<story><title>Intel posts largest loss in its history as sales plunge</title><url>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-posts-q1-fy-2023-results</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bane</author><text>Intel and Google share surprisingly similar problems: an almost pathological inability to grow lines of business with new products because they kill them off too early. In Intel&amp;#x27;s case, it&amp;#x27;s even worse, they kill them off right before the market would have made them successful. They should own the &amp;quot;things with semiconductors&amp;quot; market, but instead financially engineered their way to focus only on higher profit core chip business which was good for the short term but has proved to be a festering cancer over the long.&lt;p&gt;Because of this approach they divested out of the memory business -- which has kept them out of the growing solid state business, screwed around with Optane, lost their modem business, have lost the GPU business at least once (who knows if they&amp;#x27;ll keep doing the ARC GPUs so maybe it&amp;#x27;ll increment up again), ARM chips, and numerous other bits and pieces over the years. Now they&amp;#x27;re losing their core business too and have nothing else to really grow and focus on.&lt;p&gt;Each of these is a multi-billion dollar market with core providers who dominate the market: Samsung, Broadcom, Nvidia, etc.&lt;p&gt;Now they&amp;#x27;re going to start selling off the bones of their business to compete with TSMC, a company with actual focus.&lt;p&gt;Once that goes away, what? Intel will contract TSMC to make their chips? I can see a financially focused MBA-type executive team seeing that as a way to eliminate expensive Fab R&amp;amp;D, construction and OEM liabilities -- put it on somebody else to deal with that!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>darth_avocado</author><text>&amp;gt; but instead financially engineered their way to focus only on higher profit&lt;p&gt;You explained the core of the problem that usually gets little blame. Successful companies get infiltrated by Wall Street MBA types who make decisions for the short term to manipulate the stock price because their own compensation structures help encourage that behavior. Companies, especially like Intel should be built for being resilient over decades instead of maximizing profits by the quarter.</text></comment>
<story><title>Intel posts largest loss in its history as sales plunge</title><url>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-posts-q1-fy-2023-results</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bane</author><text>Intel and Google share surprisingly similar problems: an almost pathological inability to grow lines of business with new products because they kill them off too early. In Intel&amp;#x27;s case, it&amp;#x27;s even worse, they kill them off right before the market would have made them successful. They should own the &amp;quot;things with semiconductors&amp;quot; market, but instead financially engineered their way to focus only on higher profit core chip business which was good for the short term but has proved to be a festering cancer over the long.&lt;p&gt;Because of this approach they divested out of the memory business -- which has kept them out of the growing solid state business, screwed around with Optane, lost their modem business, have lost the GPU business at least once (who knows if they&amp;#x27;ll keep doing the ARC GPUs so maybe it&amp;#x27;ll increment up again), ARM chips, and numerous other bits and pieces over the years. Now they&amp;#x27;re losing their core business too and have nothing else to really grow and focus on.&lt;p&gt;Each of these is a multi-billion dollar market with core providers who dominate the market: Samsung, Broadcom, Nvidia, etc.&lt;p&gt;Now they&amp;#x27;re going to start selling off the bones of their business to compete with TSMC, a company with actual focus.&lt;p&gt;Once that goes away, what? Intel will contract TSMC to make their chips? I can see a financially focused MBA-type executive team seeing that as a way to eliminate expensive Fab R&amp;amp;D, construction and OEM liabilities -- put it on somebody else to deal with that!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>causi</author><text>Personally I think Intel lost the plot around the time they killed Atom. Atom launched as a garbage product, then they spent a decade refining it into an incredible combination of price, performance, and power consumption. Then they killed it and replaced it with processors that offered barely 10% better performance per watt at five times the MSRP and they wonder why the Intel tablet market is dead. It&amp;#x27;s dead because they strangled it in the crib by pretending Pentium Gold Y-series was an adequate successor to Cherry Trail.</text></comment>