That was probably Jobs main strength... an almost total lack of nostalgia. He just moved on, no matter how many people it annoyed.
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.
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger Retires Amid Company's Decline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[ increasingly off-topic below ]
Yep. There's that famous OpenDoc clip where someone is (understandably) upset that Jobs killed off the technology. But his reasoning made sense. We'll never know how the counterfactual would've played out, but odds are Jobs was right; OpenDoc wasn't exactly gaining momentum, and Apple wasn't in a position change that — neither financially, nor in terms of mindshare. Big software companies weren't asking, "how does Apple feel about this?". And Jobs's guideline of "do not start with the technology; start with the user experience, then choose a technology to improve it" is as sound today as it was back then.
(On top of that, similar technologies like OLE ended up not taking the world by storm either! The entire idea that users would want to compose a document from multiple apps was mostly an engineering pipe dream.
And in fact, we saw a shift not much later, where Apple started to move from a document-centric UX to a shoebox UX, such as in iTunes and iPhoto, and even more starkly in iOS, where you always start with an app, and the documents are secondary, if they exist at all.)
That was a great article. Thanks!
It seemed like they repeatedly critiqued his arrogance, though, so that doesn't remind me of Jobs at all!
It seemed to me like Jobs mellowed somewhat over the years, but when I think more of it, he was best at killing off failing projects that weren't his, but rather good at picking winners. There were a few of his his own concepts that hung around longer than he would have probably let stand for others... iPod Hifi and G4 Cube come to mind. But I guess those are false memories due to the number of comments, as I just checked and it appears that the Hifi only lasted a year and a half, while the Cube was only a year (and I wish they would bring a non-cracking Cube version out now, as I always regretted not getting one and it could actually be awesome with Apple Silicon.)
Yeah, I recall OLE being fun, as you would double click on an object and wait a minute for it to open in its native application. I think they were a couple of decades ahead of the technology, so it would be interesting to try with hardware that is probably now fast enough to make the experience at least hopefully feel usable.
I had CodeWarrior and a few Apple Dev Kits during the OpenDoc period and I couldn't even tell what direction they wanted you to go. It felt like there were so many different SDKs that I wasn't sure where to start and it seemed like they couldn't pick a lane... which I guess turned out to not be (just) a me issue.
It seemed like they repeatedly critiqued his arrogance, though, so that doesn't remind me of Jobs at all!
Heh, yes.
Yeah. Those were clearly to things that he personally liked, but that didn't work for the business; they might work better today, now that Apple has a lot more bandwidth to do minor things on the side.
But also, they stand out because they were the exceptions rather than the norm. Gelsinger was CEO for three years; if we look at the first three years of Jobs, he launched things like the iMac and the PowerBook G4. The launch of Mac OS X was delayed multiple times, and there were a few misses, but overall, he did a stellar job turning the company around in part by demonstrating what it stands for (the iMac), and what it doesn't (the Macintosh Performa 6220CD, Europe-only).
What's memorable about Gelsinger's three years? Lunar Lake is a decent iteration, but it just isn't a huge deal; it lags behind Apple M4. Arc and Xe don't seem to be finding any customers that care. Raptor Lake fights a major bug on desktop.
It's still around; you can add an Excel spreadsheet inside a Word document, double-click it and suddenly get Excel's toolbars inside Word. The user experience is just about as awkward as that sounds. It also feels very much like, when you leave Excel, the result sort of gets rendered as an image.
It can be done, and has its usefulness, but it's not great.
Yep. There was this vague idea of applications that would focus on hosting components; I think OpenDoc called those containers?
So if you take a DTP setup, perhaps Quark XPress could be a container. And then Excel could be a component in it, and Word another. Or you could mix and match vendors. Which is similar to OLE, although OpenDoc was on paper more powerful.
Which brings up another big issue: vendors looked at this as a threat.
Everyone already knew Intel was in trouble. They spent a decade trying to get past 10nm. That wasn't NEW news - the market already absorbed this information and it doesn't explain the sharp divergence in 2020+. COVID doesn't explain the divergence in 2020. The only thing significant event in 2020 that I'm aware of is Apple moving to TSMC, which is exactly what the initial chart showed.
