Seeking Alpha

Intel partners with, takes stake in big data software leader Cloudera

  • A year after unveiling its own software distribution for the very popular Hadoop framework (widely used to handle big data analytics projects), Intel (INTC) is abandoning its offering, and throwing its money and resources behind market leader Cloudera.
  • The chip giant calls the deal the "single largest data center technology investment in its history." Cloudera just raised $160M after filing to sell shares at a valuation as high as $1.84B.
  • The startup offers proprietary management software to go with its open-source Hadoop distribution. Competition is provided by private Hortonworks and EMC's Greenplum unit (part of its Pivotal spinoff).
  • As part of the deal, Cloudera will make Intel's CPUs its "preferred platform," and optimize its Hadoop distribution for them. Cloudera will also support Intel's data center fabric, flash memory, and security tech.
  • As always, Intel's primary goal is to drive CPU sales - Hadoop projects often make use of Xeon server CPUs, and Intel is hoping relatively few projects rely on rival architectures such as ARM, SPARC, and Power. Data center chief Diane Bryant predicts "Hadoop will be the application that is deployed across more servers than any other enterprise application."
Comments (93)
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Just like the TV assets, Intel strikes out again.
    27 Mar 2014, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    This is huge Bill. It makes sense you'd be against it. I'd be worried if you were for it.

     

    http://bit.ly/1gHlPid
    http://bit.ly/1gHlRqs
    27 Mar 2014, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    I'm not against it. What I'm saying is it shows another failure by management. TV assets, this latest flop, makes you wonder what else they are doing wrong behind the scenes.
    27 Mar 2014, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • techy46
    , contributor
    Comments (6827) | Send Message
     
    @Bill - Your correct and wrong at the same time. What it shows is failure by prior senior management that's being corrected by new senior management. Intel needs to focus on delivering commodity servers that are tested and validated with all consumer and enterprise ecosystems including Android, iOS, Linux, OSx, Unix and Windows.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Management isn't really that different from a year ago, considering they promoted from within...
    27 Mar 2014, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    That you think this is a failure is why I stopped reading your pointless articles long ago. This is a coup and will accelerate what Intel was already doing. As Rob Enderle said there this is one of those "Holy crap" moments in tech. That you don't get it doesn't mean that those that watch and understand this industry don't get it. Intel/Cloudera will be able to push this much faster than Intel would have alone.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    My pointless articles? Maybe if you read them you'd actually see what I'm saying. Since I said this was a good move above, but you again missed that. What I'm saying is that it shows another failure from the system that makes you wonder what else they are hiding in a negative way.
    27 Mar 2014, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    You haven't pointed out any failure. You've only made a bogus analogy to selling off TV assets. They haven't sold off any assets. It's clear you haven't bothered to read any of the material here, or done any of the background research. Intel will continue in the Hadoop effort. They're doing it in partnership with Cloudera. Cloudera is a start-up. The CEO at Cloudera started last July. Intel's interest in an Hadoop effort is and always was to force consolidation and standardization in what was a fragmented Hadoop ecosystem. This is part of that effort. A separate Intel-branded Hadoop distribution never was the goal - it was an interim means to an end.

     

    I've read many of your articles, at least for a time. It became clear you really don't have a grasp of this industry, or Intel's role. What's worse, as you've displayed here, is you really don't want to be bothered to research what you comment on or write about.
    28 Mar 2014, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    If they haven't sold anything, then what did Verizon buy two months ago?

     

    http://intel.ly/1mycX0F

     

    Maybe you need to do some research...

     

    What's clear here is you have an agenda against me that is not based on facts and it is CLOUDING your judgment.
    28 Mar 2014, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill,
    I said your analogy is bogus. Do you understand your initial comment to this piece was an analogy? This has no relation to the Verizon/Intel media deal, although you continue to attempt to spin it that way. You still haven't explained why you think this is a failure, and it's clear you never had any basis for that nor cared for that matter.

     

    The person with an agenda here is you. You're a persistent Intel basher that seeks out every opportunity to spin events around Intel as negative. In this case you've done a complete face-plant and made it obvious you don't understand this industry.

     

    This outcome is better than Intel could have dreamed of. Intel gets to continue to optimize Hadoop around their processors and platforms, and Cloudera handles the upper management and security layers and the Hadoop distribution. Total win-win, particularly from Intel's perspective.

     

    Rob Enderle is a long-time and well-respected industry analyst. Those that don't understand the details here should weight his take on this versus Bill that guy on SA's take.
    http://bit.ly/1gHlPid

     

    Those that haven't seen it should view the interview with the Cloudera CEO and Bryant of Intel and judge for themselves if this looks like failure.
    http://bloom.bg/1dUli75
    28 Mar 2014, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    "Intel is abandoning its offering". That's the analogy. Just like they abandoned their efforts with the TV stuff.

     

    You missed the whole point as usual. I said this was a GOOD thing going forward, but that it shows the failures Intel is still hanging on to. I'm saying the past effort was a failure, which Intel IS ADMITTING here.

     

    Instead of twisting others' words and showing you are clearly NOT reading what people say, why not write YOUR OWN articles as to what this all means, if you apparently know SO MUCH?
    28 Mar 2014, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    It's not abandoning its offering. It's past effort, which you don't understand, isn't a failure. If nothing else one only needs to view the Bloomberg interview to know nothing is being abandoned. There's no way you could have come to your conclusion if you'd have bothered to read any of the links given in the market comment.

     

    All you've displayed here is you have no interest in researching what you write about.
    28 Mar 2014, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Did you read the above market current? Obviously not.

     

    "Intel (INTC) is abandoning its offering, and throwing its money and resources behind market leader Cloudera."

