Intel poaches head of Qualcomm's Atheros unit for chip R&D


Amir Faintuch, the president of Qualcomm's (NASDAQ:QCOM) Atheros Wi-Fi/connectivity chip unit, has been hired by Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) to be an SVP/co-GM for its Platform Engineering Group (handles chip R&D).

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy talks up Faintuch's expertise in SoC development - though best known for its Wi-Fi offerings, Atheros' product line now also covers Bluetooth, GPS, and home networking ICs, as well as Wi-Fi/Bluetooth combo chips.

Intel's bio page currently shows 3 Platform Engineering GMs: Rani Borkar, Aicha Evans, and Joshua M. Walden. However, each has the title of VP rather than SVP.

Qualcomm is only a year removed from seeing Faintuch's predecessor, Craig Barratt, leave for Google. More recently, the company saw business development/Qualcomm Labs chief Peggy Johnson leave for Microsoft.

Separately, Intel has launched new Core i7 Extreme Edition CPUs. Though the 22nm chips are (high-margin) niche products meant for gaming rigs and low-end workstations, they're notable for being the first Intel desktop CPU line to support eight cores and DDR4 RAM (previous). Pricing ranges from $389-$999.

Update: Reuters has updated its column to state Faintuch will co-manage the Platform Engineering Group with Walden.

From other sites
Comments (58)
  • txbadonetoo
    , contributor
    Comments (781) | Send Message
     
    Good for INTC.. one step at a time to ratchet up their mobile offerings.
    29 Aug 2014, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Mikie713
    , contributor
    Comments (555) | Send Message
     
    $INTC looks hungry. It's about time.
    29 Aug 2014, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like an IoTs investment.
    29 Aug 2014, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    Great for Intel! The company has some of the world's finest engineers; experienced management can really unlock their potential.
    29 Aug 2014, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • sheldond
    , contributor
    Comments (1441) | Send Message
     
    INTC's story just gets better and better to me.

     

    D
    29 Aug 2014, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Grant Payne
    , contributor
    Comments (337) | Send Message
     
    Will this actually help the mobile efforts?
    29 Aug 2014, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • bala69
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Intel is getting good experience in IoT and SoC area
    30 Aug 2014, 01:08 AM Reply Like
  • techy46
    , contributor
    Comments (11408) | Send Message
     
    Tick, tock is looking better and better!
    30 Aug 2014, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • brs0h0
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    I never get this, don't these people have anti-compete clauses in their employment contracts like the rest of us?
    30 Aug 2014, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    It's a management position, so I doubt any trade secrets will be revealed unless he took some blueprints on the way out.
    30 Aug 2014, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    Brs0h0 - Kings and commoners have different set of rules. Kings are exempt from laws that prohibit peasants, nothing changed since thousands of years, just the titles, and clothing.
    Even barbers have non-compete clauses now, one barber had to give up his new job, and pay damages to the previous employer. When a company terminates you, these non-compete clauses should become null and void, otherwise how can one make a living?
    1 Sep 2014, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    Geek - Then what value would such a position add? Other than Intel having to pay millions in compensation and stock options?
    1 Sep 2014, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Probably hired him for the contacts and influence this guy holds. He also knows what his previous employers strategy is although confidential it will affect what he does, and he has direct experience in the sector which Intel obviously lacks at a fundamental level considering what their core business has been.
    1 Sep 2014, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    Normally such VP positions are just hype, unless they also have leading engineering skill. Apple is a highly publicized case when Jobs hired Scully from pepsi, the company almost went bankrupt, and Jobs lost his job.
    2 Sep 2014, 07:53 AM Reply Like
  • chris293
    , contributor
    Comments (268) | Send Message
     
    You wonder 'why' are these leaders are leaving Qualcomm at about the same time and will they be worth it for their new employers? As always, will I assume the increase expenses for their employment will in the long run truly benefit the shareholders? It should!
    30 Aug 2014, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    This just shows how desperate intel is to fix their Mobil catastrophe where they are losing billions every quarter.
    30 Aug 2014, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    >>where they are losing billions every quarter.<<

     

    Another Intel bear who can't count.
    30 Aug 2014, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    ax,
    I'm guessing that a great deal of the loss has to do with the IoT initiative and not phones and tablets.
    31 Aug 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    Russ,

     

    Unlikely. IoT is a separate operating division and it is very profitable. Mobile & communications group is, literally, losing ~$1b/qtr.

