Intel Cancels Digital TV Chip Market - What Next?

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:19:28 -0500, Ed wrote:

http://olympics.reuters.com/audi/new...ryID=6576 456


So what does this mean to Canon who has recently announced LCoS projectors?
Is there another mfr of LCoS chips... or is it possible that the technology
has serious flaws? If it is any good as a solution, surely someone else
would be interested in the IP?

Intel is also giving up on their digital TV chip(s). I said, a while back,
that this was a big mistake for them to get involved in such
consumer-oriented devices.

Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is floundering -
just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the new guy (is it
Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder what the stock-holders
think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking these
days.shrug

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:


Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is floundering -
just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the new guy (is it
Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder what the stock-holders
think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.


_Wall_Street_Journal_ running an item about corporations holding an
unusually large amount of cash as a percentage of long-term debt: a sign
they have no really good idea of what to do with it other than to park
it somewhere to let someone else try to do something with it.

Intel not floundering, just turning into General Motors? Probably not
that bad. Big deal from the analysts this year about a 1 point drop in
Intel's "closely-watched" gross margin. Tough to be bold under that
kind of microscope. Better to stagnate than to screw up big time, I guess.

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking these
days.shrug


Economic activity moving into areas that involve moving bits rather than
materiel makes alot of sense with oil at $50/bbl. Whether there's money
in it for Intel or not, who would know?

RM

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:12:31 GMT, Robert Myers
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:


Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is floundering -
just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the new guy (is it
Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder what the stock-holders
think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.


_Wall_Street_Journal_ running an item about corporations holding an
unusually large amount of cash as a percentage of long-term debt: a sign
they have no really good idea of what to do with it other than to park
it somewhere to let someone else try to do something with it.

Intel not floundering, just turning into General Motors? Probably not
that bad. Big deal from the analysts this year about a 1 point drop in
Intel's "closely-watched" gross margin. Tough to be bold under that
kind of microscope. Better to stagnate than to screw up big time, I guess.

A high tech company setting the consumer market as a primary target, when
there are umpteen other specialist companies doing the same seems ill
conceived to me... bold?? I dunno... was Itanium bold?

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking these
days.shrug


Economic activity moving into areas that involve moving bits rather than
materiel makes alot of sense with oil at $50/bbl. Whether there's money
in it for Intel or not, who would know?

It wasn't that long ago that people were making fortunes with network
adapters, hubs and switches. It takes a bit more depth to go up against
Cisco et.al. and even there the $$ are kinda slim.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:12:31 GMT, Robert Myers
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is floundering -
just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the new guy (is it
Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder what the stock-holders
think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.


_Wall_Street_Journal_ running an item about corporations holding an
unusually large amount of cash as a percentage of long-term debt: a sign
they have no really good idea of what to do with it other than to park
it somewhere to let someone else try to do something with it.

Intel not floundering, just turning into General Motors? Probably not
that bad. Big deal from the analysts this year about a 1 point drop in
Intel's "closely-watched" gross margin. Tough to be bold under that
kind of microscope. Better to stagnate than to screw up big time, I guess.


A high tech company setting the consumer market as a primary target, when
there are umpteen other specialist companies doing the same seems ill
conceived to me... bold?? I dunno... was Itanium bold?


I thought Itanium pretty bold. Whether it made sense or not is another
question. As to the consumer market, the local CompUSA Superstore has
been nearly taken over by big screen televisions, or so it seemed for a
while. Intel had a good, long run off the 4004. The run hasn't reached
an end yet, but they've never really found anything else that looks
likely to give them even a fraction of that run.

Intel talks bravely, and they certainly understand what has to happen
for them to have a future (the internet has to become safer, more
pervasive, and even more firmly entrenched in everyday life). What does
that really add up to? They don't invite me into their meetings, and I
haven't read anything in the press that indicates to me that anybody
else has a clue.


As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking these
days.shrug

Economic activity moving into areas that involve moving bits rather than
materiel makes alot of sense with oil at $50/bbl. Whether there's money
in it for Intel or not, who would know?


It wasn't that long ago that people were making fortunes with network
adapters, hubs and switches. It takes a bit more depth to go up against
Cisco et.al. and even there the $$ are kinda slim.


The future is full of robotics, artificial intelligence, embedded
applications, and pervasive networking. Who will be there to take
advantage of it?

RM

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:25:18 GMT, Robert Myers
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:12:31 GMT, Robert Myers
wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is floundering -
just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the new guy (is it
Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder what the stock-holders
think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.


_Wall_Street_Journal_ running an item about corporations holding an
unusually large amount of cash as a percentage of long-term debt: a sign
they have no really good idea of what to do with it other than to park
it somewhere to let someone else try to do something with it.