     

    Intel IS ABANDONING its offering, meanwhile going forward with a new one based on an outside entity.

     

    So yes, I obviously read it. You apparently did not. If their past effort wasn't a failure, they wouldn't need outside help.
    28 Mar 2014, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    And it's wrong. Do you blindly believe anything written in a market comment when the info out there in the larger world says exactly the opposite? As I said, you didn't bother to click through to any of the links to verify the tone of the market comment was correct. As someone who authors articles on Intel you ought to be able to at least do that. The only thing being "abandoned" here is Intel putting it's name on the label, which never was the goal.

     

    When's your article coming out explaining that Intel is abandoning the Hadoop effort? I know it's got to be coming. You need to get in on the spin here, as I've already seen one article out so far spinning this.
    28 Mar 2014, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Well when I see a research firm like Cowen that uses the language "Intel abandoning..."

     

    http://bit.ly/1ftiCxw

     

    You continue to miss my point.

     

    And why should I write an article about anything knowing all you are going to do is come out and criticize it no matter what I say? I'm sure if I post an "Intel is going to $30" article you will criticize it.

     

    If you want to be productive, write your OWN article.
    28 Mar 2014, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Here were the goals. These were mentioned in the Bloomberg interview.

     

    1) Optimize Hadoop on Intel processors, platforms, and feature sets.

     

    2) Provide leadership in a fragmented Hadoop market to spur Enterprise IT adoption with a reliable, trusted Hadoop distribution. (This was mentioned by Bryant starting at 4:25 in the Bloomberg video).

     

    These goals are nothing but enhanced by this partnership. Nothing is being abandoned, and Intel's contributions to the Hadoop base as well as the contributions around Hadoop (for example Lustre) will continue.
    http://bit.ly/1dBeyQC

     

    The financial pundits can attempt to spin this all they want (mostly out of sheer ignorance which is their norm), but the facts are that the underlying efforts continue and the goals are the same.
    28 Mar 2014, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • bala69
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    This is big.
    27 Mar 2014, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Jeach!
    , contributor
    Comments (847) | Send Message
     
    Just goes to show that Intel has no clear vision and is desperate in its investments.

     

    It will be funny to see how Intel can "influence" Cloudera when most of its technology is 'copied' from others (primarily Google).

     

    You don't just waltz in and and tell all the geeks how or what to do. That's practically impossible.

     

    I can understand that they want to "optimize" Cloudera for Intel but how do you do that when Cloudera's technology is based on top of other technologies which are not really optimizable due to the fact it's far away from the processor or for example most of it runs Linux which is as optimized for all other processors out there.

     

    For example, Google implemented the GFS (third generation now) which is highly, highly optimized (so much so I believe they even stripped the VFS layer from Linux). And Cloudera's solution for this is a virtual file system written in Java that sits on top of your Linux's file system (probably ext3) which has its layer of abstraction, the VFS. How are they suppose to optimize software so, SO far away from the low-level?

     

    This is purely marketing and desperation. They are hoping they will be able to slap Intel stickers on every piece of Cloudera literature... which I admit is pretty nice (although I mostly use MongoDB most of the time).

     

    I can't really say their intention will be a flop, but I can guarantee that it is a waste of money and could have been put to better use.

     

    In the end though, if this makes Coudera that much better then I'm all for it... come on Intel write those checks!
    27 Mar 2014, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Jeach,
    Hadoop was created by a guy at Cloudera, who also created it's predecessor, Nutch. And yes there's Google IP in it, and there's also IP from Yahoo, among others.

     

    However, arguing about where it comes from is about as pointless as arguing where Linux came from. All that matters is it runs on x86 as far as Intel is concerned.

     

    It comes down to people can believe Rob Enderle here, or they can believe a couple of knuckleheads on SA.
    27 Mar 2014, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • Jeach!
    , contributor
    Comments (847) | Send Message
     
    Cincinnatus,

     

    Nutch is a technology that builds on top of Cloudera (and Google IP). Google practically invented all the big data stuff we use today (there are a ton of copy-cats, including Cloudera).

     

    Which by the way, Google is far ahead with its latest technology (distributed SQL), it will take Cloudera a couple years just to match that.

     

    But anyway, regarding your argument, I'm not sure I understand where you think Intel can bring value. I'm only pointing out its origin for the sake of patting Google on the back. But as to it's future and how Intel can shape that, can you give me one example of where Intel can optimize Cloudera, which won't be optimizing it for other architectures as well?
    29 Mar 2014, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • platonicbomb
    , contributor
    Comments (1463) | Send Message
     
    I could do with less vitriol on these INTC boards.
    28 Mar 2014, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    I would love to learn something from reading these posts that will help me to make informed decisions. I'm with you platonicbomb and couldn't agree more. Thanks to all the SA contributors who continually offer good thoughts and ideas without all the nastiness.
    28 Mar 2014, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately, most of the nastiness comes from non-contributors, commentors who a lot of times are just angry that a contributor is not posting something in favor of the name they are discussing. Contributors then have to usually defend themselves from baseless personal attacks.

     

    Luckily, it's not as bad with INTC as it is for some other names.
    28 Mar 2014, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • newnnly
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    I don't really mind snarky remarks that much if they help to justify a point of view. It just seems more profitable to be civil. I suppose sometimes the truth hurts. I for one have made a few investment decisions I wish I had steered away from. The book is still out on INTC for me. I appreciate a point of view from Bulls and Bears alike. It's not fun for me as an INTC long term income investor to read your point of view on the stock most of the time Bill, however you usually state your views objectively and I like to ponder how much better I could do elsewhere. But INTC has been good to me so far. LONG INTC for now and collecting shares with reinvesting.
    28 Mar 2014, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Guys, here's the difference on SA. If you look at INTC most of the "Contributors" are financial and hedge fund types. (There are a few Russ Fischer types that actually can intelligently discuss the technologies involved, but they are few and far between.) Many of the commenters are people that have experience in the industry, and have an insider's perspective on what's going on with regards to the tech as with the Hadoop issue here. The financial and hedge fund types don't know Hadoop from their rear end, but they like to use such news events to promote their agenda, one that is often short.