     

    See: http://bit.ly/1sSWowh

     

    Regards,
    --AE
    31 Aug 2014, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    I stand corrected. I thought they put IoT in with mobile.
    31 Aug 2014, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    Russ,

     

    IoT/embedded, communications infrastructure, and mobile were all lumped together as "Other IA."

     

    However, given that IoT/embedded is apparently a very healthy, growing business, and given that comms infrastructure always seemed to be DCG-worthy (they're Xeons with specialized chipsets), making that change seemed to make sense.

     

    Mobile is a real drag on Intel's financial results today, but I am hoping that the company will finally get it together on that front starting next year.

     

    Regards,
    --AE
    31 Aug 2014, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    Ashraf,
    I expect to hear something kind of "thrilling" during IDF, or I will be re-re-examining my holdings.
    31 Aug 2014, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    Russ,

     

    That's very reasonable. Intel will be holding a technical session where they will be detailing 2015 tablet platforms (SoFIA, Cherry Trail, *maybe* Broxton).

     

    Oddly enough, there doesn't appear to be anything dedicated to smartphones. Second year in a row...

     

    Regards,
    --AE
    31 Aug 2014, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    They are spending 1.3 - 1.5B with a B every qtr and have about 80M revenue to show for. Grab a calculator attorney.
    31 Aug 2014, 02:00 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    ax,

     

    You grab a dictionary. Billions with an "s" at the end means 2 or more. That never happened. Not "every quarter" - not even once. Not a single time.

     

    In fact, the total loss doesn't even add up to billion"s" since Intel started breaking it out as a separate line of business. Before that, it wasn't even material enough to break out, so it was lumped in with the "Other Intel architecture" group.

     

    If you want to push a positive or negative position about a stock with an exaggerated lie, go do it somewhere else. You won't get away with it on any stock I follow.
    31 Aug 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • cjdyar
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Actually making something plural typically just means more than 1, it doesn't have to be 2. And that's from the dictionary.

     

    Either way he was just making a comment worth noting that INTC is losing lots in mobile communications.
    31 Aug 2014, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    Thanks cj, it's exactly what I was doing
    The big question is how long can intc keep funding this money losing business, can they actually win some LTE business with Apple or Samsung or they just have to get out of this altogether?

     

    Attorney, I will ignore your cyber troll threats and your lack of knowledge and common sense .....since you have nothing better to do, can you spellcheck this for me? Thanks
    1 Sep 2014, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    axd,

     

    New person here seeking information as opposed to the other guy who was just distorting facts to "prove" a pre-determined position. I'll give this new guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he is for real.

     

    First, it spell checks fine but the grammar is wrong. You should have a semicolon after your two complete sentences in the "since" clause of your second sentence, not a comma. Also your second sentence is a declarative sentence, not a question, although you have two questions in it as parts. "The big question is..." makes a statement. It should end in a period, not a question mark.

     

    You're welcome.

     

    Second,

     

    >>The big question is how long can intc keep funding this money losing business;<<

     

    Easy one. Forever. Actually, it's a small question. Just needs a spreadsheet and a link.

     

    Intel had $4.726 billion in operating cash flow for the most recently reported six months ended June 28, 2014. http://1.usa.gov/X2O2sD
    Page 5. That's $77.5 million every day, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Memorial Day. Intel lost $1.124 billion in the Mobile and Communications Group last quarter. That's 14 1/2 days operating cash flow. So, if Intel wants to, it could keep this up forever.

     

    >>can they actually win some LTE business with Apple or Samsung or they just have to get out of this altogether?<<

     

    Better question. Still not the big one though. Let's break it down.

     

    >>can they actually win some LTE business with Apple or Samsung or they just have to get out of this altogether?<<

     

    I think so.

     

    I think first, Intel win some LTE business with Chinese white box manufacturers. That's already in the bag. Intel is, in effect, giving away its processors to get those white box manufacturers to use them. Who can beat the price if it's free? Who would want to?

     

    Next, Apple and Samsung lose market share. Intel's chips are good. And cheaper is good.

     

    Next, Intel ships 14nm processors to those Chinese white box manufacturers. For free or for enough to break-even. I think the latter. 14nm chips are cheaper to make than 22nm chips are. Much cheaper in volume when the R&D is already paid for by the chips' development for the PC Client and Data Center Groups. Maybe Intel even makes a little profit - to show the antitrust regulators. Intel is good at show-and-tell.

