Restructuring takes its toll on Intel’s second-quarter financials

Intel released its second-quarter financial results this evening. Compared to this time a year ago, revenue grew 3% to $13.5 billion, but operating income plunged 54% to $1.3 billion. Intel says that drop in profitability is linked to the restructuring program it announced in the first quarter of this year. The company also notes it's eliminated 6,000 of the projected 12,000 positions it expected to cut as part of its restructuring efforts. Net income fell 51% to $1.3 billion, and gross margin shed 3.6 points to fall to 58.9%.

  Q2 2016 Q2 2015 Change
Revenue $13.5 billion $13.2 billion up 3%
Operating income $1.3 billion $2.9 billion down 54%
Net income $1.3 bilion $2.7 billion down 51%
Gross margin 58.9% 62.5% down 3.6 points

Intel's Client Computing Group revenue fell 3% year-on-year to $7.3 billion. Platform volumes (a figure that accounts for both processors and chipsets) fell 15%, but average selling prices (or ASPs) grew 13%. Desktop platform volumes shrank by 7%, and desktop ASPs increased by 1%. Notebook platform volume fell 5%, but ASPs grew by 2%. Tablet platform volumes fell 44%, continuing a recent trend of double-digit declines.

The Data Center Group took in $4 billion, up 5% year-on-year. Platform volumes increased 5%, but platform ASPs fell 1%. The company says its networking and storage businesses are to thank for that growth. The Internet of Things group grew its revenue by 2%, to $572 million, but the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group's revenue declined 20% to $554 million. The Programmable Solutions Group, which absorbed FPGA maker Altera, reported 12% revenue growth to $465 million.

For the next quarter, Intel expects revenue of $14.9 billion and GAAP gross margin of 60%, "plus or minus a couple of points."

Comments closed
    • blastdoor
    • 3 years ago

    I continue to be fascinated/bewildered by the distribution of P/Es across major tech companies.

    Intel’s P/E is about 15, which seems pretty appropriate to me.

    AAPL is 11, MSFT is 40, GOOG is about 30, and AMZN is 307.

    I think Intel is the only one that’s in the right ballpark. The rest are way off. I actually think they should all be in the 15 to 20 range. From lowest to highest, I think it ought to be:

    AMZN, AAPL, INTC, MSFT, and GOOG

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 3 years ago

      I’d be weary of Apple. They have lost their laser like focus since Jobs left, and they’re transforming into just another technology company (look how many freaking models of iPhone you can buy now).

        • blastdoor
        • 3 years ago

        Wary of Apple? Compared to what? How many of the other tech companies have a laser like focus? How many are employing Steve Jobs? The closest I can think of is Tesla, but Tesla is in a very different category than the ones I listed (it’s in the category of companies that don’t have a P/E ratio because the E is negative).

        I’m afraid I can only invest in companies that exist….

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 3 years ago

          Most technology companies seem like bad investments to me, but I’d look at ones who are doing something interesting as opposed to slowly becoming like all their competitors.

          I suppose if you think the Apple Car is going to be a big hit, it’s a good bet. Otherwise I see Apple slowly morphing into HP.

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        I’m not sure what to think of Apple anymore honestly. They’ve always had the “maybe not the first, but the most accessible” approach, but now it sure seems like a lot of following, i.e iPad Pro compared to Surface Pro, market share aside. These last few years have been a lot of “Look, thing is bigger! This thing is smaller! This bigger version of the thing is now smaller!”.

        And then there’s where they often excelled which is physical design, and things like the Watch, the unintegrated Pencil and unergonomic gorilla arm ipad pro keyboard…

        I dunno. Maybe they’re treading water until they can hit the Apple Car in 2019-2020 or whenever, but that too seems like a very strange area for them. What was that anecdote about great critics not often making the greatest of designers…

        Then again, with their money in the bank comparable to several small countries, maybe they’re now more of a security stock rather than a fast growth stock.

          • blastdoor
          • 3 years ago

          Overall, I think the iPhone is still a great product.
          I like the 5k iMac quite a bit.
          I still prefer macOS to Windows and iOS to Android.
          I generally am satisfied with “the ecosystem”
          I like the Watch fine, but it could be better

          However…
          the iPad, while a good “consumption device”, is struggling in its attempts to be anything else
          the laptop lineup is stale
          The Mac Pro is way beyond stale, as is the Mac Mini — both are really quite pathetic

          The wheels are far from coming off, but Apple needs to make some significant improvements throughout the product lineup. If we don’t see some big improvements by the end of this year I will start to question Cook’s leadership. I really hope that doesn’t happen, because I think he’s a good guy.