     

    Add to this the financial and hedge fund types aren't used to having a forum like this where they actually have to defend their "this is a failure" and "Intel strikes out again" statements with something approaching an understanding of the technologies involved or industry fundamentals, which is a place they can't go. There is also no mandated tracking of long/short calls made by authors, and certain authors really don't like it when you bring their record up or ask them to detail their record to justify why you should continue to follow their calls.

     

    The one thing I would say is it's possible platonicbomb may well get his wish to some extent. I know one frequent commenter, someone that clearly worked in the industry, has quit commenting on SA because trying to dispel the FUD and negative spin around here is an unwinnable war. I'm going to the end of the month and giving it up. One of the better Contributors on tech and INTC seems to have exited SA, or at least pared back time here significantly. So I think platonicbomb is at least going to see more groupthink and a higher ratio from the shorts and financial/hedge fund types.
    29 Mar 2014, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    At the same time, most of the commenters get upset when you publish something that goes against their positions. No company can do wrong in their eyes if they are long a stock. They don't want to hear negative news, even when it is. Often, there is more "wrong information or lies" in the comments, and the discussion goes way off from where a contributor intended the article to lead.

     

    Additionally, a number of contributors have left or are scaling back, especially on comments of articles, because the comments at times are completely off-track or are just personal attacks/insults.

     

    It's hard to expend energy on articles/comments when you are personally attacked by unknown people that won't spend the time to back up their opinion with their own article or a logical thought.

     

    Luckily, INTC is one of the more civil names in regards to all of this. There are a few other sectors (primarily pharma/biotech) where it gets really ugly at times.
    29 Mar 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill,
    The contributors I know that are scaling back or leaving, and I've talked to one of them, are doing so because of the sort of uninformed opinion that you've displayed here. They're people that are either industry veterans or at least have university degrees in computer related engineering and have a grasp of this stuff. The noise coming from the financial types has become deafening, to the point it seems fruitless to try to overcome it.
    1 Apr 2014, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Well, my "uninformed opinion" has been right went it comes to Intel the company in recent years, even if that hasn't translated into pure stock movement.

     

    The company has disappointed tremendously in 2012-2014, you really can't argue that.

     

    And as I go back and say, if everything on here is so bad, why aren't you writing to tell the "true story". Of course, that would imply that you actually read all of our stuff to begin with, which you've displayed several times that you clearly have not.
    1 Apr 2014, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • goldseal5050
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Maybe we should use words like less than successful instead of failure, who knows ! As far as INTC executives making the right moves,time will tell and the Market shall judge. The price of the stock will tell right or wrong.
    28 Mar 2014, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • platonicbomb
    , contributor
    Comments (1463) | Send Message
     
    WSJ published a piece saying that when SA articles attract a lot of negative comments within 48 hours of publication they are less likely to be predictive of price movement, whereas articles that get mainly positive comments during the first 48 hours are more likely to be predictive.
    28 Mar 2014, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    This isn't an article though. It's a snippet of news, basically what was said on most other sites. So you really can't compare the two, as the study was on articles, not news releases.
    28 Mar 2014, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • platonicbomb
    , contributor
    Comments (1463) | Send Message
     
    I was trying coyly to suggest that whatever Hatfield/McCoy arrangement you and Cincinnatus may have agreed to is of no interest to the rest of us and it would be good of both of you to keep it civil. I don't want to choose sides, I want to learn and make money.
    28 Mar 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    I just have no clue what his/her problem is. I just feel a need to defend myself when I get criticized unfairly when people don't read what I am saying.

     

    If you want to make money, find a stock other than Intel! There are much better opportunities long/short in both the short term and long term.
    28 Mar 2014, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    You'll probably be better served by a concern for accuracy, than your milquetoast definition of civility, or your belief that you represent "the rest of us."
    28 Mar 2014, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Or, I'll be better served by not letting one individual who clearly has an agenda spoil things.

     

    Since everytime I say something, you come back with a post that clearly shows how you don't read everything I say, or choose to ignore it and twist my words. You've already done it several times on this page.
    28 Mar 2014, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill, did you utter "the rest of us" phrase above? Yea, I'm the guy not reading what the other says or paying attention to the conversation.

     

    You never had a point here, other to jump on some Intel news and spin it negative, something that isn't new to you.
    28 Mar 2014, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    AGAIN! You can't read. YOU used the phrase above, someone else did, but I certainly did not.

     

    Stop putting words in my mouth. It's getting ridiculous.
    28 Mar 2014, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Exactly Bill, you did not, so that comment was not addressed to you. If the first comment wasn't clear to whom it was addressed, my second comment should have made it clear.

     

    In closing I would warn those to look into your track record, and try to get you to detail it.
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    28 Mar 2014, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    What I like about that article Bill, is that the day (Feb 5th) you published that short call, was the low. From there INTC has done nothing but rise. Yet another solid call.

     

    "For the moment, I would consider Intel a continued short for another dollar or so, but I wouldn't be too crazy about it."
    28 Mar 2014, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    It's hard to say "track record" when I publish articles on the name every two weeks. Especially when I said that those sitting on a profit (from a short) should consider taking profits, and that I'd only want to be short if I was hedged. I did say Intel was closer to bottoming, not there yet, and it did decline another 32 cents from there.

