[mikechen233]

I found say intel not just failed in the process nodes. It also failed to see the rise of the dedicated fab (tsmc) and fabless business model as a more efficient model. Intel also failed at innovating on lower power designs and the gpu. Even at 14nm, there are so much that could be done to improve igpu performance. From color compression, to the more efficient shader array. The nintendo switch runs Nvidia tegra x1. It's a 20nm chip, and look at the performance of the gpu. Intel could have also put their markshare weight to put the alternative to cuda be it opencl or even their own API to really gain market traction. They could have their dedicated gpu. Yet they just ignored the whole massive simd compute market. I think for intel, lossing mobile to arm and see the improvements in mobile year over year should be a wake-up call. Yet they didn't do anything to increase their moat for the past 10 years. Or maybe they did try, but their strategies are just flawed. The strategists at Intel just don't have enough foresight and vision.

[klelatti]

Feels like execution rather than strategy: they've tried at mobile, gpus, foundry etc - the right calls - but just haven't delivered. Apple / AMD / TSMC have executed much better.

[mikechen233]

I feel is both. Also a good strategist would have made sure whatever plan and vision you have is also going to be executed well. A strategy that didn't end up to be executed well is a failed strategy.