Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Incoming Intel CEO Derides Company's Inability to 'Deliver Better Products' Than Apple's M1 Chip
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All successful companies evolve in this way. They are started by forward looking founders who concentrate on the product. Eventually, if they grow big enough to gain the attention of Wall Street, they enter the middle age of MBA-ism, installing a CEO who has quarterly reports as his important goal rather than specs or customers. The list of evolved companies is endless. IBM, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, Folgers... And yes, eventually Apple will get a new CEO who will bellow in a meeting, "Why are we spending good money on this fancy packaging? Put whatever it is that we sell in a plain cardboard box and ship it!"
You insult yourself, Intel. You've been defeated by a lifestyle company. You're held captive by a lifestyle company. Perhaps you'll be killed by a lifestyle company.
The closest stat I could find was from 2014, where Intel sold 700 million CPUs. Even assuming that overall increase in market size is offset by ARM competitors, that's still over 2x what Apple is shipping right now.
I interpreted this differently than most. I see this as a call to arms. Intel has become complacent. And the “lifestyle company” comment is meant to highlight that fact. A seasoned technology company is losing to a consumer electronics company entering a relatively new field. That’s not a slight at Apple; it’s acknowledging their extraordinary achievements, really. Why isn’t Intel making money moves just like them?
I think competition is good. The M1 machine I own is fantastic, but I do worry about the potential lack of competition. Intel can be the viable alternative if they wake up, and I think that we as consumers can only benefit from that.
I wish him all the best and I hope to see an Intel more in touch with reality. That, however, is going to require humility on their part.
I think competition is good. The M1 machine I own is fantastic, but I do worry about the potential lack of competition. Intel can be the viable alternative if they wake up, and I think that we as consumers can only benefit from that.
I wish him all the best and I hope to see an Intel more in touch with reality. That, however, is going to require humility on their part.
He's not deriding them; he is saying that they have to be so good, that they are better than Apple - it's a bank-handed compliment. What else could he say in reality...be better than the best.
Intel Inside used to be a badge of honor. Now it's just an apology sticker attached to Windows PC's.
Why? They simply have to proceed as planned.
This was rather meant as motivational speed for the Intel staff. I would be quite surprised if it creates a lot of interest at Apple, because they know how far ahead they are in this game.
Interesting reply. I hope it does motivate them and look forward to seeing what they can put out in coming years. I'm on 2017 MBP i5 and really want the M1 but I am gonna wait another year or two.
It's all well and good saying they can do so much more. He might want to recognise that Apple is an engineering behemoth or else he'd continue to under-estimate the competition and get creamed like his predecessors.
Intel is also a lifestyle company. It’s just that the lifestyle is “nerds who think it’s fun to watercool and play with jumpers.”
Not so sure; seems plenty on here are discounting Intel like they say Intel [and Nokia, Microsoft & Blackberry etc], discounted Apple. Plenty on here were banging the nails into Microsoft's coffin a few years ago, now look where they are. It doesn't take long to get your act together, once you have accepted the issues & problems [Nokia & Blackberry never accepted the issues existed, so never set out to solve them]
Pat, imo, is anything but out of touch.
Intel will wind up by Apple's m1 for lunch and Apple won't even know it. Don't get me wrong, Apple produces outstanding silicon, but the comment doesn't reflect the reality of the new CEO.
100% agree - you have to adapt and occasionally have a S Jobs moment and re-focus (as he did when he returned to Apple).
I was surprised reading the comments. M1 chips are great, but just don't brag about the engineering prowess of a company not being able to deliver usable keyboards for 4 years.
But Apple are not a engineering behemoth. they physically make nothing for themselves and so always rely on others' expertise, engineering and manufacturing, something Intel don't have to do unless they choose to; Apple has no choice but to use their engineering [no doubt world-class] in combination with others. This supposed behemoth only pumps out half a dozen incremental upgrades a year, and perhaps something more substantial every 3 years.
I think it’s odd because it’s an ”old style” way to rally the troops. Apple’s CPU designers likely didn’t have a “WE HAVE TO BEAT INTEL” drumbeat, they just focused on the core principles of chip design, worked closely with the hardware and software guys and, almost by accident, found the remaining bites of Intel’s lunch settling nicely in their tummies.
I think a fundamental question for Intel is whether their falling position in the chip market is due to their inability to design better chips, or is it due to their inability to manufacture those designs. All we ever hear is that they're behind on manufacturing. But as long as those two processes, design and manufacture, are under the same roof, each can/will blame the other.
I'd like to see Intel split into two businesses, one that designs chips and one that builds chips. That would be an effective way of forcing each to compete on their own merits. The build-side could sell their manufacturing services to any company, including Intel's design-side. Conversely, the design-side could engage any company, including Intel's build-side, to build their chips. The competition between the two sides of the business, and their respective competition in the market place might finally solve the riddle of how to deliver new products that aren't already years behind the competition by the time they make it to market.
I'd like to see Intel split into two businesses, one that designs chips and one that builds chips. That would be an effective way of forcing each to compete on their own merits. The build-side could sell their manufacturing services to any company, including Intel's design-side. Conversely, the design-side could engage any company, including Intel's build-side, to build their chips. The competition between the two sides of the business, and their respective competition in the market place might finally solve the riddle of how to deliver new products that aren't already years behind the competition by the time they make it to market.
Yup, they certainly dropped that product.
Keynote still exceeds PowerPoint and is orders of magnitude better than Google Slides.
Pages is easier to use than Word (and, although not as powerful, hits 85% of what people do). It is also better than Google Docs.
Numbers is perfectly fine for most basic spreadsheets (Excel far exceeds it capabilities, but very few people need is functionality). It is also better than Google Sheets.
It is too bad that Apple has not spent more energy pushing it as a competitor to Google’s G-Suite. It would be nice to have a real competitor there.
Not sure on what basis you say that, but it is used by millions of professionals and still sells quite well. Since you seem to have missed it, I will also note that Logic is also very powerful and popular for music production (including live sound).
Fortunately for you, there are options. Whether that be a ChromeBook, a Microsoft Windows system, or the mythical Linux desktop, you have choices and if you are unhappy with Apple’s ecosystem, you should vote with your dollars and switch.