     

    Exactly my point: "wouldn't be crazy about it", not exactly short it with every dollar you have. Intel rose from there as it was dragged up by the market.
    28 Mar 2014, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    In the end, those that have shorted Intel while I've said to have made a couple of bucks. Considering how much the market has rallied over that time, any short making a profit is a winning call.
    28 Mar 2014, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    You don't know that, because as you said above you don't track the performance of the positions you advise people to initiate. It's also trivial to tell people to initiate positions, the hard part is knowing when to close them, and you don't do that, so as you say you can't have a track record. A track record involves BOTH opening and closing transactions.

     

    In that comment I gave the dates of your calls. Anyone that followed those lost money. And as far as I know the short you told people to initiate on Feb 5th you've never advised closing. Can you point to an article that told them to give up and close the position at a loss?

     

    I'll note your spin here that Intel "was dragged up by the market", yet in January you attributed Intel's drop to Intel specific factors, when in fact much of Intel's drop mirrored the overall market's drop during that period. And in since that Feb 5th low when you told people to short, Intel is up 1/3rd more than the S&P 500, yet you claim Intel is being "dragged up by the market."

     

    What I see here is you've got an excuse for everything.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Or, you are twisting the facts and I'm trying to right the ship.

     

    1. You gave one date, and that wasn't a "call". I did not say to start a new short position.

     

    2. I said that those who were short might want to hold for another dollar of decline, of which we got 32 cents.

     

    3. I also said taking profits was not a bad idea, and that I wouldn't be crazy about a short position there. I also said to be hedged.

     

    4. In January, there were SPECIFIC factors. It's called earnings. The report was not good, and shares dropped from a high of $27.12 to $23.50. Over that time, the QQQ went from $88.54 to $83.74. Intel dropped on earnings, which was actual news.

     

    5. Perhaps Intel was a cause of the selloff, not due to it. But there wasn't much news in early February, when the market started to rally. So Intel was dragged up by it.

     

    You're digging yourself into a deeper hole by continuing to extrapolate things to fit your argument, while ignoring the actual words that have been said multiple times. Time to give up and go find someone else to complain about.
    29 Mar 2014, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I'm documenting your calls. It would only be digging a hole if I'd followed your advice.

     

    Let's take #2. On the day your article was published on Feb 5th you called for a "dollar or so" of decline. The stock closed at $23.52 that day. The following day it closed at $23.99. The following day $24.21. It kept going up from there. It didn't have a down day until Feb 19th when it closed at $24.50. From that date the LOWEST close it's had was Feb 21st at $24.42. You claim you got 32 cents, but you can't produce a record of that, and looking at the intraday trades I don't see how it was possible even if someone opened the short on the 5th and got out on the 6th. Someone that best case shorted at the high on the 5th is down $1.86 if they're still short. It looks like anyone that held beyond the 10th would have lost at least 50 cents even if they best case shorted at the high on the 5th.

     

    Here's the open, high, low, closing prices for the following five days from yahoo.com:
    Feb 11, 2014 24.35 24.52 24.33 24.47
    Feb 10, 2014 24.11 24.37 24.06 24.29
    Feb 7, 2014 24.20 24.26 23.77 24.21
    Feb 6, 2014 23.60 24.08 23.55 23.99
    Feb 5, 2014 23.70 23.76 23.50 23.52

     

    So when did you open and close the short to get 32 cents?
    29 Mar 2014, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    "1. You gave one date, and that wasn't a "call". I did not say to start a new short position."

     

    You said Intel "remains a short candidate" in that article. It could only be a candidate to short if one wasn't already short it, or one was referring to opening a new short position on top of short positions already held. It's very clear from the text as a whole that you did indeed consider it a short candidate.

     

    I think this whole idea that one can predict short term movements of a stock is a fool's game, but it's the game you want to play, so you ought to be willing to be held accountable without whining about it.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Article was submitted with data using prior day's close of $23.82. I'm not saying it was opened and closed for 32 cents, what I'm saying is that when I said there was the potential for another dollar of downside, it was at $23.82, and it went 32 cents lower from that.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Yes, a short candidate. But I can say 1000 stocks are short candidates (or short ideas, whatever you want to call them) but that doesn't mean someone needs to short all 1000. Also, there are different conditions. I recently said Yahoo was a short candidate, but only if something else happened first.

     

    Again, it remained a short candidate based on the fact that I said current shorts could potentially see another dollar of downside. I also said that I wouldn't be crazy about any short position, and if I were to have one, I'd want it hedged.

     

    Again, where did I say to start a new one? That's the point you are missing, as usual, because you didn't read the whole part of that article.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Ok, so to get the 32 cent gain you claim "we got", your readers would have had to open the position before you published the article, and closed it the day it was published. And you view this as a reasonable reflection of what most of your readers would have done.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    You do realize that SA articles take several hours, sometimes days to publish? They are not published as soon as they are submitted, as they go through an editorial review process.

     

    The article was based on information using the closing price of $23.82. Of course, prices are going to change upon opening.

     

    Using your logic, I'm supposed to have a new article out every what, 10 seconds, because prices change?

     

    That's why I basically said it was a weak short, that should be hedged, and that those already short could consider take profits. Again, nowhere did it say to start a new short position.

     

    You again missed the whole point, as usual, because you misread the original article and are blaming that on me. Go away.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill,
    The number of days it took to publish is irrelevant. Your claim that "we got" 32 cents is an after the fact determination of a claimed gain. You knew at the time you published the above comment that none of your readers could have received that claimed gain. For that matter I've not seen you disclose that you had a position in Intel throughout the past year, so it's unlikely you got that gain as well unless you're not disclosing your holdings.