     

    In any of the three scenarios, the 14nm chips blow away the competition in several categories. They are cheaper. They are much faster. They produce much less heat. And, most importantly, they dray much less power and so tablet batteries last much longer between recharging. Phones will come later and both Apple and Samsung can see that handwriting on the wall.

     

    So one or both have to consider switching to Intel to compete and hold onto market share. The baseband, modem deficiency is manageable but the long-lived nature of the competing white box product is not. And Intel has enough R&D on modems to produce a competitive product in a generation or two.

     

    >>or they just have to get out of this altogether?<<

     

    Nope. Even if Intel only makes a penny, it is an extra penny. Everybody likes more money rather than less money.

     

    But is it worth the trouble? You didn't ask but that is also an interesting question.

     

    Depends on Intel's motive. Can Intel make enough money in mobile and communications to make it worthwhile? Probably not. Even at 60,000,000 units annually at $10 a piece is only $600 million. Not even noticeable to Intel. Make it 600 million units at $10 a piece and it's still only $60 billion. 26 1/2 days revenue at the last six month's rate. Not a pittance but not enough to move any needles.

     

    So why bother?

     

    I have two reasons in mind and I am looking for other suggestions.

     

    Reason 1. The Internet of Things. Intel is already in this profitable with enough volume to move the needle. About $310 million net income annually and growing. These devices need to interact well with mobil communication devices. Best way to see that happen is to build the mobile communication chips yourself.

     

    Reason 2. Qualcomm. Intel see Qualcomm as a threat to Intel in one of its cash cow lines, PCs or Datacenters, or as a competitor to Intel in the Internet of Things. The two possibilities trigger different reactions and it is too early for me (maybe not you) to tell which one it might be.
    2.(a) Intel see Qualcomm as a threat to Intel in one of its cash cow lines. It's not smart to beard the lion in its den. I don't see how Qualcomm has done this but maybe Intel does. If so, Intel might react the same way it did when AMD thrteatened Intel in the PC business. Intel did what any self-respecting red-blooded American hillbilly or ghetto gangster would do. It shot AMD in the head. And then, when AMD got out of the hospital and was no longer a threat, it kept AMD around competing. Good for the antitrust regulators. Very nasty. But also very effective. I do not see the the nose in front of my face.
    2.(b) Qualcomm is, no doubt, a major potential competitor to Intel in the Internet of Things. Small, cheap processors; mass produced in huge queantities; all connecting to mobil devices. Intel will own tablets. Qualcomm owns phones. So it's a just-in-case Qualcomm comes into my den and tugs on my beard kind of thing.

     

    More theories are greatly appreciated. I am not completly sold on any of mine.
    2 Sep 2014, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • youngdividend
    , contributor
    Comments (169) | Send Message
     
    They said $INTC couldn't do it, number 1, yeah they knew it!
    31 Aug 2014, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    youngdividend,

     

    And what does your dictionary say about "every qtr"? Is that more than one quarter?

     

    Intel lost more than one billion in the quarter ended June 28, 2014.
    It lost $1.1 billion that quarter. I didn't know that 1.1
    http://1.usa.gov/X2O2sD
    I didn't know that 1.1 was between 1.3 and 1.5. I must have missed that day in grade school. Might have had a cold or something.

     

    Intel lost $929 million in the quarter ended March 29, 2014.
    http://1.usa.gov/1jzKwKf
    Is that more than one billion by your dictionary's definition "more"? Is that billions by that same dictionary's definition?

     

    Intel lost $761 million for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.
    http://1.usa.gov/X2O2sD
    Is that more than one billion by your dictionary's definition "more"? Is that billions by that same dictionary's definition?

     

    Intel lost $703 million in the quarter ended March 30, 2013. http://1.usa.gov/1jzKwKf
    How about that one? More than one billion or less than one billion?

     

    No other quarter had a loss significant enough to justify reporting under GAAP or under SEC regulations. That means they were all under $one billion.

     

    So is this what "every qtr" means by your dictionary's definition of "every"? Does "every" mean one out of eight?

     

    I would say that Intel lost less than one billion dollars in every quarter except one since forever which includes at least eight quarters.

     

    But I didn't know that "every" means one out of eight or that "more" means less. I must have been playing hooky that day in grade school.

     

    Humbug.

     

    By the way, one billion dollars is a few days operating cash flow for Intel. Oh, my. It's going broke on mobil. More humbug.