Except the divergence began months before Apple actually switched and even months before they announced the switch, as even you pointed out:
If you zero a comparison chart at a date, it will naturally begin to diverge from that date, as that is just how it works.
But, sure, Apple leaving didn't help Intel.
Interesting counterpoint from today:
Intel on the Brink of Death | Culture Rot, Product Focus Flawed, Foundry Must Survive
Intel’s board is incompetent and its horrible decisions over the decades are going to push it towards death. The decision to fire Pat Gelsinger, put in charge a CFO + career sales and marketing lea…
semianalysis.com
I personally believe the USA needs at least one highest tech foundry, and that was Intel's best bet. A fabless Intel might work, but seems wrong to me.
Stock prices move in advance, often based on rumor or insider involvement (I don't mean to say insider trading, I mean industry insiders). That's why I wrote that "some" people had figured it out already. That's the whole point of my initial post - industry insiders were already aware of what was coming.
Sure, explaining a timeline not actually lining up can always be attributed to "somebody knew something" because this is the internet and conspiracies are fun. Since the only significant event in 2020 that you say you are aware of is Apple moving to TSMC, I guess that would make complete sense to you, but as it was only 4 years ago it seems really amazing that anyone could forget what 2020 was actually like, as it had a lot of significant events... far more than most years, including:
2020–2023 global chip shortage - Wikipedia
But sure, insiders involvement is the obvious way to explain why two stocks would diverge on a comparison chart, because goodness knows that isn't normal.
Just for reference, here is Intel to AMD for that same 5 year period chart.
Intel Corp (INTC) Stock Price & News - Google Finance
Get the latest Intel Corp (INTC) real-time quote, historical performance, charts, and other financial information to help you make more informed trading and investment decisions.
www.google.com
Sure, explaining a timeline not actually lining up can always be attributed to "somebody knew something" because this is the internet and conspiracies are fun. Since the only significant event in 2020 that you say you are aware of is Apple moving to TSMC, I guess that would make complete sense to you, but as it was only 4 years ago it seems really amazing that anyone could forget what 2020 was actually like, as it had a lot of significant events... far more than most years, including:
2020–2023 global chip shortage - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But sure, insiders involvement is the obvious way to explain why two stocks would diverge on a comparison chart, because goodness knows that isn't normal.
Just for reference, here is Intel to AMD for that same 5 year period chart.
View attachment 2460910
Intel Corp (INTC) Stock Price & News - Google Finance
Get the latest Intel Corp (INTC) real-time quote, historical performance, charts, and other financial information to help you make more informed trading and investment decisions.
No, it's not a conspiracy, that's how stocks actually move. People in the industry begin accumulating / selling shares, sometimes years in advance. I began my career as an equity analyst at a bulge bracket bank and I had seen our institutional clients move into businesses years before the financial press understood what was happening. I work in clean tech doing similar work and this is actually amplified in this space, for other reasons.
Regarding the INTC-AMD chart you linked above, I think that's the market rewarding AMD for making the right choice by spinning off their foundry biz. I know the sale was much before that but given TSMC's success, the market rewarded AMD at the expense of INTC, during the COVIC boom. Again, I think.
Could there be another reason for the divergence between INTC and AAPL since 2020? Sure, could be. But I know it's not PC shipments, as you stated, since COVID gave everyone a bump. In my opinion, it's people anticipating Apple Silicon.
Actually, I said the divergence was just how a comparison chart normally diverges from the zero date. Some will be different, but most that do quite well (AMD/Apple/Microsoft) will pull away fairly rapidly from a stock doing poorly like Intel. The ones that won't resemble that are either also doing fairly poorly or incredibly well (Nvidia).
My comment that manufacturing issues during COVID was probably Intel's major concern in 2020 was just in response to your comment that Apple leaving was the "main thing that Intel was worried about in 2020".
Here is the 6 month Intel/Apple chart that obviously shows most people only discovered the Apple Silicon transition in August of this year.
You are entitled to whatever view fits your investment thesis. It need not be aligned with mine.