     

    The other thing which you still ignore is all but perhaps a very few that opened a short on the day you published that are going to close it that same day. The more reasonable expectation is they're going to hold onto a losing position until they either hit a pre-determined stop loss, or they lose more than that and finally give up being unable to take the pain.

     

    Finally this is about more than one failed trade. You've been negative on Intel throughout the last year. You find every bit of news you can as you've done here to justify it when as is the case here the news is positive. I gave the link above to your earlier piece where you missed the run from $21 to $27 last year, and compounded it by telling people to go short in August just before INTC again took off.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    I've put forth what I see in your prediction history going back to your March 20th call and this is what I see.

     

    1) March 20th 2013. You advised buying on the way down starting from $20.69. The problem is I don't see INTC even reaching your first buy point, thus you missed the run from <$21 to $27.

     

    2) To make matters worse on August 20th you published an article calling INTC a "solid short candidate". The stock closed at $22.52 that day. The problem is within about 10 trading days of your call INTC began it's rise to $27. Anyone that didn't bail out of your call is still underwater even with this current pullback.

     

    3) You mention in this article that you would have put money on your recent short call but you lacked the funds to do so. What I found of interest is that since your 3/20/2013 article I don't see that you indicated you were either long or short INTC in any article disclosure, though given the volume of your INTC articles I could have missed where you may have been short. In one of your comments here you indicated you weren't long. Would appreciate a clarification on that if you did have a short position open in that period.
    1 Apr 2014, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    1. No short position at any time. If it says in the article I have no position, it means it.

     

    2. You again are missing the point about initiating a NEW short position in Feb. 2014.

     

    3. Starting with March 2013 ignores any of my INTC stuff before then. Sure, you can keep cherry picking results, but you're only telling part of the story.
    1 Apr 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill,
    With regards to #2 and #3 that's just how far I went back, and I indicated that. I doubt that I'd find much different going back further, but my point is you've been wrong over the last year in which INTC made a big run. You were touting your few week old short in that Feb 5th piece, and I simply pointed out that one should look at your longer term record. Since that time your predicted "dollar or so" of downside never materialized, and those that held on or initiated a short have lost money since then.
    1 Apr 2014, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    But yet I also said those already short should consider taking profits.

     

    "I doubt that I'd find much different going back further" - Again, depends at how you look at this. But to start your entire argument based on the Feb. 2014 call, which I've already shown how you completely misinterpreted, shows how you are biased against me from the start. You're choosing to look at a certain timeline, which doesn't paint the whole picture.

     

    "Been wrong over the last year" - In terms of the stock, yes at times, but in terms of the company, what I've been saying has been proven right time and time again.

     

    And if they initiated a new short, then they obviously did not read what was said in that article, and you can't hold me responsible for that.
    1 Apr 2014, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    '"Been wrong over the last year" - In terms of the stock, yes at times, but in terms of the company, what I've been saying has been proven right time and time again.'

     

    It's your opinion that you've been proven right time and time again. But your opinion is an aggregation of statements such as the "Intel strikes out again" in your first comment to this piece. The reason the market has disagreed with you over the last year is likely that the market isn't interpreting these events as striking out as you are.
    1 Apr 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    It's not an opinion that I've been right. It's a fact.

     

    Revenue and earnings estimates for 2012, 2013, 2014 just continue to go lower and lower, and Intel has cut its forecast(s) multiple times.

     

    As for the strike out, it's not totally wrong. You missed the point. I said it shows that Intel's original plan didn't work out (a strike out), and now Intel is doing something else that's regarded as better.

     

    Again, if Intel's own plan that started a year ago was a complete success, they wouldn't have needed Cloudera. The fact that Intel is sinking more than $700 million in shows this deal isn't exactly small.

     

    As for the market, Intel has been dragged up by the entire market. Take a look at the 1 and 2 year charts vs. QQQ. If the QQQ was not up 30% in the past 2 years, Intel shares would have been a lot lower.
    1 Apr 2014, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I already addressed this in a prior comment which referred to the Bloomberg interview. The fragmentation of the marketplace among a bunch of start-ups is exactly why Intel got into this. Consolidation and an agreement down the road was to be expected. Intel didn't strike out here, you just don't understand what this partnership is about or why Intel started in this to begin with.

     

    http://bit.ly/1lArqcj

     

    INTC is up more than the market since your Feb 5th call to short. It's up more than the market in the last 6 months. It's up equal to the market in the last year. It's also paying a nice dividend, particularly if you would have got in in the low $20s.
    1 Apr 2014, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    "It's not an opinion that I've been right. It's a fact."

     

    It's also a fact that "we got" 32 cents.
    1 Apr 2014, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I just saw that Intel's $218 million investment in VMWare is now worth just under $9 billion. That doesn't include the value of server chips sold due to the availability of server virtualization.

     

    Vision is what's needed here. This is a great deal, not a strike out.
    1 Apr 2014, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, but it's not up equal to the market (NASDAQ) or its sector (PHLX semiconductor) over the past year. It's behind quite a bit.

     

    For 2 year and 5 year, it's even worse. Even in the past 3 months, Intel is flat against the NASDAQ and well below the semis.

     

    Try to distort the facts as you wish, but you continue to prove over and over again you don't know what you're talking about.
    1 Apr 2014, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I'm comparing it to the S&P 500, which I consider the best reflection of the market. Intel is so dominant in it's markets that it can't grow much faster than the overall economy or market. That just won't happen when you have 85% to 95% share of your core markets.