     

    And what happens when those 35,000,000 or 40,000,000 tablet sockets Intel bought make it to the next quarter selling really well because they outperform everything in sight (and out of sight too)? That's the right question to ask. 35 to 40 million is about 15% of the entire worldwide shipments. http://gtnr.it/1zZbClT

     

    Or maybe my calculator is not dividing that right either. I'll try kicking it. I'd hate to have to buy another one.

     

    I know. I'll try long division. I didn't play hooky that day.

     

    I will give ax this though. he did spell Intel right. But he put the capital letter on Mobil instead.
    31 Aug 2014, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • cjdyar
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Attorney,

     

    The gentleman actually said "spending" 1.3 - 1.5B every quarter, not "loss". Although I think it's closer to 1.2B. With a very small revenue. Stop digging your own hole with this "dictionary" joke.

     

    Also I never said they were losing billions every quarter. The gentleman was incorrect on that notion, although I'll repeat myself in that his main point was to show Intel's loss in mobile communications area which you don't appear to be concerned about anyways.
    31 Aug 2014, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    cjdyar,

     

    >>The gentleman actually said "spending" 1.3 - 1.5B every quarter, not "loss".<<

     

    The gentlemen, axd07, said something 13 posts up from your post, which is what I replied to. I am going to copy and paste it to see if the computer gets it right. here it is in its entirely:

     

    "This just shows how desperate intel is to fix their Mobil catastrophe where they are losing billions every quarter."

     

    I thought "l-o-s-I-n-g" spelled "losing" not spending. That is another day of grade school I must have missed.

     

    After I challenged the accuracy of that assertion, he changed it to "spending" saying:
    "They are spending 1.3 - 1.5B with a B every qtr and have about 80M revenue to show for..."
    That post is six posts up from this one. That is the post where he told me to "grab a calculator."
    Again, I thought "losing" was different from "spending". Another day in grade school I missed?

     

    I don't think so. Spending, speaking inaccurately and colloquially, could be said to be the total amount of revenue added to the loss. For example, if I get revenue of $7 from selling ice cream, and I lose $3 selling it, I must have "spent" 10$ on the ice cream.

     

    That's not quite true in Intel's case because the loss includes an allocation of depreciation of capital goods, a non-cash deduction, so it couldn't be called "spending".

     

    But even assuming incorrectly that it could, Intel isn't "spending 1.3 to 1.5 billion with a b every quarter".

     

    For the Quarter ended June 28, 2014, Intel had revenue of $51 million and lost $1,124 million in mobile (that's how Intel spells it). By the colloquial definition, Intel "spent" $1,175 million or $1.175 billion with a b. That is not between $1.3 and 1.5 billion. Unless you want to claim that I need to grab a calculator, as ax says. Take a look here: http://1.usa.gov/X2O2sD
    Try reading the numbers before you shoot your mouth off about what they are.

     

    For the Quarter ended March 29, 2014, Intel had revenue of $156 million and lost $929 million in mobile. http://1.usa.gov/1jzKwKf
    By the colloquial definition, Intel "spent" $1,085 million or $1.085 billion with a b. That is not between $1.3 and 1.5 billion either. Unless you want to claim that I need to grab a calculator, as ax says.

     

    For the Quarter ended June 29, 2013, Intel had revenue of $292 million and lost $761 million in mobile. http://1.usa.gov/X2O2sD
    By the colloquial definition, Intel "spent" $1,053 million or $1.053 billion with a b. That is not between $1.3 and 1.5 billion either. Unless you want to claim that I need to grab a calculator, as ax says.
    So far you are both 0 for 3. You're both batting zero. Let's keep going.

     

    For the Quarter ended March 30, 2013, Intel had revenue of $404 million and lost $703 million in mobile. http://1.usa.gov/1jzKwKf
    By the colloquial definition, Intel "spent" $1,107 million or $1.107 billion with a b. That is not between $1.3 and 1.5 billion either. Unless you want to claim that it is and I need to grab a calculator, as ax says.

     

    What do you know. Of the four quarters reported for which we have details, ax's assertions are flat-out wrong. Wrong about the losses, as he originally claimed. And wrong about the spending, as both you and he tried to use to divert attention from his flat out completely made-up dead wrong numbers.

