Re: Intel

On Mon, 05 Aug 24 16:10:54 UTC, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 8/5/2024 11:26 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 05 Aug 24 04:42:24 UTC, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
 

On 8/3/2024 5:47 PM, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 17:18:33 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 03 Aug 2024 12:32:23 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>

https://www.nextplatform.com/2024/08/02/the-resurrection-of-intel-will-take-more-than-three-days/?td=rt-3a
>
Looks like they wrecked Altera.

>
And hung onto the Intel '86 architecture a tad too tightly, for far
too long.
>
Joe Gwinn

>
Yes, it's an ancient dog. It's immensely complex to push the X86
architecture for speed, hence the power consumption and all the bugs.
>

>
This poor bugger:
>
<https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1ehjuzj/i_bought_700k_worth_of_intel_stock_today/>
>

 
Since its peak in 2024, Intel stock has lost 2/3 of its value.
 
 
 

>
About 1/3rd of that in the past 3 days..

Sorry, I meant 2022.

Intel is like Kodak and Polaroid and Xerox, fixated on their own aging
technology. Intel missed the boat big-time on EUV, so it's hilarious
that they project big revenues in the foundry business.

Intel has done $152 billion in stock buybacks, instead of investing in
their own business. Now they need government subsidies.

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/intel-subsidy-chips-act-stock-buyback