TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Intel: Winning and Losing

62 点作者 rbanffy大约 8 小时前

9 条评论

acroyear大约 1 小时前
Mr. Magoo-ism galore.<p>Intel had constantly try to bring in visionaries, but failed over and over. With the exception of Jim Keller, Intel was duped into believing in incompetent people. At a critical juncture during the smart-phone revolution it was Mike Bell, a full-on Mr. Magoo. He never did anything after his stint with Intel worth mentioning - he was exposed as a pretender. Eric Kim would be another. Murthy Renduchintala is another. It goes on and on. Also critical was the the failure of an in-house exec named Anand Chandrasekher who completely flubbed the mega-project coop between Intel and Nokia to bring about Moblin OS and create a third phone ecosystem to the marketplace. WHY would Anand be put in charge of such an important effort?????? In Intel&#x27;s defense, this project was submarined by Nokia&#x27;s Stephen Elop, who usurped their CEO and left Intel standing at the altar. (Elop was a former Microsoft exec, Microsoft was also working on their foray into smartphones at the time. . very suspicious). XScale was mis-handled, Intel had a working phone with XScale prior to the iPhone being release .. but Intel was afraid of fostering a development community outside of x86 (Balmer once chanted -&gt; developer, developer, developer). My guess is that ultimately, Intel suffers from the Kodak conundrum, i.e. they have probably rejected true visionaries because their ideas would always threaten the sacred cash cows. They have been afraid to innovate at the expense of profit margins (short term thinkers).
评论 #43947730 未加载
fidotron37 分钟前
The core problem at Intel is they promoted the myth that ISA has no impact on performance to such a degree they started fully believing it while also somehow believing their process advantage was unassailable. By that time they&#x27;d accumulated so many worthless departments that turning it around at any time after 2010 was an impossibility.<p>You could be the greatest business leader in history but you cannot save Intel without making most of the company hate you, so it will not happen. Just look at the blame game being played in these threads where somehow it&#x27;s always the fault of these newly found to be inept individuals, and never the blundering morass of the bureaucratic whole.
AnotherGoodName大约 4 小时前
I&#x27;ll give a viewpoint that the article reads like a listing of spec sheets and process improvements for CPUs of that era and not much else. Not really worth reading imho.<p>I&#x27;d love some discussion on why Intel left XScale and went to Atom and i think Itanium is worthy of discussion in this era too. I don&#x27;t really want a raw listing of [In year X Intel launched Y with SPEC_SHEET_LISTING features].
评论 #43947864 未加载
评论 #43946814 未加载
ianand大约 4 小时前
The site’s domain name is the best use of a .fail tld ever.
dash2大约 2 小时前
These are the years when Intel lost dominance, right? This article doesn&#x27;t seem to show much insight as to why that happened or what caused the missteps.
评论 #43947494 未加载
ashvardanian大约 4 小时前
The article mostly focuses on the 2008-2014 era.
igtztorrero大约 4 小时前
The Atom model was the breaking point for Intel. No one forgives them for wasting their money on Atom-based laptops, which are slower than a tortoise. Never play with the customer&#x27;s intelligence.
评论 #43947826 未加载
评论 #43946663 未加载
评论 #43946583 未加载
评论 #43947853 未加载
aurizon大约 1 小时前
Intel is a failed monopolist, unlike Apple! So is IBM with MCA, micro-channel-architecture
评论 #43947812 未加载
jbverschoor大约 4 小时前
Their domain name is probably most of their market cap