     

    So you are both batting zero so far. You're 0 for 4 on the quarters for which we have detailed numbers. how about for the other four quarters which weren't reported?
    Well, they weren't reported because they didn't need to be reported and they didn't need to be reported because they were immaterial under both GAAP and SEC regulation SX rules. They would have been material if they were over 1 billion, as the quarters reported show, so they could not have been between 1.3 and 1.5 billion with a b, unless somehow 999 got to be between 1,300 and 1,500 when I wasn't looking. Another day I missed in grade school?

     

    >>Stop digging your own hole with this "dictionary" joke.<<

     

    I'm sure that both you and your buddy ax would like me to stop digging this hole by using words and numbers for what they actually mean. You both keep falling into it. Care to try again or would you like to quit while you're behind?

     

    Let me say it again. I welcome bearish viewpoints on Intel. I welcome negative analysis. If it is well reasoned and supported by facts I can learn something and maybe save myself a whole bunch of money.

     

    But I will not allow you or ax or anyone to foist a bunch of made-up "facts" on the readers of this board in an effort to persuade them that 10 is the new 2.

     

    If you want to argue that Intel is in trouble because it is losing a lot of money in a misguided effort to get into mobile, do so. Make your case. I will listen.
    But if you want to manipulate the readers by posting fake numbers to "prove" a position, even a position I agree with, I will correct you. Very politely if you aren't snotty about it. A little less politely, but still politely, if you snottily tell me to "grab a calculator" or "stop digging my own hole".

     

    Which is it? Do you want to discuss the question whether Intel's efforts in mobile and communications are wise, or do you just want to trey to push you point of view about that on everybody anyway you can, with deceitful numbers, fallacious reasoning, and diversions when you are called on it like "grab a calculator" or "stop digging your own hole".

     

    Do either of you have any real opinions supported by some evidence? I'd like to hear them if you do.

     

    Oh, and you might have noticed that I use the SEC filings by Intel to support every one of my stated facts. I link to the SEC archives for each assertions I make. What do you use? Where are your links?

     

    The one thing that surprises me is that everybody else seems content to let you get away with it. Or maybe they just decided to sit back and let me shine that particular light. 
    31 Aug 2014, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • cjdyar
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Sir,

     

    I have not made a single claim to ANY numbers you have stated. The only number I said was "closer" to 1.2 B in spending. No need to be so defensive about my comments. You're accusing me of several "facts" that I never claimed or even said were true. I can't argue with someone who can't read.
    1 Sep 2014, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    cjdyar,

     

    >>The gentleman actually said "spending" 1.3 - 1.5B every quarter, not "loss".<<

     

    Is this not a claim? If so, it is what I was refuting. As for my reading skills, that must be another day in grade school when I was playing hooky.

     

    By the way, I find no value in "arguing" other than when necessary to prevent the dissemination of materially incorrect allegations. I prefer to debate the unknowns and seek a better understanding from the debate.

     

    You were defending axd07, who I believe was publishing deliberately fabricated misinformation, and for that reason, and that reason alone, I took issue with you. I have no reason to doubt your integrity, other than your misreading of the interaction between myself and ax, which could be nothing more than you reading only one of his two posts, or an innocent belief that his deviation from the truth is immaterial. I, on the other hand, believe that it is quite material. my reasons for that belief are length and complicated but are neatly summarized in your statement that I don't appear to be concerned about it anyways. If his misstatement had been correct, I would have been very concerned about it.
    1 Sep 2014, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    Regardless of singular or plural semantics. Why is Intel losing so much money in mobile, is it because it is giving away at or below cost? Or is it because they can't sell what they make and have to write it off?
    1 Sep 2014, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    AA,

     

    >>Why is Intel losing so much money in mobile, is it because it is giving away at or below cost? Or is it because they can't sell what they make and have to write it off? <<

     

    Now that is the right question. There is more than one possible answer. The answers are interesting and debatable. How you answer that question for yourself will have a lot to do with how you feel about what Intel's prospects in mobile are.
    1 Sep 2014, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    As an Intel share holder I should know the answers, but I don't. Its a lot of money to lose, did management explain what are the causes for the loss incurred and ongoing.
    1 Sep 2014, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    AA,

     

    >>Its a lot of money to lose,...<<

     

