics being 8 or 9 year old, it seemed for me how it should be.

A person or a group knowledgeable in some area find a bottleneck, some problem to solve, start a company, it grows, it becomes big. Then the next generation is what they pick for leadership, and picking people is always worse than the evolutionary mechanism of a company finding some bottleneck to be widened being gunshot faster than the rest. Then they pick their replacement. And so on. Eventually it dies, but since technologies are patented, they do not become actual secrets, only commercial secrets, and by the time a company dies the patents expire, so everybody can replace it for the humanity.

The niche that company discovered thus becomes competitive.

In our world, if patents would expire as fast as they did initially by design, these big companies would already be dead.

But they've bent the rules to make patents virtually eternal and thus big zombie companies are strangling the humanity.

The system wasn't bad, but eventually power changed it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are missing economies of scale. In most industries these create a significant barrier to entry. The patent may expire but the equipment is still expensive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not missing them. One thing is a

significant barrier

and another is legal monopoly.

Especially abominations like patenting an ISA. It's clear from the very beginning that an ISA is not an invention moving humanity forward, it's an interface. A language.

As of gigantic companies of today not finding replacement when they die - we would have the whole spectrum if not for IP and patent laws as they exist. For some uses MCs of 80s are sufficient. For some a desktop PC of 1993. For some a desktop PC of 1999.

I dunno why I'm writing these things, Marcus Aurelius has written many wise things, one of them is the advice not to think about things out of your control.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Wall St destroys yet another company through sheer greed. Film at 11.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

The people who make those decisions are insulated from the consequence

Forcing them to take responsibility is the only solution

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Intel fell behind on chip manufacturing while the CEO came from that department.
Allegedly because their strategy was too ambitious at the time, or at least that was the official excuse at the time.
So your summary is not entirely fair.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, similar to Boeing's problems, minus the sexual harassment.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And ~~assassinations~~ suicides

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

They mistargeted in V.A.T.S.

load more comments
view more: next ›