     

    You claim it's a fact you've been right, and you even point to 2012. Yet a review of your articles reveals you called Intel your top value pick for 2012, and reiterated that in a May article, after the stock had already peaked for that year. You then in late August said that time was a "great opportunity to get into this name." It seems to me looking at both your calls in 2012 and 2013 as well as so far in 2014 you've been a pretty good contrarian indicator.

     

    INTC) closed at their lowest levels since reporting earnings last month, and it was the first close under $25 in over a month. The $25 level has been a key level of support for the name, and with shares back below $25, I believe investors should take advantage of a great opportunity to get into this name. Here are just a few reasons."
    1 Apr 2014, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Like I said previously I'm not a believer in crystal balls and short term market predictions. Buying good companies based on a knowledge of business fundamentals is the way to go.
    1 Apr 2014, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    If you're going to use the S&P 500, might as well use Russell 1000 or Wilshire 5000. At what point do you stop? The key one I really look at is the sector, and that's a killer for Intel.

     

    As for 2012, after the May article I warned about revenue cuts. Yes, it looked good in August, but then just a few weeks later I changed my mind after the warning and the my tone changed a bit. Again, you're cherry picking certain articles, not looking at every single one.

     

    Also, now you are flipping back to stock vs. company. Intel WAS and continued to be even early in 2013 the best value play in tech between the dividend and the buyback. I was right about that. But I also was negative on the company's results, and that was proven right.
    1 Apr 2014, 04:28 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    If you want to use those indices to represent the market it's fine. The point is when you're 85% to 95% of a market you're not going to grow much faster than the market. Intel isn't going to grow 20% unless it's markets are growing nearly that fast, and that's dependent upon macroeconomic conditions.

     

    As to your articles, I'm not cherry picking certain articles. You claimed it's fact you've been right. Those below represent the 2012 predictions that you claim proved correct.

     

    Here's where you called it your top pick for 2012.
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Here's in May where you reiterated it as your top pick.
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    "This is the third dividend increase from the company in the past 18 months. Recently, Intel was named the top dividend stock of the NASDAQ 100. I called Intel my top value pick for 2012, and Monday's news only reinforces my position."

     

    And here's your late August article where you again advised buying.
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    "On Friday, shares of Intel (INTC) closed at their lowest levels since reporting earnings last month, and it was the first close under $25 in over a month. The $25 level has been a key level of support for the name, and with shares back below $25, I believe investors should take advantage of a great opportunity to get into this name."

     

    You didn't predict a revenue fall in 2012, you simply reported it as it played out. There's a difference between reporting and prediction. As indicated in your Aug 27th article you continued to advise buying. After Intel warned in September on Q3 revenue your sentiment changed.
    1 Apr 2014, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    I didn't predict a revenue fall? I had multiple articles about the forecast being cut. One before the August one, another one after.

     

    And again, saying something is a top value pick is not making a call on a stock necessarily. Intel has had the highest dividend in large cap tech land for a while and also a strong buyback until 2013. Some consider Intel still the best value pick in tech land because of the yield.
    1 Apr 2014, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    One thing I see looking over your articles is that you're constantly revising your targets. So yes in that context I guess you could claim you've been proven right time and time again, if you're allowed to throw out old targets and install new targets.

     

    For example in your Sept 10, 2012 article you predicted the following:
    "I don't see Intel dropping to $20 anytime soon, but I would not be surprised if shares lose another dollar or two over the next two months (including earnings)."

     

    However within that two month timeframe you came back on Nov 6th with:
    "I've recommended lately avoiding Intel until the valuation comes down, meaning probably until about $20."
    1 Apr 2014, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    "I didn't predict a revenue fall? I had multiple articles about the forecast being cut. One before the August one, another one after."

     

    Bill, why don't you do the homework this time and post the link and show what your article contained?

     

    And did you not above imply you were right for all of 2012? That's a very different thing than saying you changed your targets throughout 2012 as the year unfolded.

     

    I mean how difficult can it be to be right when you're allowed to change targets whenever you wish?
    1 Apr 2014, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    What's the point of doing that? So then you'll go back and pick apart every minor point I made in those articles while missing the big issue? If you've gone back to my May 2013 articles, you obviously know where to find them, meaning you obviously already passed over the two articles where I discussed it. Both articles were clear in the title about what I was saying.

     

    There's really no point in arguing with you anymore. Everytime I prove something you say foolish, you change your argument and head somewhere else. Then you go back and twist it to something else, while not realizing that arguments change over time as stock's move. If you were counting from 1 to 10, you're going like 1, 2, 6, 4, 8, 3, 5, 10, 7, 9. You're all over the place and I can't piece the parts together. You've also proven several times you don't read exactly what's said.
    1 Apr 2014, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    We're talking about a revenue fall in 2012. Your May 2013 articles would be of no use.
    1 Apr 2014, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Again you missed the point, which was that you obviously know where to find the older articles.
    1 Apr 2014, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I'll help you out. You referred to analyst chatter that Intel's revenue might fall short all of a week before they reported earnings for the quarter (Q2 2012). This was with AMD's earnings report having been made the prior day and having been well below expectations. A week later you then published another article where lo and behold your prediction of the prior week proved accurate. It's uncanny how far out into the future you can predict.

     

    September witnessed a similar event just after you wrote the Aug 27th article saying "investors should take advantage of a great opportunity to get into this name." By Sept 10th Intel had issued a Q3 revenue warning and you immediately were able to pick up on that and predict none other than - wait for it - a revenue shortfall for Q3! And then of course you followed it up a week later and concluded that INTC could go well below the floor you had indicated in your Aug 27th article.