    Actually, it is more of an investment than a loss. Intel is developing a product line so there is a lot of R&D allocated to this line of business and Intel is subsidizing the Chinese white box manufacturers by paying them the extra costs to use an Intel processor on their respective bills of materials (the list of the other things they need to build the device). Intel processors take an extra investment in other chips since Intel does not yet have a fully integrated System on a Chip (SOC). To get the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to use Intel's processor, Intel is paying them for the cost of buying those other things. For now. That eats up mostly all the revenue since the OEMs just pay Intel a net amount, i.e., the cost of the processor minus the cost of the other things they need to use the processor. Intel's strategy is to get in the door and show the end user what an Intel Inside chip is capable of. Then a market gets created and some of those OEMs will allocated some of their processor purchases to Intel to feed the demand created by the end users which want what Intel can deliver better than the other guy, like processing power to run complex spreadsheets in tablets. I am one of that kind of end user. I do very complicated financial modeling in evaluating potential investments and I change it whenever I think of something like at the poker table. I need a tablet that can handle 15 page spreadsheets with multiple complex formulas. They don't exist right now. Soon though. With Intel inside.

     

    >>did management explain what are the causes for the loss incurred and ongoing.<<

     

    Actually no. They kind of ducked whenever they were asked. You have to figure it out yourself. But I like that. If management tells, they tell everybody. Then you don't get an advantage. If they don't, figuring it out is where the big money is.
    Advantage - you.
    2 Sep 2014, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    Anonymous , developing this technology is very expensive, so Intel has thousands of highly paid engineers that have to pay every quarter, but no customers so huge expense, no revenue.

     

    Disclosure:
    The attorney troll will spellcheck this for me.
    1 Sep 2014, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    axd07,
    You've already proven you can't count. Your subjective opinions are based on erroneous data. You also don't understand contra revenue or how that's impacting reported revenue, which is net of contra revenue, and thus not what you think it is. As contra revenue winds down those dollars show up in reported revenues and they fall to the bottom line as profit. Intel already has customers for both tablet SoCs as well as the XMM 7160 and 7260 modems, and just announced the XMM 6255.
    http://intel.ly/1sXdc5m

     

    What you really need to worry about is the fact that Intel can afford to lose a billion or so a quarter in the Mobile & Comms Group and still be profitable and the stock be up about 35% on the year-to-date, while QCOM is up about 2%. QCOM's total revenue last quarter was 6.81 billion, so in a single segment Intel was able to lose 16% of QCOM's entire revenue for the quarter, yet the freight train kept on rolling down the tracks as if it hadn't hit anything.

     

    Maybe that's why Broadcomm said "we give up, we can't stay in this race". Maybe these Qualcomm execs that are exiting know what they're up against. Maybe Faintuch decided he wanted to be at the company that has the transistors to pull this off. You can't do the designs if you haven't got the transistors.
    2 Sep 2014, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    axd07,

     

    Intel has won baseband sockets at Samsung with both its XMM 7160 and 7260 modems, so that revenue should begin to show up over the next quarter or two.

     

    Intel still does not have a competitive applications processor solution for phones, and everything it's shipping into tablets is actually deducting from revenue.

     

    I would expect 2015 to be significantly better as contra-revenue goes away and as Intel ramps tablet volume, cellular baseband volume, and starts making inroads in the applications processor space.

     

    Regards,
    --AE
    2 Sep 2014, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    axd07,
    Intel is losing one billion a quarter in a particular reporting segment - the Mobile and Communications group. The reasons for these losses are known and were communicated. Contra revenue and the trough in communications revenues in the transition from 2G/3G to 4G (see slide 21 at the link).
    http://bit.ly/1at0ZM1

     

    It's clear the direction is the same as when Justin Rattner gave his IDF keynote in 2012, using the phrase "In the future, if it computes, it connects." Releases such as the XMM 6255 that I linked to above reflect that. Thus it's inconceivable that you're ever going to see Intel exiting this space. It would the same as saying they're exiting computing. I think your perspective is less one of a worried Intel investor, and more one of a worried Qualcomm investor.
    2 Sep 2014, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    Ashraf, I agree, I'm just saying that I believe they need to land a high volume phone/tablet win with Appl/Samsung or both. Otherwise they will never make money in their mobile business, now rumor has it they are getting traction at apple and I believe they are the only company that could take on qcom cellular baseband (see the list of how many have failed), but so far they have not been successful. Now the Qcom/Atheros hire will bring more connectivity expertise (bluetooth, wifi, etc) still tbd if they will have a competitive LTE solution where qcom is king, and where the real money is...don't know why all these people got so worked up about it lol
    2 Sep 2014, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    cincinnautus, exactly my point, the are desperate to make this work. So far there is no real challenge to qcom monopoly on 4G baseband. Can intel become a real player in that space? will have to see, so far they are loosing lots of money and i don't think they will be able to just sink a billion a quarter on this till infinity...that is inconceivable.
    2 Sep 2014, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
     
    axd07,

     

    While I would be very interested in seeing Intel supplying baseband processors to Apple, I think Intel has a bit of a track record problem. XMM 7160 was late by quite a bit, and XMM 7260 was a few months late.

