% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

  • amdroaddkill2010 amdroaddkill2010 Mar 31, 2013 11:34 AM Flag

    How painful would an Apple Intel foundry deal be for Intel shorts?

    Likely, very very painful as Intel revenue growth over a 3 year period would be over 50%.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • They aint leaving one bid industry playa for another. wow you is road roast.

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • will Intel be a foundry or a Low power Soc leader in the future????????????????????????????

      As for why Intel would move into the foundry business, the simple reason is money. Unless Intel can break into the mobile market in a big way, the only real avenue for continued revenue growth is increasing its foundry business. The problem with becoming a foundry, though, is that it gives Intel’s competitors (Qualcomm, AMD, Samsung) access to the very same advanced CMOS processes that have allowed Intel to gain such a dominating lead in the PC market. The profit margins for foundry work are lower, too: Whereas Intel’s gross margins are around 60%, TSMC’s gross margins are around 48%.

      According to one analyst, if Intel did manage to bring on Apple as a foundry client, the production of iPad and iPhone SoCs would net Intel an additional $4.2 billion in revenue. $13 billion of capital expenditure doesn’t seem quite so crazy, when you look at it like that. At least as far as the industry analysts are concerned, moving into the foundry business is the only real route for Intel. With the value of its stock dropping 19% over the past year, Wall Street would seem to agree.

      I think we should probably wait and see how Merrifield and Bay Trail do, though, before jumping to any conclusions about Intel’s future as a foundry.

      • 2 Replies to singhlion2001
      • Intel will only do foundry work for selected few. Intel has stated in the past that they would not do foundry work that would enable their competitors ie. Qualcomm, Samsung and nVidia. In the case of Apple though, one can argue that it really isn't enabling competitors. Fabbing for Apple makes sense because their SoC is not being used anywhere else other than Apple's own products. And since their products are so popular, the revenue generated makes it worthwhile. Intel can still continue to push their own SoC for phone/tablet makers. In fact, by fabbing and enabling Apple, it is a good strategy to get phone/tablet makers to start using Intel's SoC in order to compete against Apple. This is of course assuming that Intel's SoC will be superior starting at 22nm and beyond.

      • 14nm tech is basically the same everywhere. Only TSMC is lagging behind, everyone else (GF, Samsung, Intel, probably IBM) will all be on 14nm in the same year.

        well at this moment Samsung is 4 months in on the production line for their 14nm high energy IC line as reported by EEtimes, and almost a year in on their 10nm flash NAND (which I think is not the full power IC line, just NAND/DRAM). Samsung's 14nm was developed jointly with IBM, GF, and someone else, so it makes sense that the others can't be that far behind Samsung. Intel is almost a year in on their 14nm production line: yes they lead, but not any "full generation" like they used to. The division I am referring to in these examples is from production line ramp up to full production.

        Usually it takes a year to get the line online once you start getting the first samples, and then up to a year from there before sales from the production line begin. Some companies, like AMD, don't start selling til almost a year after their production run. Others, like Intel, start within a couple of months at most. So intel might get out the door first, but it still won't lead whole generations like it used to.

        Samsung is already beginning to sell eMMCs based on their 10nm. That's NAND only, but it shows how much things have changed.

        Sentiment: Strong Sell

32.04-0.17(-0.53%)Oct 13 4:00 PMEDT