Opinion: Did Intel just break my glasses?

3/1/2012 2:40 PM EST

This is a very well argued opinion piece. If anyone on our staff who has followed WSTS, SIA numbers closely over years, it's Peter.

We heard from some of you -- but silence on this topic from the industry is deafening.

I don't think Peter is alone who feels like his own glasses being smashed.

3/1/2012 3:33 PM EST

Well said, Peter. But I think it's important to re-state that Intel left the WSTS program only after AMD did. With AMD out, Intel almost had to follow suit. Otherwise, the actual MPU data presented would be just Intel, and Intel may well be understandably uncomfortable putting out this much naked data.

I do hope that both companies will reconsider their position on participation. Otherwise, I agree that it's a real shame.

3/2/2012 3:08 PM EST

Presumably they decided there was no return on their investment in these market information programs.
Time for the data-gatherers to regroup and reassess their product.

3/3/2012 10:02 AM EST

I think analysts will enjoy this decision...value of their services will increase...Kris

3/4/2012 12:40 PM EST

Are these services are still useful to any companies to make future decisions or investing in right technologies. I believe the technology is matured to a level where there is not much help due to sharing of information.

3/5/2012 12:59 AM EST

Probably the companies feel unsafe to them or they feel that their growth is effected because of the data released, the competition intensified and it is not healthy.

3/5/2012 11:15 AM EST

I'd guess that the trend of these decisions likely has created pressure for the black market of information to expand. There is someone with a lot of money who wants the information, and someone without a lot of money who has the information. There may be legal sanctions against the transfer of information, but the level of punishment and the odds of getting caught do not usually seem high enough to prevent the transfer (though there are some exceptions to this). Ethics principles are too diverse or weak to consistently prevent transfer (if one person with the information has qualms, just find someone else). I imagine we might see a shadow of this kind of under-the-table information transfer in operation when we hear of amazingly consistent foresight at work in the marketplace.

3/5/2012 11:22 AM EST

Information is power and companies have every right to withhold it if they can gain a competitive advantage as a result. Of course, it's not good news for us, but times are tough and I can understand the temptation. I guess some form of information sharing will re-emerge at some stage in the future when the market stabilises.

3/5/2012 12:05 PM EST

Why is it not good news for us @KB3001? I think it gives us some room to chat, blog, speculate, and maybe even make some money in the process of offering our consulting services ;-)....Kris

3/7/2012 2:58 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

3/7/2012 11:57 AM EST

This type of market data is very valuable from a competitive intelligence perspective. Perhaps we are finally seeing a recognition that this data does too much to help the competition.

3/7/2012 12:31 PM EST

To @Mike Bruzzone, what is wrong with Intel "Intel strategy is to push through molecular at process saturation so they own quantum on long time monopoly gaming"? Many start-up and large companies are looking at quantum computing, if I had a great idea in this space I would had started my own company and hope to be acquired by Intel one day(Unfortunately I don't)...this seems natural to me, Kris
P.s Quantum computing is probably 20-30 years from being commercially useful

3/8/2012 2:56 AM EST

Kris - Intel took lead from IBM @ .35, pushed through nodes since & took on 300 mm. So what’s wrong with Intel taking major R&D burden? PC MPU where I hail Intel also takes majority profit. By artificially throttling supply into broker mkt relieving foundry from surplus cost greater than real time PC demand. Intel produces roughly 2x MPU demand & 1/3 are priced less than Intel cost. This strategy takes development, sales & jobs from my prior employer’s; Cyrix, NexGen, AMD, IDT, ARM & licensees in future? This is one way Intel monopolizes. Lacking this tactic Moore’s axiom is 4 years. Industry w/longer cycles; all have opportunity to make $ today to pay for R&D tomorrow. Reason Moore’s law sustains 18-24 month cycles is surplus production relieved from inventory on tactics of structured market rigging. Otherwise Moore’s axiom is not economically achievable. Concentration effects with w/Moore have devastated domestic semi & compute industries. On Rocks Law process economic opportunity of trickle down from Intel RSIK development is a myth.

Too respond to query. Ok, you’re a band of developers & hit it big in molecular moving to quantum; rare but possible. Outside new materials for memories where there are start ups, most are research institutions or large enterprise labs. In these environments IP is everything and Intel will steal it. There are numerous examples; starts up, mid caps, universities. In this environment never hire from Intel; relations remain. Recruiters will fill you up. BOD issues too. For BizDev & mkting, media channels, ad & PR agents are IP transfer bridges. They’re paid by Intel in business opportunities. Have people you trust. For large design houses working with Intel there is an exchange system; trade your leading IP for Intel sustaining your current business. Many have played this game and most have lost. If you can commercialize perhaps Intel will buy. Most Intel purchases are beyond design expertise. Good luck.