Intel's Sales Down, Current Gen of Products Weak 249
DoctorBit writes "According to an article in EETimes, Intel's processor sales dropped 52 percent this April as compared with April one year ago. Unit sales dropped 21 percent and prices dropped 40 percent. The article concludes with an industry analyst's assertion that 'Intel has obviously given up on making any money on their current generation of processors and has started a price war with AMD.' The San Jose Mercury News is reporting that Intel has just put several of its money-losing communications businesses up for sale and notes that 'it remains to be seen what Intel will do with its other money-losing businesses, Itanium microprocessors and flash memory chips.' The article quotes an industry analyst saying 'If you look at Intel today, it's hard to find a trace of the technology or the people that they spent more than $10 billion on.' Ouch."
Marketshare (Score:5, Insightful)
Why April sales fell. (Score:5, Insightful)
Question - when did Intel hire SpongeBob and Patrick to start naming their processors?
Naming (Score:5, Insightful)
Their naming convention needs to be more user friendly. The average consumer has no idea what a Pentium D processor is but they could understand that a Pentium 4 was better than a Pentium III. It's all about marketing to the masses in this over-saturated market.
Itanium (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel is a victim of success (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this effect happens to all large companies. They stop innovating. They instead focus on shoring up their stock and capital to keep investors happy, lowering risk, and start focusing on acquisitions to bring in new ideas and new blood. Intel is no different than any other company.
There is a solution: skunkworks new ideas. Throw time, effort, money, and brainpower at innovation, with NO guarantee of returns. Then, when new products are created, don't squash them under a controlling corporate culture. Let them grow internally, with support. Intrapreneurship does not look at org charts or worry about the bottom line as much as the next 5 years.
Welcome to commoditization.
Waiting to pull the rug out? (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD overextending itself in an attempt to grab lots of market-share from Intel could prove very damaging when Intel 'gets it right again', such as with the Conroe exploding all expectations. An Intel offering that relies on sheer quality, rather than extortionate market dealing, could wreck AMD's edge and turn all their forward-thinking investment into a Sisyphean debt load.
If you look at Intel today... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where Intel is focusing, and that's where Intel wants their customers to focus. I bet 80486 sales dried up pretty badly right before the Pentium launched too.
Re:If you look at Intel today... (Score:3, Insightful)
AMD currently has a lot of momentum though, when the Core2 is a huge success, it will take some time for people to realize it, and perhaps give enough time for AMD to come back with a better chip.
Well Duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am also surprised that it has taken Intel so long to realize this. Even today, they are still flogging the P4 architecture. With the Duo Core CPU's out, you can't even buy this as a desktop system yet, and they are set to release the Duo Core 2 CPU's later this year. Intel should have scrubbed ALL products with the P4 architecture and simply moved forward to their Core architecture.
Anyways, I will once again be an interesting time in the CPU market as Intel releases their next generation products. Initial reviews seem positive that Intel has something that can compete against AMD, and this will only motivate AMD to produce new technology (AMD has been stuck in a rut as of late). A price war is necessary as CPU prices are staying far to high these days as neither company has really been in competitive form. AMD has locked the gaming market and Intel has the business market locked, these are two non-competing markets, and both companies have pretty much set their price lists accordingly.
I don't care who makes the next best CPU, I am neither an Intel nor AMD fanboy, I want a system that performs well for the money. Its been AMD for the last 5 years and if Intel finally puts their money where their mouth is and actually delivers a product that offers good price/performance/power features, I will switch back to the Intel platform. Just, its about time Intel started focusing on RELEASING their next generation architecture to the masses and stop talking about it.
Re:Marketshare (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, useful competition simply means having someone nipping at your heels. One does not have to be neck and neck with a competitor to spur innovation.
they also made their customer the enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Objects telling their OWNERS they refuse (this is more than just software suggesting that an action may be a violation of law) to do something because they think it might be illegal and secretly send private info to a mothership. What kind of BS is that? Clearly only fools would buy such a device unless they hadn't other options. And intel misbetted that customers had other options.
It's basically untrusted computing
Unfortunately AMD is buying into this BS too.
I really hope it was Microsoft that pressured them to do it. Not that it's a worthy excuse.
I'm not going to be surprised when all software has expiry dates and hardware plain refuses to run it after it's "expired". And software will of course demand that the latest newest hardware be installed. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. For safety reasons, of course.