Intel not floundering, just turning into General Motors? Probably not
that bad. Big deal from the analysts this year about a 1 point drop in
Intel's "closely-watched" gross margin. Tough to be bold under that
kind of microscope. Better to stagnate than to screw up big time, I guess.


A high tech company setting the consumer market as a primary target, when
there are umpteen other specialist companies doing the same seems ill
conceived to me... bold?? I dunno... was Itanium bold?


I thought Itanium pretty bold. Whether it made sense or not is another
question. As to the consumer market, the local CompUSA Superstore has
been nearly taken over by big screen televisions, or so it seemed for a
while. Intel had a good, long run off the 4004. The run hasn't reached
an end yet, but they've never really found anything else that looks
likely to give them even a fraction of that run.

Intel talks bravely, and they certainly understand what has to happen
for them to have a future (the internet has to become safer, more
pervasive, and even more firmly entrenched in everyday life). What does
that really add up to? They don't invite me into their meetings, and I
haven't read anything in the press that indicates to me that anybody
else has a clue.

I think what Intel understands is that the PC market has now entered what
is essentially mostly a replacement cycle, just like the automobile
market... and Michael Dell has driven the price of their product into the
toilet. Their attempts to destroy the status quo and reinvent things which
don't need reinveting is about as bold as they've gotten IMO... but
certainly not subtle in their approach.

Entering a new market, for them, where devices/appliances have a label
which says: "no user serviceable parts inside" just seemed daft to me.
That's always going to end up being supplied from an evolving nation where
wages are below the global average. I'm still not clear on the LCoS
thing... as to whether it was just a "me too" component, or if it had the
potential to offer a superior solution to TI's DLP.

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking these
days.shrug

Economic activity moving into areas that involve moving bits rather than
materiel makes alot of sense with oil at $50/bbl. Whether there's money
in it for Intel or not, who would know?


It wasn't that long ago that people were making fortunes with network
adapters, hubs and switches. It takes a bit more depth to go up against
Cisco et.al. and even there the $$ are kinda slim.


The future is full of robotics, artificial intelligence, embedded
applications, and pervasive networking. Who will be there to take
advantage of it?

But the networking part is commoditized now - any $$ to be made are in the
heavy duty routing and switching gear and even that's become a relatively
low ROI. Right now big money, govt. & private, seems to be following MEMS
and err, nano-tech, whatever that means.;-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:

snip

Right now big money, govt. & private, seems to be following MEMS
and err, nano-tech, whatever that means.;-)


Intel is electrical engineers and computer scientists or physicists and
materials scientists? If you can do the things that seem like will be
required to make transistors work at 25nm, you could plausibly be
looking for things to do that are far afield from microprocessors.

RM

George Macdonald wrote:
Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is
floundering - just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the
new guy (is it Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder
what the stock-holders think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking
these days.shrug

What Intel has to do is have the bravery to stick with some simple devices
that don't pay a lot of return back, but keep making you steady amounts of
cash. Sort of like Cisco buying out Linksys. Who'd have ever thought they'd
do such a thing a couple of years ago?

I couldn't believe some the businesses that Intel has given up, just because
they didn't make enough profit.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

Both of the above are typical behavior of a corp. which is
floundering - just as well Barrett goes next May but I'm not sure the
new guy (is it Otellini?) has a better grip on reality. I wonder
what the stock-holders think of those aborted crapicious[sic]ventures.

As for what's next, I can't believe there's much return on networking
these days.shrug


What Intel has to do is have the bravery to stick with some simple devices
that don't pay a lot of return back, but keep making you steady amounts of
cash. Sort of like Cisco buying out Linksys. Who'd have ever thought they'd
do such a thing a couple of years ago?

I couldn't believe some the businesses that Intel has given up, just because
they didn't make enough profit.


That's because of the effect on the "closely-watched gross margin."

Intel has made an awful lot of money, they've been doing it for a long
time, and, to the extent that they've misused their dominant market
position to do it, they're strictly amateurs compared to what IBM and
Microsoft have shown the world by way of education. I'm reluctant to
second-guess somebody like that.

RM

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:41:04 +0000, Robert Myers wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:

snip

Right now big money, govt. & private, seems to be following MEMS
and err, nano-tech, whatever that means.;-)


Intel is electrical engineers and computer scientists or physicists and
materials scientists?

....and lawyers, and marketeers, and... ;-)

If you can do the things that seem like will be
required to make transistors work at 25nm, you could plausibly be
looking for things to do that are far afield from microprocessors.

....and if you can't? You look for things even further afield. ;-)

--
Keith