Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View uls2's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • IDF 2015: Keynote Exposes Intel's Broken Approach To Mobile [View article]

    I find your observation quite correct, regarding suppliers to mighty customers. And your and Russ F's comment on when to do business with Apple: not until they have something that allows them to call the shots, rather than Apple.
    Aug 21, 2015. 10:50 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IDF 2015: Keynote Exposes Intel's Broken Approach To Mobile [View article]
    @Todd Steiger, @RLLH,

    Thanks both of you for your enlightening comments. And for attempting to get back to the subject the author raised, the biz model Mark Hibben finds so unique and essential for financial succes.

    I enjoyed a lot of other comments to Mark's articles here as well, but his issue was Intel's and Apple's Business model in comparison.

    I rather tend to agree with the two of you, besides te fact that I find INTC's way of doing business much more likable than AAPL's.

    But I must admit that AAPL has an advantage or two when it comes to potentially much better agility.
    Aug 21, 2015. 10:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Micron And Intel: Non-Volatile Memory Is Exploding [View article]
    Many thanks for a most informative article on ths subject; it was the best we have seen here lately, I believe. Very helpful for me, anyway.

    I wonder if you care to answer my following questions regarding a possible MU acquisition by INTC: (1) what could an acquisition possibly get INTC? It seems to me they would buy a lot of worries in addition to memory output, which INTC can get easier without buying the whole company.

    (2) My understanding is that INTC owns all the IP required for making the NVMs developed by the JV. Is that your understanding as well?

    (3) If true, then INTC could equip an empty fab of theirs and produce NVMs there. Would that not be a far better way to go than buy MU?
    Aug 19, 2015. 09:55 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Micron: Not Selling Hot Dogs Anymore [View article]
    Stephen Breezy,

    I very much disgree with you on your thesis of AAPL wanting to buy MU +INTC. Why? Because for them "hot dogs" (possibly spruced up, but hot dogs neverheless) are all their products require.

    BTW, I appreciate both of your articles on 3D XPoint, thank you very much for them. I found both very informative and exciting!

    But please keep in mind that 3-star restaurants (Michelin does not award more than three, BTW) have a considerably smaller customer base than hot dog stands. And I am unable to see, why and how most DRAM applications should have any incentive to switch to 3DXP. Here are the limited use cases for 3DXP, where a switch makes sense, IMHO:

    (a) 3DXP clearly has most to offer for future server-class memory architectures, because of non-volatility combined with speed and density (especially once extended to more vertical layers) = cost. I can foresee all DRAM disappearing here eventually, exept for small eDRAM integrated in package or in SoC form with the processor. Biggest advantage here probably is non-volatility and associated savings in (uninterruptible) power supply.

    Any memory maker which can make 3DXP exclusively for a while should be able to rake in lots of profits here (not unlimited though), selling it for DRAM+ Prices, because of the value of non-volatility + perhaps extra speed, while making it for lower costs. Intel's future Purley architecture is expectedly prepared to exploit these advantages. BUT: producibility of something as new as 3DXP has to be proven first; even more so at lower cost than the solutions it aims to replace.

    (b) The advantages I can see for PC + Notebook + 2-in-one/combo + tablets appear small, considering that today we have acceptable solutions.
    So why should makers of such products change over to 3DXP?

    (c) faster than HDD storage will need to come from 3D NAND, for cost reasons, I am convinced. INTC + MU claim to have devices "almost ready" with significant cost advantages, relative to Samsung etc. but they still have to prove that.

    (d) perhaps smartphones can benefit from 3DXP, but most likely only a new class of smartphones that some call "portable supercomputers". I doubt that many users want to carry around such phones; they'd rather splurge on better cameras or displays. And save themselves the worry of possible losing such a supercomputer-smartphone.

    Users are expected to be business people, who want to carry with them (in their smartphone) everything their PC holds, and then carry on their work away from their desks, using such a "supercomputer-smartph... combi plus a remote docking station whereever they sit down to work, which maily contains a keyboard + diplay(s).

    But Apple makes lots of money pulling (end users = consumers) across the table, not business "power users". The biz model here would be different, so why should Apple wade into territory they do not yet understand?

    (e) ordinary smartphones: IMHO what we have today is plenty enough. I doubt that the power savings available from 3DXP is worth upsetting present memory solution approaches for ordinary smartphones. I might be wrong, but this is the way I see the situation today.

    That is why, IMHO, Apple won't go for 3DXP. Care to comment, Stephen?
    Aug 3, 2015. 09:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How The Intel Acquisition Of Altera Affects Taiwan Semiconductor [View article]
    a lucrative business deal with Apple is an oxymoron!
    Jul 23, 2015. 09:54 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel president James, three other execs leaving [View news story]

    I had been hoping that the company and three of these people (all except Mike Bell) would part ways sooner or later, but I had not dared to expect this would happen so soon. And not that this would occur more or less simultaneously with Hermann Eul's departure.

    If the reasons, why James and Sodhani were let go also, come anywhere close to what I imagine them to be, I pull my hat in respect for BK and offer my congratulations!

    Jul 2, 2015. 10:26 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel reportedly in talks to buy Altera; shares soar [View news story]
    Do you believe this has anything to do with investing?

    Why don't you tell us about the other lucky events of you life too
    Mar 31, 2015. 01:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel's Cherry Trail Disappoints With Performance: Is This As Bad As It Seems? [View article]
    the author doesn't give a shit, I am sure. He is interested in one thing only: INTEL BASHING.

    I a writing this on one an ASUS Transformer, a 2-in-one that contains this supposedly worst cpu of the century (Bay Trail). I find the Transformer a great tool to work with, and the performance I notice is a function of the quality of the WLAN connection, rather than anytihng else.

