Blog
Comment
Bruzzer
KB3001
That would be a good compromise Bill, but what about a legal requirement to ...
Hoping Intel, AMD will reconsider exiting WSTS
Bill McClean
2/29/2012 4:05 PM EST
I believe that the beginning of this "situation" starts with AMD. Once it pulled out of WSTS, it left Intel "exposed" in the database, especially for MPUs. With almost the entire MPU segment comprised of Intel and AMD, without AMD, the WSTS data would essentially be a reflection of Intel's exact MPU sales data, including monthly unit volume shipments and average selling prices (ASPs). I believe this is where the heart of the matter lies, not so much with the monthly MPU sales data in dollars, since Intel reports its MPU sales on a quarterly basis, but with the unit volume and ASP detail! Typically, companies are not too concerned with the public knowing its sales revenue but are much less open when it comes to the public knowing its unit volume shipments, and as a result, its ASP information.
A similar situation happened within WSTS in 2004. With Xilinx and Altera holding greater than 90% of the marketshare for PLDs, WSTS merged the PLD category with the standard cell category. The result of this was to "mask" the details of PLD unit volume shipments and ASPs (as well as masking the standard cell shipment details). While the PLD and standard cell data is now less precise that it was previously, at least it is still included in the database.
Going further back in time, it was 1998 when WSTS stopped reporting the bookings (i.e., orders) for semiconductors. I believe that Intel was one of the primary movers behind this change as well as it became uncomfortable with its monthly orders for MPUs being so public, especially when it was oftentimes used by stock analysts to give a favorable or unfavorable rating to a company.
I believe that WSTS needs to approach Intel and AMD to see if something can be worked out. Maybe the two companies could report into WSTS on a quarterly basis. Another option may be to offer to merge the application processor segment, which is now included as part of the special purpose logic category, with the MPU segment. Thus, similar to what happened with merging the standard cell and PLD category, the unit volume and ASP data for MPUs would not be so attributable to Intel. Once again, a loss of detail would occur but the WSTS database would at least still be able to include the data in the total.
I do hope something can be worked out in order to keep the integrity of the WSTS data and comparisons with historical trends intact.
Bill McClean is president of market research firm IC Insights Inc. and a veteran of the semiconductor industry for more than 30 years.
A similar situation happened within WSTS in 2004. With Xilinx and Altera holding greater than 90% of the marketshare for PLDs, WSTS merged the PLD category with the standard cell category. The result of this was to "mask" the details of PLD unit volume shipments and ASPs (as well as masking the standard cell shipment details). While the PLD and standard cell data is now less precise that it was previously, at least it is still included in the database.
Going further back in time, it was 1998 when WSTS stopped reporting the bookings (i.e., orders) for semiconductors. I believe that Intel was one of the primary movers behind this change as well as it became uncomfortable with its monthly orders for MPUs being so public, especially when it was oftentimes used by stock analysts to give a favorable or unfavorable rating to a company.
I believe that WSTS needs to approach Intel and AMD to see if something can be worked out. Maybe the two companies could report into WSTS on a quarterly basis. Another option may be to offer to merge the application processor segment, which is now included as part of the special purpose logic category, with the MPU segment. Thus, similar to what happened with merging the standard cell and PLD category, the unit volume and ASP data for MPUs would not be so attributable to Intel. Once again, a loss of detail would occur but the WSTS database would at least still be able to include the data in the total.
I do hope something can be worked out in order to keep the integrity of the WSTS data and comparisons with historical trends intact.
Bill McClean is president of market research firm IC Insights Inc. and a veteran of the semiconductor industry for more than 30 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
KB3001
3/5/2012 11:27 AM EST
That would be a good compromise Bill, but what about a legal requirement to report such data in some form or another? Far fetched?
Sign in to Reply
Bruzzer
3/7/2012 2:44 AM EST
AMD & Intel pull data?
AMD losing share blowing antitrust case. Knows Intel market rigging and model for determining supply into future time.
Intel’s gaining share. Does not want to attract attention surpassing 81% including embedded.
Last time I observed such silencing 1989. Computer Supplier’s ad spend went dark in CRN. Right before Intel Inside morphed into metered price discrimination.
Intel expansion toward foundry seems another reason likely urgent.
Discontinuous memory innovation is a concern. Micron is a more efficient fabricator. Yet this leading memory, materials, fabrication aspect at inflection of physics goes beyond Micron.
Some picked up WSTS to project Intel revenue; since 1997. SEC is investigating use of analytics.
Intel supply data is used for projecting procurement of product routes for margin values into future time. So at inflection point in physics why doesn’t Intel want to report data?
Masking data makes Intel hard to see. Except for those who own a pair of special glasses which is the quantitative model. Not having WSTS data will not stop savvy QUANTA players on their investment in Intel analytics.
Intel foundry targets a physical space others
have been competing at for a long time. For Intel to leap frog on 20 years monopolization speaks poorly for industrial social values and democratic capitalism.
I'm for Intel expanding their business. So long as Intel does not anoint, step on, infringe, limit, restrain, shift revenue among those who invest organically on best practices to compete there.
So the big challenge is not AMD and Intel report to WSTS, but defining how to govern, regulate command, control, monitor INTEL as process saturates to new competitive potentials.
Intel strategy is to push through molecular at process saturation so they own quantum on long time monopoly gaming. That can't happen. It would destroy what's meant to come naturally.
Mike Bruzzone
Sign in to Reply