Intel Interim CEO Comments On CPU Supply Challenges

[schmidtbag]

Wrong, Intel is in the market to make money, not to make great processors everyone wants to buy.

This is capitalism, companies aren't your friends, everyone wants to screw you over to make a profit.

No, it isn't wrong because your point is completely irrelevant... Except for non-profits, literally every company seeks to make money; including many charities. So yes, you enter a market to make money, but your obligation as a business is to fulfill the demands of whatever product/service you provide.
That being said, investors don't invest in a business just for the hell of it. They invest in the company in the hopes they get cumulative profits.

Companies aren't your friends, but they aren't going to get money (from either customers or investors) if people don't like what they offer. In the case of Intel, they were left without competition, so it didn't matter what the consumer wanted.

[dungeon]

This is capitalism, companies aren't your friends, everyone wants to screw you over to make a profit.

Let alone capitalism, Intel is kind of monopolistic case.

Monoplists on some points tend to be lazy, to not have ideas, to sleep on its laurels, also are known to manipulate with prices and products, to spend a lot of money for nothing, etc... i mean, everybody knows that

[starshipeleven]

No, it isn't wrong because your point is completely irrelevant... Except for non-profits, literally every company seeks to make money; including many charities. So yes, you enter a market to make money, but your obligation as a business is to fulfill the demands of whatever product/service you provide.

Wrong, your obligation as a businness is to sell your stuff and get paid for it.

If we go by your rules, Apple or Microsoft would not exist. When was the the last geological era Microsoft fulfilled the demands of their product/service they provided? Did Apple ever sell actual quality stuff designed to last more than 2 years at a honest price?

Bottom line is that what you say is only partly true. In some markets it's necessary to fulfill the demands of the consumer, in others (especially if there is some kind of monopoly going on, or you cornered the market or you created your own religion around your products) you don't need that as you ensure sales through other means.

In the case of Intel, they were left without competition, so it didn't matter what the consumer wanted.

Correct, which is why what I said above applies. As long as you can sell overpriced shit you are making money, and as long as you are making money the investors are fine.

The issue though is for the long-term, markets are going to saturate eventually and unless you find some way out you will be stuck in a market that is going to decrease your profit.

Which is why they tried their foray in mobile (and somewhat predictably failed), and also in microcontroller-ish segment (and didn't fare particularly good but was not a total disaster like with mobile).

[starshipeleven]

Let alone capitalism, Intel is kind of monopolistic case.

Monoplists on some points tend to be lazy, to not have ideas, to sleep on its laurels, also are known to manipulate with prices and products, etc... i mean, everybody knows that

True, Microsoft is another obvious example.

NVIDIA on the other hand is handling their semi-monopoly much better and seem to still have a firm grasp of the situation. I guess that having so much control freaks in key positions helps with this.

[dungeon]

True, Microsoft is another obvious example.

NVIDIA on the other hand is handling their semi-monopoly much better and seem to still have a firm grasp of the situation. I guess that having so much control freaks in key positions helps with this.

Of course MIcrosoft too. And you know what, monopolists at the top starts to behave like communists actually, because there is nothing else much... so they same like communists start to be lazy, to not have ideas, to do various bullshits...

I wouldn't say that NVIDIA is semi-monopoly, but semi-mafia Because they dare to begging even its own users of consumer market users to pay more via tariffs, donations, well call these how you like consumer investment maybe ... included in price whenever they can, nowdays these are by definition included everywhere

For example their new RTX 2080 Ti really do not worth more than $799 - that is real price , but they put big chip tariff of +$200 on its own users and another +$200 of donation if you go to FE... in the end user without even knowing this is basicaly asked to pay + 1/3 of real price for big chip exclusive

This is just an example, but it happens on any NVIDIA products... Now, i would understand this if it happens on professional market, but to asking even average Joes on consumer market to pay more like this to me was always laughable

[schmidtbag]

Wrong, your obligation as a businness is to sell your stuff and get paid for it.

*sigh* I see you're going back to your usual tedious nitpicking over petty details that really don't matter and just distract from the underlying point. I don't even disagree, but everything is always so black and white to you.

[starshipeleven]

*sigh* I see you're going back to your usual tedious nitpicking over petty details that really don't matter and just distract from the underlying point. I don't even disagree, but everything is always so black and white to you.

The underlying point is that your statement "Um... no, it isn't (or it shouldn't be, anyway). Their job is to make processors that people want to buy." is wrong and you resort to these petty tactics of blaming the messenger that points that out to you in a civil manner instead of just admitting that you phrased it wrong or something and moving on.

[starshipeleven]

Of course MIcrosoft too. And you know what, monopolists at the top starts to behave like communists actually, because there is nothing else much... so they same like communists start to be lazy, to not have ideas, to do various bullshits...

True communism never really existed, it does not scale beyond a few dozen people who all know each other.
States calling themselves "communist" have always been some kind of thing that works more like a generic totalitarian system. Which also explains why they act the same. They are the same, with different cosmetic appearence.

For example their new RTX 2080 Ti really do not worth more than $799

If it has Raytracing, then it's totally worth the silly price. Everything is better if it has raytracing.

(not really)

[schmidtbag]

The underlying point is that your statement "Um... no, it isn't (or it shouldn't be, anyway). Their job is to make processors that people want to buy." is wrong and you resort to these petty tactics of blaming the messenger that points that out to you in a civil manner instead of just admitting that you phrased it wrong or something and moving on.

lol "civil manner" my ass. You know very well that your pedantry (and posts of disagreement in general) does not promote civility. And since you've made it pretty apparent in the past that your argumentativeness has no productive intent, it's quite obvious you have no civil motive here.

You always get so carried away over the most insignificant details. You [should] fully understand what I'm trying to say (at least 1 other person did), but you'd rather take things as literally as possible, nitpick it to death, and then use that as a way to hyperbolize how wrong you think I am. And that doesn't just apply to me. Your last post to dungeon did the exact same thing. Anyone with half a brain would know that he's not talking about the literal definition of communism, and yet there you are, rambling on about "true communism never really existed" as though anyone cares or that had any meaningful contribution to the discussion; and no, it doesn't. His point just went right over your head, because you're so fixated on 100% accuracy.

[sjekkel]

The underlying point is that your statement "Um... no, it isn't (or it shouldn't be, anyway). Their job is to make processors that people want to buy." is wrong and you resort to these petty tactics of blaming the messenger that points that out to you in a civil manner instead of just admitting that you phrased it wrong or something and moving on.

How is his statement that Intel's job shouldn't be just about making money but about making processors that people want to buy wrong? Do you decide what Intel's job should or shouldn't be about?