     

    Apple cannot afford to work with suppliers that don't deliver, and I firmly believe that this -- not any technological weakness -- is what likely will keep Intel out of the Apple baseband socket for the next few generations.

     

    Nevertheless, standalone baseband isn't enough to make a viable mobile business. At an approximately $6-8 billion breakeven point, Intel *needs* to gain apps processor traction with the non-Samsung/non-Apple vendors of the world.

     

    I think this is possible during 2015 and 2016, but given Intel's disappointing execution in smartphone SoCs, I'm cautiously optimistic.

     

    Regards,
    --AE
    2 Sep 2014, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    with the anti trust folks in China and Europe looking up Qualcomm's knickers, they would probably be happy to see Intel take some market share.
    3 Sep 2014, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    Well, in my opinion without Samsung or Apple there is absolutely now way they will get to the 6-8B breakeven point. That's where Intel's big problem is, no LTE solution (yet) and even if they have some success with an AP with small names, that will just be small change and not real $. And yes, as you pointed out, their execution has not been great. Do you think there is any chance they will be more open to use ARMH design in the future? I know that is tough for anyone at INTL, but a lot of their competitors are doing really good using ARM.
    4 Sep 2014, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Securities Attorney
    , contributor
    Comments (4032) | Send Message
     
    Ashraf,

     

    >>At an approximately $6-8 billion breakeven point...<<

     

    What makes you think the break-even point is that high? At 233 million tablets sold worldwide this year, assuming Intel reaches its goal of 40 million tablets using it this year, Intel would need $150 each for the processors to reach $6 billion. That's not practical. ASP is more likely in the $20 range.

     

    I pegged break-even at a much lower point, and it's still very difficult to achieve. $800 million is not going to do it.

     

    Intel's strategy goes far beyond merely making a profit in tablets for now. It is geared toward gaining entre into the phone market as well. It also looks ahead to the day when a powerful tablet can dock and run a battery of PC peripheral equipment.
    4 Sep 2014, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • geekinasuit
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    I cannot see Intel embracing ARM. Their entire business model is based on x86 exclusivity, so anything that threatens it will be actively opposed. I think the best way to understand what Intel is doing is to view it as a war. Intel's attempts at getting into mobile is at least partly a response to the ARM threat, they want to attack ARM at the tablet front line and keep it out from expanding into the spaces that Intel currently dominates. Soon another front will be opening at the server level, we can expect a similar response there too. They will do anything, legal or illegal, including throwing money away just to keep ARM out.
    4 Sep 2014, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    axd07, you want to fight the last war. This is about mobile+IoT connectivity. The "PC is dead, Intel must have an Apple/Samsung SoC win to grow or they're dead" were dime a dozen articles on SA last year, even up through late Spring this year. They've been proven wrong, and they weren't close to getting the strategy correct.

     

    Krzanich gave the clearest public indication of the direction I've seen yet in his Citi 2014 Global Technology Conference appearance. You can find the transcript here: http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    All of it's relevant to this discussion, but his answer that starts as follows, and the answer following that are particularly applicable here:

     

    "It’s an integral part, I mean if you look at the computing eco-system and we think most of the devices that you have today are going to need a spectrum of comms. Whether it’s Bluetooth or Wi-Fi or 3G or LTE, things like Bingbooks and Chromebooks are going to be more and more connected, in fact they’re really only functional or highly functional when they’re connected. We think 25% to 50% of those over the next few years will have 3G or LTE connections."

     

    What you won't find him saying is "we're focused on beating Qualcomm head on asap, and we want to replace the Snapdragon 800/801 and follow-ons in sockets." It's clear he's saying that's exactly the opposite of their strategy. These investments are far larger than just 4G LTE or the iPhone/Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphone segment.
    5 Sep 2014, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    What's stopping Intel from providing end to end solution in mobile, maybe they are a decade late with mobile that's the problem, but perhaps its never too late. Apple & Samsung provide close to the end to end solution. Microsoft is trying to do the same now, they are a decade late too.
    Microsoft & Intel had CEOs who fell asleep at the mobile switch, when they woke up they discovered entire world changed; similar to Robinson Crusoe.
    6 Sep 2014, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    AA,
    There was Motorola and Ericsson, Nokia browbeat everyone, Blackberry?
    Digital radio would add Qualcomm to that list of hasbeens.
    This game isn't over, maybe Intel doesn't get up to bat, or maybe they hit a grandslam. Can't tell from here.
    6 Sep 2014, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • axd07
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    cinci you should read my posts before you type, i never said any of the "PC is dead"...you are just making stuff up.
    What I'm saying is that, in MOBILE, (get it!!!?) there is no money to be made unless you are into an Apple or Samsung product.
    read a few times if needed.