     

    Here's the summary. The statements you've made in those articles are matters of fact. The price levels of INTC at the times you made those statements are matters of fact. That you conclude from those facts that you've been right on Intel is your subjective opinion, not fact.
    1 Apr 2014, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    So then why weren't there dozens of other articles talking about a reduction in the forecast at the Q2 report? Why was I the only one really talking about it? Where was your article telling us about the revenue warning that was coming from the company?

     

    As for later in the year, I called for a reduction in the yearly forecast, which did come if you extrapolate the Q4 guidance plus Q1-Q3 results.

     

    It's funny. In the time you've wasted criticizing me when you're completely off base, you could have written an entire article about how the Cloudera purchase will transform the world.

     

    Yes, all I see is further criticism, and changing the subject every few hours. Why is that? Give up, go home, pick on someone else.
    1 Apr 2014, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    That's what you REPORTED. And when Intel issued their Q3 warning, that's what you REPORTED. I don't know or care how many other SA authors REPORTED the same. And also saying something may or may not happen in the next week isn't predicting. At any point in time something may or may not happen. That's simply a statement of fact. The analysts weren't predicting anything, they were simply saying that given AMD's result that Intel might report a revenue shortfall.

     

    The amazing thing I see in all of these many articles on INTC in 2012 and 2013 (and now 2014) is I have yet to see you disclose that you put money on any of your INTC predictions, and for you that's fortunate.
    2 Apr 2014, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    So if I say I think something will happen, and it does, I don't deserve credit for that? Okay.

     

    And it's not just "reporting a revenue shortfall". It's taking down your growth forecast quite considerably.

     

    Oh, and as for my own personal opinions, I get criticized both ways. If I don't have a position, I get criticized for not having skin in the game. But if I were to be short INTC while writing, I'd be called a "paid pumper" and other things. Having no position in the name allows me to be more objective.
    2 Apr 2014, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    You didn't predict that it would happen. You REPORTED that the analysts said it might happen. If it didn't happen then they'd not have been incorrect, at least as you've defined incorrect here, because they didn't say it will happen.

     

    Just like with your Feb 5, 2014 article. You said there's a dollar or so of downside. That downside never occurred, but you still claim you are "right" because you threw in some wording about it might not happen.

     

    And your Aug 27th article where you said INTC was a "great opportunity" to get into, where you stated a $25 floor, well you weren't wrong there either, were you?
    2 Apr 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    There you go changing the subject again. I'm done with you. You really need to find a hobby, or someone else to pick on.
    2 Apr 2014, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Given that SA doesn't demand that you track and report your performance (which is what they should be doing already) tells me that I'm not likely to get an article through that analyzes and reports your performance and accuracy of your predictions over the last couple of years.

     

    What I could do going forward is track that in comments to your articles. And I don't mean "predictions" where X may happen, or X may not happen, and I'm right either way. I mean real predictions with conviction of what you claim WILL happen sometime into the future, not what might happen in the next week.
    2 Apr 2014, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Tracking performance is too complex, especially when you have contributors that sometimes report on articles multiple times a week. Also too many "gray" areas, like what an actual call is, or what the actual price is. You already proved that with the whole Feb 2014 article.

     

    Going forward, if all you are going to do is continue a crusade against me in my articles, you will be reported to SA and likely will be banned from posting. You obviously have an agenda here, and I don't see how the continuation of it benefits anyone.

     

    I also see that you didn't start a crusade against the Fortune author for calling the Cloudera move "desperate", which was even more negative than what I said. Which means you obviously are making this a personal attack against me.
    2 Apr 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    It's not too complex. It just requires that you make your predictions clear and have some conviction.

     

    If SA bans me for simply reporting on your predictions then there isn't a reason to be on SA. Why be on SA if there's no accountability?
    2 Apr 2014, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    But if my tracking is only over a week of time, how useful is it? You already said "saying something will or won't happen" next week is not predicting. So if I call for a post-earnings fall in two weeks and it happens, you'll say it's not a long enough time period. If I get it right, you'll ignore it, meaning you are not reporting on results. You're cherry picking items.

     

    In that case, you're not just "reporting on predictions". Are you going to track every contributor's performance on SA? If not, then you are clearly making this personal. It's a personal attack, and SA will not tolerate that from anyone. You also have been spreading a lot of misinformation, and it is clear you don't read all of what I said. Every time I prove you wrong, you change the subject and go to another time period.

     

    As for accountability, do wall street analysts have accountability? What happened to all those analysts who said Apple was going to $1000. They still have jobs. Why are you not tracking all of their wrong calls?
    2 Apr 2014, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    I'm interested in INTC. You're the one author I would identify that makes repeated calls on INTC. There's no reason I should have to track other authors. You may do that if you wish. It speaks volumes that you think it's your job to try to get me banned.

     

    There are many sites that track analyst calls.

     

    You haven't proven that I'm wrong.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Did you criticize Michael Blair for his call of Q4 revenues and earnings that was way out there and proved overly optimistic? There are other authors on INTC on this site that make calls. The fact you are narrowing in only on me makes it a personal attack.

     

    Yes, sites track analyst calls, but those analysts are still in their jobs after they miss over and over again.

     

    By your own wording, it is impossible for me to prove you wrong. So why should I try? All I know is that investors that listened to my calls on INTC have outperformed the market or semi sector if they were to just short the market/sector over the past two years.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    No, it means my time is limited. Because I can't track every call across all or even a subset of the contributors on SA doesn't make it a personal attack. That's a silly argument. It's like saying you have to report on all stocks or none of them.

     

    I have no idea where you're going with analysts still have their jobs angle. What does that have to do with tracking your calls? They're unrelated. One has no bearing on the other.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    If your time is limited, why are you bringing up a new argument now 6 days after the initial post?

     

    The fact that you're only focusing on one contributor and skewing the truth makes it personal. If you only focused 20% of the time on me, you could focus on 5 other contributors. But you're not doing that, you have tunnel vision focus on one person.

     

    The point about analysts is that you are talking about the fact that I have to have this huge amount of accountability. One internet blogger/analyst. You make it seem like SA should banish me if I get one call wrong. Wall Street analysts get paid hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year. They should have a lot more accountability than me.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Bill, you've said you're done with me here and told me to go home a number of times so far. Of course those predictions seem not to have held true.

     

    I'm done here, and that prediction will hold true.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    Yes, because I won't stand by while someone who has an agenda issues personal attacks and spreads misinformation. Every time you respond, it forces a response from me.

     

    You may be done here, but I'm sure your personal attack will return at some point.
    2 Apr 2014, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • The_Scenarist
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    To Cincinnatus, when you stoop to name calling, your argument is weakened.

     

    If you've a point to make, make it. But to denigrate the author is meaningless. I am pretty sure Intel did abandon what they were doing here, and, it was probably the right thing to do. Meaning, they reached a juncture when it made more sense to go this route than the one they were on. Hopefully the data they used to make this decision was sound.
    30 Mar 2014, 02:42 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (918) | Send Message
     
    They're definitely dropping their own Hadoop distribution to go with Cloudera. A number of articles in the tech press back this up.

     

    The Inquirer - Intel dropping its own distribution of Hadoop big data analytics in favour of Cloudera
    http://bit.ly/1hQmtp9

     

    GigaOm - Intel jettisons its Hadoop distro and puts millions behind Cloudera
    http://bit.ly/1iExsVQ

     

    VentureBeat - Intel to ditch its Hadoop software and support Cloudera instead
    http://bit.ly/1hQmtFs
    30 Mar 2014, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    The_Scenarist,
    I've made the point numerous times already above. The headlines are incorrect as I've pointed out. Intel is merging their work with Cloudera and both will continue to work on a merged distribution of Hadoop going forward. If you'd have looked beyond the headlines and looked at some of the industry pieces you'd have known this.

     

    The only one engaged in a personal attack is you. You won't explain where the headlines are correct, and it's unlikely you care. Since you have but one comment it may well be likely you're not some disinterested bystander but an alias created for the purpose of attacking me.
    1 Apr 2014, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Eric,
    The Inquirer piece is correct. Intel is dropping their own distribution and letting Cloudera manage the merged distribution. The key point is the "distribution" is simply the act of packaging. It's the IP in the distribution that matters. If you read the first few paragraphs it rather clearly states the case. The IP that Intel was working on is not being dropped, it's being merged. This is a huge win for Intel and will put them even farther out in front, and is a big setback to the ARM camp.

     

    The other thing to keep in mind is that Hadoop is an open source project. The goal with any open source project is to get your IP merged into the open source trunk. That's what Intel wants to have happen. This whole argument that whose name is on a distribution label is uninformed noise. Doug Cutting created Hadoop. He is on the Board of Directors of the Apache Software Foundation. He's also working at Cloudera on Hadoop. Thus connecting the dots here how likely is it that Intel's IP will make it back into the open source trunk of Apache Hadoop, where it benefits Intel and every distribution that pulls from the open source trunk?

     

    One thing is certain. Bill Maurer, who loudly proclaims that "Intel strikes out again" in the first comment to this piece, hasn't a clue as to what just happened with this announcement and partnership.

     

    ====
    From The Inquirer:

     

    'The deal will see Intel joining Cloudera's enterprise analytic data management software powered by Hadoop with the data centre architecture based on Intel Xeon technology while it undergoes the transition, with an eventual end goal to move all customers completely to Cloudera.

     

    "The optimisations from Intel's Distribution for Apache Hadoop/Intel Data Platform (IDH/IDP) will be integrated into CDH and IDH/IDP and will be transitioned after v3.1 release at the end of March," the firm said.'
    1 Apr 2014, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (918) | Send Message
     
    I think the bottom line here is that Intel and Cloudera (the market leader) had distinct Hadoop distributions before, and that there will only be one offered going forward - Cloudera's, modified a bit to include Intel's IP and be optimized for its CPUs.

     

    That's why many reputable, tech-savvy news sources are saying Intel is abandoning its Hadoop distribution. You make a fair point about Hadoop's open-source nature.
    1 Apr 2014, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    There will be one distribution going forward, but it's a merged distribution managed by Cloudera. It could just have well been a merged distribution with Intel's name on the label. That wouldn't have made any difference to the IP within it.

     

    The problem with just saying "Intel is dropping it's distribution" is that many of your readers that are not tech savvy will fall for the interpretation that's been pushed by some of the commenters here that the work Intel has done is being thrown out and that Intel will not continue to work on the distribution. That is not the case.
    1 Apr 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Maurer
    , contributor
    Comments (5484) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure you'll love the Fortune article calling the move "desperate". You should go start an argument with that author.

     

    http://bit.ly/1mxZ142
    1 Apr 2014, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3956) | Send Message
     
    Why would I care? I'll quote myself from a few days ago:
    "The financial pundits can attempt to spin this all they want (mostly out of sheer ignorance which is their norm), but the facts are that the underlying efforts continue and the goals are the same."

     

    You don't think I don't know the game here? Read the guy's bio. Do you think he's spent any time looking at what Hadoop is and why Intel got into it in the first place? He's got copy to write and a deadline to meet. He's not going to bother to do background on this.
    1 Apr 2014, 08:06 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs