How are you, @hacker?
Now that we've covered the US presidential elections and most of the Q3 earnings, I want to take a moment to discuss Intel and some of the excellent reporting from Reuters about the company's downfall.
Intel, as it is today, appears very insignificant when compared to AMD and Nvidia, both of whom have made some very shrewd bets on artificial intelligence, especially Nvidia. Though in Nvidia's case, I've argued that its technology was simply at the right place at the right time.
As I said so in March:
Nvidia never really started as an artificial intelligence company the way OpenAI and so many others like it did. It started out as a company that produced graphic cards for video games, and for a long, long time, this is what Nvidia was known for. But as an offshoot of all the research it did in producing better and better graphic cards, it ended up creating tensor cores for real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies for use in video games. Little did Nvidia know that this technology would then serve as the backbone of LLMs, instantly transforming it as the arms dealer of choice in corporations' pursuit of the perfect AI.
At the time Nvidia was developing its technology, however, Intel engineers were scoffing at video gaming chip architecture and believed that a CPU could more effectively handle processing tasks needed to build and run AI models.
As time has bore witness, Intel and its engineers were wrong. Very, very wrong. So when demand for AI chips skyrocketed, Intel was left with its pants down, scrambling to get a product out.
Ironically, Intel was this close to hitting the jackpot that Nvidia eventually ended up striking. In 2017 and 2018, the company had the opportunity to invest in OpenAI but decided against it because then-CEO Bob Swan did not believe generative AI would make it to the market soon enough for it to be worthwhile the $1 billion Intel would have had to pay for a 15% stake.
OpenAI also offered a further 15% stake if Intel agreed to make hardware for it at cost price — but the company refused, leaving OpenAI to rely on Nvidia's chips instead.
But that was then. Intel hasn't fared any better under current CEO Pat Gelsinger's leadership either.
Intel rehired Gelsinger in 2021 to help lead the company out of a tough spot: it was losing out to the likes of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Samsung Electronics on chip-making technology, and the idea was to have Gelsinger, who had been with Intel for most of his career and helped develop some of its most successful personal-computer chips, lead a turn around.
While Gelsinger's heart was in the right place, his turnaround plan didn't really do much to turn the company's fortunes around. In fact, things came to a head this past summer when Intel stunned both employees and investors with its poor quarterly results and announced sweeping measures (cost cuts, headcount reduction, etc.) to become profitable again.
All of this could have been avoided had it not been for some key mistakes Gelsinger made after taking reins of the company. According to Reuters, soon after becoming CEO, Gelsinger offended Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing by calling Taiwan unstable.
Gelsinger's "Taiwan is not a stable place" comment had more to do with his push to develop a US-based supply chain for chip manufacturing, but was so poorly received by TSMC that it reneged on a 40% discount it was willing to offer Intel on chips it designed but could not produce. That discount would have really helped Intel's margins, but, nope, Gelsinger was too busy commenting on Taiwan.
Making matters worse, Gelsinger kept doubling down on his plan to develop a manufacturing footprint that could rival TSMC's, but on American and European soil instead. Problem is, customers have no reason to shy away from TSMC, particularly considering that Intel's foundry ambitions have run into technical challenges.
Combined with the fact that Intel kept sticking to producing chips for desktop computers and servers, and you have a clearer picture of why the company is in such dire straits today.
The list of fumbles goes on, but what must really make this sting for Gelsinger is that just a few weeks ago it was announced that Nvidia would take the company's place on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Today, Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world. The company has a pile of cash. And CEO Jensen Huang's 3.8% stake in Nvidia is worth more than Intel's market value combined, Reuters reports.
And to think Intel could have prevented all of this from happening. The way I see it, Intel is either going to be bought or Gelsinger will be fired, possibly both.
I'll be here to report on it when it happens. Intel was #198 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week.
In Other News.. 📰
- Bitcoin ETF Options Attract $2B on Day One, Shifting BTC’s Market Structure — via CoinDesk
- H, the AI startup that raised $220M, launches its first product: Runner H for ‘agentic’ applications — via TechCrunch
- With Musk in tow, Trump eyes changes to government policies on AI and its dangers — via CNN
- Apple to urge judge to end US smartphone monopoly case — via Reuters
- Trump 2.0 will face Big Tech antitrust test — via Axios
- FTX co-founder Gary Wang avoids prison time for role in crypto fraud — via CNBC
And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️
— Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon
*All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page.
Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here.
This latests list is unique data HackerNoon gathered from 11/6/2024 to 11/19/2024.