Regarding your last comment - that's pretty funny. Unfortunately for you, there's no significant event that occurred around the release date of Apple Silicon in 2020 that would explain the chart that I posted. And as I said in my initial reply to you, the divergence may indeed have occurred even earlier; I don't rule out that possibility.
Last edited:
My chart showed Intel still selling more than AMD CPUs. But the gap is shrinking.
My view is a bit different to most here, but I haven't read that article as it might have coloured my view.
Which is that a company that gets its technology reverse engineered and then has to compete with that other company, is always going to be in trouble. Businesses get profits from two big sources: in demand innovation, or a monopoly. Apple has established a monopoly by being a niche player, with a closed door "eco system". And I doubt it would have survived but for Microsoft assisting it after settling with Apple over the Windows wars.
But Microsoft did not protect Intel, and they could have. Microsoft's encouragement of Qualcomm is just a recent example of Microsoft's disdain for companies that effectually built Microsoft. So Intel has always been in trouble. Jut look at Thunderbolt and Intel's investments in USB - which many players incorporate without paying any licenses for. Also Intel has been tied to keeping architecture that many players are dependent on in business with historical software.
Another issue is basic strategic competition - a player like AMD gets large profits from GPUs which Intel has not competed with. And such GPU super profits allow AMD to be price competitive with Intel, AMD can sell CPUS cheaper due to GPU profits. AMD can also spend those super profits on more R&D into x86 - a process which Intel cannot defend because it cannot attack AMD's GPU's super profits.
Intel's Ultra ain't bad IMO with some clear strengths from what I have seen. And if AMD bought Intel, they'd get that X86 monopoly. But still within the control of M$.
My view is a bit different to most here, but I haven't read that article as it might have coloured my view.
Which is that a company that gets its technology reverse engineered and then has to compete with that other company, is always going to be in trouble. Businesses get profits from two big sources: in demand innovation, or a monopoly. Apple has established a monopoly by being a niche player, with a closed door "eco system". And I doubt it would have survived but for Microsoft assisting it after settling with Apple over the Windows wars.
But Microsoft did not protect Intel, and they could have. Microsoft's encouragement of Qualcomm is just a recent example of Microsoft's disdain for companies that effectually built Microsoft. So Intel has always been in trouble. Jut look at Thunderbolt and Intel's investments in USB - which many players incorporate without paying any licenses for. Also Intel has been tied to keeping architecture that many players are dependent on in business with historical software.
Another issue is basic strategic competition - a player like AMD gets large profits from GPUs which Intel has not competed with. And such GPU super profits allow AMD to be price competitive with Intel, AMD can sell CPUS cheaper due to GPU profits. AMD can also spend those super profits on more R&D into x86 - a process which Intel cannot defend because it cannot attack AMD's GPU's super profits.
Intel's Ultra ain't bad IMO with some clear strengths from what I have seen. And if AMD bought Intel, they'd get that X86 monopoly. But still within the control of M$.
Last edited:
The thought that there were no significant events between that divergence date of Apr 24, 2020 you originally highlighted and the Nov 2020 release date of the AS Macs is beyond unfortunate, almost unbelievable. 2020 was obviously a boring year for everyone.
My original post was simply trying to point out that the start date zeroing of comparison charts actually skews the visual comparison, as it seemed like you didn't realize that. Since you have since indicated you were once an equity analyst, I expect you actually do realize this and simply prefer not to care, because it suits your hypothesis. So at this point we are practically arguing faith. Anyway, stay well.
What other significant events relating to Intel and Apple occurred in 2020? You haven't provided any reasonable examples. You claimed COVID may be the cause, despite PC shipments actually increasing. How absurd?
I addressed your concern in my initial response to you. I told you that you can take a wider look and formulate a different cause-effect relationship. You can make these technical arguments about using different time periods but context is key.
I don't follow INTC and I haven't done any significant analysis on AAPL since they stopped reporting unit sales.
Again you ignore the fact that I never said anything about sales during COVID, I specifically said manufacturing. Intel was already having manufacturing issues, but they seemed to accelerate in 2020. What I find absurd is your apparent denial of the global chip shortage situation that made the news daily. There were manufacturing issues for all CPU manufacturers in 2020, so I expect all those manufacturers felt that the shutdown was a threat, but Intel was already having manufacturing issues and seemed to fall even further behind TSMC at that time. Intel even revealed they were going to use TSMC for some of their manufacturing that summer, which would have had the same kind of psychological damage to their brand as Apple leaving.
But, sure, just keep repeating that Apple leaving was the only major thing that occurred in 2020.
Right... manufacturing issues that would result in what? Higher sales? You obvious have a very, very narrow idea that the time period that I posted was not indicative of any deviation between the two stocks. As I already told you, you can have whatever opinion you want to explain the behavior. No one knows the exact date when the two stocks decoupled. The best you can do is try to find out via the chart what the market collectively is thinking. I am not a semiconductor analyst and you sure aren't either if you think PC shipments declined during COVID.
Manufacturing issues that would result in Intel being stuck on older process. Manufacturing issues that would result in Intel having to pay TSMC to manufacture chips for them. Manufacturing issues that would result in Intel being questioned as a premier manufacturer.
If you think I claimed PC shipments declined during COVID, you having issues reading text, too.
What I'm having issues with is understanding why you are so fixated on trying to prove that Apple Silicon's release in 2020 is not the cause of any divergence between INTC and AAPL? It's not like my post was some thesis on stock market efficiency, despite your ignorance on the forward-looking nature of markets. In fact, I wrote in my initial reply to you that I don't disagree with your conclusion, that is if you chose a different time period, you can formulate a different justification.
But discounting Apple Silicon is quite literally looking beyond the obvious. Everyone knew prior to 2020 that Intel was having difficulty progressing beyond 14nm. I don't even know how many times they pushed back their 10nm roadmap. I believe (emphasis on believe because there could be another explanation) that the release of Apple Silicon in 2020 was the final nail in Intel's coffin and it shows in the initial chart that I uploaded. Apple Silicon showed that ARM was not just for iPhones and iPads and I think that was the beginning of the end of Intel.
I don't understand why this is so contentious for you but can you expand the timeline to showcase the market anticipating headwinds for INTC by comparing AMD & TSMC performance? Yes, and again, I don't think that's wrong.
I have no problem agreeing that Apple moving away from Intel had SOME affect on Intel (and even a rather major effect), I simply take issue with your assertion that it was the only reason Intel was dropping during that period. The issue I have is that you seem to think that that the two stocks were decoupled, while the simple truth is that they were never coupled in the first place:
I never claimed it was the only reason. I literally just linked my initial response to you and I reiterated just now that other explanations are valid:
This is absolutely delusional. First you falsely claim that I believe only my explanation is correct. And now here you are showing me your humility by stating that the "simple truth" is that the two stocks were never coupled. Have a look at the rate of change for AAPL in 2020. Do you see a steepening of the slope of AAPL compared to INTC? Yah, that's the two decoupling! Something started happening around 2020, when the market began rewarding AAPL much more than INTC. You can literally see a stronger correlation prior to 2020 and that's gone today. In fact, the correlation looks to be positive and after 2020, it actually turned negative, which is the definition of decoupling.
Last edited:
I guess the question now is - what's next for Intel?
They missed mobile, they missed AI, they lost Apple as a customer, and windows users are increasingly indifferent between it and other alternatives like AMD. Short of acting as a hedge by the US against a possible invasion of Taiwan by China, does Intel even have a reason to exist anymore? 🤔
They missed mobile, they missed AI, they lost Apple as a customer, and windows users are increasingly indifferent between it and other alternatives like AMD. Short of acting as a hedge by the US against a possible invasion of Taiwan by China, does Intel even have a reason to exist anymore? 🤔
Okay, with that chart, while I would still say they had already diverged by 2015, it charts a long enough period that I will fully agree with you that the major increase in divergence in 2020 is not simply amplified by the start point, which was my main problem with the original chart. Good chart! As Gelsinger didn't even rejoin Intel until 2021, it's not like that period can be blamed on him.
As you say, I was indeed under the impression that you seemed to believe the only reason for the 2020 divergence was Apple's switch away from Intel, since you had earlier stated you couldn't think of any other reason. My mistake.