     

    btw, intel execs can talk all they want about Wi-fi, BT, LTE, they don't have any of it lol.
    8 Sep 2014, 05:58 AM Reply Like
  • TechIndustryGuy
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    A lot of this talk is about Intel's market strength and technical ability to poach Qualcomm. I wonder whether it should be about Qualcomm's challenges and ability to grow at the same rate they have been ... causing people to look elsewhere (and Intel in this case may simply pay the most).

     

    Within the last week and including this announcement, I have heard three senior (Director and above) people who were former Atheros employees leave. Makes me wonder whether QCOM is perhaps pulling engineering teams from wireless (including IOT) over to their core-revenue cellular business to strengthen it. I can well imagine that the QCOM cellular/mobile team feels pressure from the likes of internal silicon developments of AAPL, Samsung, and (speculation) GOOG.
    2 Sep 2014, 03:16 AM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    Qualcomm is run by engineers. Chairman has a PhD in engineering, CEO is an engineer as well, they have patents to their names.
    Intel's chairman is accounting/finance type person, past CEO was a marketing/sales type, president is an MBA/business type without engineering/science background. I mean no offense to their backgrounds, it is just mismatching skills for a high tech company.
    Qualcomm is run by experts in the field, have a look at the profiles of the leaders at their website, impressive profiles. I do not own Qualcomm stock, I own Intel, but I got into Intel when Intel was run by engineers similar to Qualcomm, unfortunately that changed.
    Qualcomm executives must know whom they can let go, notice the poached person has no engineering background with any patents.
    6 Sep 2014, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • txbadonetoo
    , contributor
    Comments (781) | Send Message
     
    Don't tell Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Lou Gerstner and many others (who very successfully ran IBM for many years) that they can't be successful leaders of technically driven companies - they might disagree with you. These guys had a wholistic view of the markets/ecosystems they operate(d) in and enough technical savy to keep the hard core engineers in-line.

     

    That said I'm happy to have a technical CEO back running INTC. Kryzanich's background is well suited to the current challenge (grew up in INTC's wafer fabs and ran their A/T operations so he understands manufacturing and technical impacts to it) and is more open minded than Otellini was to new ventures for INTC. Otellini did oversee INTC when revenues grew from $38 Billion to $54 Billion and oversaw the implementation of HKMG and FinFETs.
    8 Sep 2014, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • AnonymousAlpha
    , contributor
    Comments (1196) | Send Message
     
    txbadonetoo - All those names you mentioned above were involved with computer hardware or software starting at a very young age, some right in high school or college, they are fit to lead a tech company, tech is in their blood. Only IBM's exec was not as far as I know, look where he positioned IBM at, they are having problems. IBM made lots of money by basically taking outsourced work, firing tens of thousands of Americans and hiring elsewhere in the world at cheap labor costs while maintaining extremely high margins, that well dried up. Technologically he did not position IBM as a leader, they are trying to give away their chip making business along with a few billion dollars cash to any takers, but nobody wants it. IBM was a undisputed leader for many decades, not anymore.

     

    Intel missed Apple's business in making chips for their iPhones, Intel's ceo at that time totally miscalculated, what a huge loss. Revenues went up, because PCs were in great demand, there were no tablets. Intel missed mobile revolution at that time, that was happening right under its nose. In technology field you have to keep up and create new, cannot forever milk from the old. Finance, marketing types cannot think of creating new stuff, they can sell what was already there.
    8 Sep 2014, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • Russ Fischer
    , contributor
    Comments (3018) | Send Message
     
    AA,

     

    During that same time Apple was designing and planning their iPhone, Intel was establishing a near monopoly in the server business.

     

    I wonder how hosed up the mobile business would be if Intel didn't have the vision (and good business sense) to pay attention to this enabling business.
    8 Sep 2014, 07:51 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