    I am fully convinced that benchmarks such as those cited by the author are useful only to totally unrealistic reviewers like him, who are unable to recognize what really counts to real-life users, and what simply does not matter any more today!
    Feb 26, 2015. 05:17 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel And Inevitability [View article]
    I always enjoy reading an article you write. Including this one. Because you never fail to provide your readers with new food for thought.
    But sometimes I am afraid your Fischer math produces results that are hard to believe. Like your estimated cost for a 256 Gbit NAND chip. It seems to me that the $1.72 you stated would apply to a 50 sq. mm NAND chip, not to a memory that requires 32 times as much silicon.
    The fact that Intel plans to stack 32 of these chips in one package unfortunately will not reduce the cost of the (total) silicon by a factor of 32. So if all your assumptions prove correct, the silicon costs $55.04, not $1.72. Do you agree?

    Another point you may want to consider: since NAND silicon wears out with time, I wonder if it's really a good idea to combine it – in one package – with µP silicon? Perhaps it can be done, when enough redundancy is built into the NAND storage, which then gets switched in, as worn-out portions of NAND are disabled with time. But with the high latency of NAND storage, can you really obtain sufficient performance improvements that warrant the extra cost of combining µP + storage? I doubt it.
    Power savings because of shorter connections are another matter. But here too the question remains: does what you gain in power savings compensate for the extra cost of integration?
    Nevertheless, thanks for an interesting Russ Fischer thought of the day article. Have a good day. uls2
    Dec 2, 2014. 07:34 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Electric Must Spin Off GE Capital [View article]

    Thanks a lot for your comment regarding Jack Welsh vs. Jeff Immelt. Even though I started buying GE when Welsh still ran the show, I prefer Immelt by a mile, as he is the more rational of the two, and IMHO seems to have a far better future Vision of the company

    Nov 28, 2014. 05:52 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: Reported Mobile Losses (Economically) Overstated By $1.2 - $1.5 Billion [View article]
    @Nick Pappo,

    The analyst who wrote this neutral review (Matthew Ramsay) is ranked #3185 out of 3393 analysts; not exactly a great ranking.
    Nov 24, 2014. 10:25 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel's New Mobile Direction [View article]
    Thank you Mark, for opening my eyes to a more sensible way of looking at Intel's revised strategy for smartphones and traditional tablets. The way I see it now: they are de-emphasizing significantly their own activities in this space. Why? Because these activities are not all that important to them, in the form they pursued them until recently.

    They don't absolutely need the best smartphone solution there is, as long as two other companies are taking away some revenue from QCOM in China, as long as Intel collects some licensing fee (however small it may be), as long as they keep open for themselves the opportunity to bring their own capabilities into the smartphone and tablet space eventually; RealSense and all.

    And if integrated SOFIA (or whatever else it is called) from 14nm Intel fabs never works, or not by 2016, thre will be other alternatives. Connectivity is important for Intel to really exploit the potential of IoT; that's where real profits can be earned. But even if the comms solutions that Intel can offer (as part of larger overall IoT solutions) are not as good as what QCOM could do, even sub-optimal comms capabilities will probably be suficient for Intel, when they are part of a bigger pie (Like IoT).

    I would have preferred to see Intel partner with QCOM in some way for comms IP, because I am still convinced that QCOM is the comms thought leader and may remain this leader forever. But if that does not work (and it probably won't), partnering with the 2 Chinese companies may well turn out to be a workable 2nd-best solution.

    Now all Intel has to do is figure out how to get out of one of their biggest blunders lately, their IFX-Wireless Solutions acquisition. A graceful exit probably won't be possible, and it will be costly because of German Labor laws. But perhaps they can figure out an eventual solution after all, to save most of the money they spend there. Some of the folks in Neubiberg most likely are useful for Intel to keep, I assume.
    Nov 23, 2014. 09:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Shares Overvalued By 15% Due To Disappointing Dividend And Earnings Growth Outlook [View article]
    @Tom Ar.

    I appreciate the link to your instablog, and even more so your thoughts outlined there. You seem to have spent a good amount of effort doing some serious analytical work. I'll get back to you after I have digested more of it.

    As it happened with many mediocre articles that I read here already, I sometimes find surprisingly good insights in or via some of the comments below the line.
    Nov 21, 2014. 12:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Investor Meeting Generates Big News [View article]
    Thanks a lot for your article, Bill. A good summary, and some pleasant news, outlook-wise and dividend growth-wise.

    I want to add, that Kirk Skaugen's presentation impressed me a lot. To me it showed rather vividly, how "un-dead" PCs really are. Listening to Kirk, I got the feeling that Intel had needed the external impetus that arose from Steve Jobs' activities in 2004 + 2007, but that - fortunately - the toys peddled to the world out of Cupertino had been a far cry from what is possible in the mobility space. And that a lot more innovation is coming from Santa Clara instead.

    I was disappointed by the lack of a deeper-diving discussion of the unprofitability of MCG, and of the fix they will implement next year. And by the apparent lack of analysts present, who asked uncomfortable questions last night (the meeting ended at 1am on Friday, where I live). As always I was bothered as well by what I perceive as a lack of realism regarding Intel's really big problems (multi-comms activities, exploding capex, high R&D costs).
    Nov 21, 2014. 06:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Shares Overvalued By 15% Due To Disappointing Dividend And Earnings Growth Outlook [View article]
    @Bruce Campbell,

    Thanks a lot for your comment. Reading it was worth a lot of chaff on the way to it.

    I hope that you and I are not unrealistically optimistic about Intel right now, considering all the things they do poorly. Like comms, where they are hopelessly behind QCOM, I am afraid, and like cost-effective manufacturing of rather powerful ICs, where TSMC still seems to have an edge over Intel now.
    Nov 20, 2014. 10:12 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment