|
The old adage that ‘bad news travels fast’ couldn’t be more evident in relation to one particular company in 2007: AMD.
Five of the ten most popular blogs this year concerned AMD after a rollercoaster of a year that looks set to continue in 2008. Countless readers have asked me about what is going on at AMD this year, and I find it far easier to address most of these questions in blogs. However, the endless information - or in many cases, misinformation - that has circulated the troubled company has given me a rich base upon which I can easily blog! IBM had a good year with several technology breakthroughs and process alliances that demonstrate the growing collaboration required to remain at the bleeding edge of process development. It's a shame, then, that much of what came out of the IBM PR machine in 2007, especially in relation to the technical breakthroughs, was simply gut-wrenchingly awful! My rant on IBM’s press release concerning air gaps seems to have struck a chord with many thousands of readers and was the fifth most popular blog in 2007. Interestingly, Intel appeared in the top ten in relation to the NOR Flash troubles and eventual spin-off undertaken with STMicroelectronics. The rumors had been circulating for a long time but we got inside information that the deal was still planned but would take a bit more time than most were expecting. News that Texas Instruments was going virtually fabless turned out to be a hot debate in 2007 in respect to major IDMs and asset-lite strategies. TI's stopping internal process development and teaming with foundries has probably become a flag marked in the ground as to the direction of the path other IDMs may follow in the years to come! It has been a busy year, and I, for one, look forward to blogging throughout 2008. For now I have posted below the 10 most popular blogs of 2007 for your holiday happiness. 1. AMD’s asset-lite strategy: in easy steps
2. AMD’s volume ramp off the rails
3. Intel & ST NOR flash merger a done deal
4. Yield myths at 65nm!
5. IBM full of air
6. Why the Intel & ST JV hasn’t happened yet
7. AMD’s 45nm volume ramp could be a 2009 affair
8. The mystery that is AMD Fab 38
9. Texas Instruments close to the edge!
10. Is AMD going fabless? (updated)
|
Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-04 15:15:36
I believe IBM's mission is to maximize shareholder value, not to attract R&D guys trying to improve their standing as potential academics. I do understand the need of researchers for trumpeting their achievements, however non-profits can do that much better. The issue here is not whether the IBM can subsidize IBM R&D with their booming services business, the question is whether that R&D will ever become revenue generating at a decent ROI. IBM's poor performance in microelectronics and its consistent inability to gain market share, or even to make money in products or services in semiconductors, seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps it is time to divest the semi business and its related R&D activities, and capture some residual value for the shareholders rather than taking it away from the services business. | Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-03 17:57:35
Even though I agree with your comments regarding IBM's semi lack of focus on delivering actual products, there is a difference with regard to Lucent. IBM is profitable in other segments (services) that it keeps a core semiconductor R&D fab running, they also are sharing the costs with other companies to keep the cash bleed down. They do have their fair share of useless overhyped PR that only serve to inflate their egos and justify their existence to the executives, that is certainly very much true :) | Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-03 17:56:37
IBM R&D is the last place in the US that lets you do cutting edge semiconductor research and actually talk about it at some point. If that goes down, attracting new talent will become very very difficult.
| Comment by GUEST on 2008-01-02 14:49:58
Can someone discuss why it is that IBM is still doing research in semi process technology? What is exactly the nature and scope of their business interests in that space? How has it been, its recent past semi business performance? How likely is IBM to continue doing semi research 5 years hence? How likely is IBM to continue doing semi products 2 to 5 yrs hence? IBM semi business presents a blurry picture and foggy strategy.
I ask these questions because it is pretty obvious to me that IBM strategy in the semi space seems to be based not on R&D gains in support of its business but on monthly press releases announcing breakthroughs supporting non-business-related technologies. The target of these releases seems to be US and NY government funding agencies, and its own management team. The end goal of all IBM PR seems to be a futile effort to trumpet their "R&D" contributions to their board, while leaving shareholders puzzled about what the company is doing to build a valuable semi business.
IBM R&D seems to believe they are part of a university, not a business unit of a major corporation. It has forgotten R&D innovations need to support a focused and measurable product effort, even if IBM R&D is being driven by the wishful thinking of supporting a sound IP business.
I believe IBM VP for R&D needs to have a serious conversation with Lucent's VP for R&D of the late 90's in order to understand how Lucent managed to run to the ground the company and wreck one of the finest research resources ever assembled. IBM seems oblivious to Intel’s product focus, just as much as Lucent was to Cisco’s focus on the router in the late 90's.
IBM’s R&D wreck seems to be the next chapter of the history of the end game of major central corporate R&D laboratories.
Comments greatly appreciated.
|
|
Blogs 