No, the problem is marketing chips (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real problem is that Intel is accustomed to a market where you sell specific processor brands direct to consumers, which is crazy. In a world where a $500 PC is going to be able to do 99.9 percent of anything that the average home user wants to do, that home user doesn't give a rat's ass what kind of processor is in there. Pentium M, Celeron M, Core 38 Double-D ... who cares? If their friend tells them AMD is a little better, then fine, they're going to buy AMD. Either way, all the same. All the shiny Intel Inside stickers in the world aren't going to make a bit of difference.
People see an Intel commercial on TV and they tune it out. A guy in a weird space suit? OK, whatever.
Gamers still care what kind of chip is in there, but gamers also have the option of consoles. Plus, the CPU matters a lot but the video card is the really sexy component for them. On the other hand, people who run servers might care about CPUs, but those kind of people are going to want to see real-world benchmarks.
Intel needs to get over it ... and it is getting over it. Notice how Apple Macs all have Intel chips in them now. Dumb luck? I doubt it. Intel made the kind of deal it needs to keep making to stay on target, deals that are based on a simple old-fashioned idea: You're a component manufacturer. Sell components to manufacturers of consumer goods and let the consumer-goods manufacturers do the selling to consumers. If your product delivers the performance the manufacturer needs with a good integrated suite of products around it (e.g. chipsets, drivers, compilers) at a price point that the manufacturer can afford, then the manufacturer will buy your components.
In a way, the last thing Intel needs is semi-informed consumers starting flamewars over this component vs. that component, Brand X versus Brand Y. A lot of the engineering decisions that get made in the CPU world aren't things that can be easily explained to consumers, so what you end up with is a bunch of FUD and name-calling. Intel's better off receding into the background and letting its engineering do the talking (if it's still got it).
Re:No, the problem is marketing chips (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, the problem is marketing chips (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not a price war, more likely fire sale (Score:2, Insightful)
The price cuts probably have little to do with competitve reasons and are more likely operational.
Oops, just relized the pun. Funny anyway.
Why Buy Now (Score:4, Insightful)
And seriously folks, why would you buy a 32-bit only, non-VT enabled, hot running, substantially slower Intel chip today if you can possibly delay until Conroe comes out?
Heck, even if you don't want a Conroe Core 2 Duo 64-bit VT chip, the prices on the old stuff are going to drop through the floor. Golly, they're already through the floor. How about drop to the center of the Earth.
An Intel PC -- including all Macs -- is just not a good buy today with the next generation so close at hand.
Re:This will change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intel is a victim of success (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I think the problem at Intel was they innovated too much and in the wrong direction. They poured billions in to Itanium and its horrible for any volume market, its really only good in the tiny supercomputing niche. They really took their eye of the commodity market, where their profits come from, fiddling with that monster.
They also innovated too much on Pentium 4 and it ended up with an excessively complex, hot expensive processor that didn't perform well, and its not good for most things people need CPU's for today.
AMD focused on adding 64 bit support, without breaking IA32 support like Itanium did, and building fast, simple, cheap CPU's and thats what people want. A number of AMD's generations of are incremental improvements and refinements of a fairly old design and not really that innovative aside from the x86_64 instruction set.
I think Intel's problem in recent years, like the last 10 years on Itanium, was just bad strategic direction and the blame falls ultimately on their chief executive during that period, though he no doubt received some bad advice from the people under him.
Its not like Intel's huge missteps permanently damaged them though. The beauty of being a monopoly is you can completely screw the pooch and still make money hand over fist for a long time.
Re:Intel is a victim of success (Score:3, Insightful)
No. And that is part of the problem.
I for one am enjoying it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah intel (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, the problem is marketing chips (Score:3, Insightful)
As an aside to this, most companies I've work for would get a better return on their investment if they spent (more) money on training people in basic computer skills, than on buying shiny new computers. I think over the years Joe Sixpack has acquired a little more computer savvy, but not in proportion to the power of today's hardware. Alas, hardware is sexy and training is not!
Intel's processor sales DID NOT drop 52% (Score:2, Insightful)
"After Intel stuffed the channels with chips in February and March, the floor fell out in April, and [PC processor] sales dropped 52 percent year-on-year," he added.
So, this looks bad for AMD as well