        • Antimatter
        • 3 years ago

        Apple has become a victim of its own success. iPhone sales make up about 70% of Apple’s revenue it’s going to be incredibly difficult for Apple to create another product rivaling the iPhone’s success.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 3 years ago

    I met some people from an unnamed chipset/processor company sunday and we discussed market leaders for chipset and processors. Their perspective is in spite of intel’s size, they are not a market leader anymore. They aren’t competitive in the international market place and are clinging to technology that is already outdated. Their failure to branch out from x86 will be the thing that does them in. Or so they theorized.

    The products of today and tomorrow in the mainstream do not and will not have intel processors or chipset in them at large. And the future of server technology with be adapting these more efficient processors. Their dollar to performance per watt is the best or will be soon, with no ability for intel to recover. Or so they say…

    EDIT: this is a disclaimer. The nature of the conversation was not about engineering but business, and the reason intel was loosing on bids against said company. And what that means for the future of intel, the MEGA giant processor company. Its not meant against intel, they make good parts.

    Addendum: I’m continuously confused how people on a tech site and refute the mobile devices expansion. Not negating the importance of traditional PC’s just there is this idea that most people who used to buy HORRIBLE budget PC’s moving to functional tablets is a loss for PC’s everywhere. Its only a loss in that intel/AMD is not in that tablet. But that isn’t the devices fault nor the consumers. Nor is that tablet less useful to that person than the old pc infested with adware. What you can do on a tablet expands by the month. Its just weird to see this disconnect.

      • sweatshopking
      • 3 years ago

      X86 isn’t the terrible inefficient mess many people claim it is.

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        On large desktop and server cores, eh, but it certainly hampered them from going down to the spaces ARM is in. Look at the ucode rom and x86 decode space together, it’s almost as large as something that actually makes things faster like the FPU, right?

        [url<]http://i.imgur.com/OKs8Qs2.jpg[/url<]

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 3 years ago

          I just don’t think the >1 watt CPU market is going away.

            • tipoo
            • 3 years ago

            Nope, but also the IoT industry will grow and may be a huge missed opportunity.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            I’m not bashing x86, I don’t know enough about the engineering to know what is actually good.

            But the driving metric that intel is getting hosed on is performance per watt per DOLLAR. Its why they can’t get into mobile devices. When intel marketing is out of the equation they aren’t price/value competitive. And soon they’ll loose servers, not cause they make bad processors, but because they need to sell them for 1/3 or less what they sell them for now, and they don’t have the margins to do that. They would need a complete organizational restructure to hit the necessary price point.

            Tell investors their profit is diving 90% and stay in business… yeah not going to happen.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          Complex versions of ARM that are actually supposed to compete with x86 parts have non-trivial instruction decode units too.

          Probably not quite as large as for a high-performance x86 chip, but it’s still there and there’s no free lunch.

            • tipoo
            • 3 years ago

            Oh of course, not trying to misrepresent it. But ARM does take opportunities like the 64 bit transition to cull old instructions, and sanely limits instruction size to 32 bit (½w 64B, vs x86-64 ½w, … 7½w), while Intel seems content to keep adding.

            One of these days Intel is going to have to get over it’s post-Itanium ptsd induced “x86 or bust” mentality and start fresh, or at least a substantially culled x86.

            [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_(computer_architecture)#Table_of_word_sizes[/url<]

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            knowing nothing of the merits of the engineering, my original post and nature of my conversation with the interested party was based solely on their loss of consumer market due to performance/watt/dollar.

            But I imagine, that if they are loosing ground price wise its cause of business inefficiency, typically that would bleed into engineering inefficiency of some sort.

            The margins they need to be the companies investors have come to expect doesn’t allow them to directly compete when price is a consideration.

            • jensend
            • 3 years ago

            I’m sympathetic to your point, but though ARMv8 may be a cleaner instruction set by itself, the ARMv8 transition is making decode units more complex, not simpler, since everything has to still be able to deal with AArch32 and Thumb code as well as the new ISA.

            Indeed, with the Cortex A32 ARM was able to increase efficiency 10% over the A35 just by lopping off the 64-bit stuff.

            This is not all that different from the requirement Intel faces of keeping decode capability for all its outdated instructions.

            • tipoo
            • 3 years ago

            Perhaps this also means ARM is in a better spot to lob off the 32 bit backwards compatibility holding them back, rather than Intel who is currently BC into the dark ages? A bit of complexity in the decode units now, for a cleaner break later when ARMv7 is sufficiently deprecated.

            • Antimatter
            • 3 years ago

            Wouldn’t it be likely that ARM server CPUs will support ARMv8 exclusively as there isn’t much (any?) 32 bit ARM server applications.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      So what’s the future according to them? ARM servers? Right.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 3 years ago

        According to this ARM manufacturer their only proof was social proof. Intel is loosing core consumer market. I regularly meet people who only have phones no more laptops and such, maybe an xbox or blu ray player and that is it. Where is intel in any of those products? If intel looses that market and faces competition in servers from more diversified companies it won’t be able to compete.

        That was their thought. Performance per watt per DOLLAR, intel will get wiped out on servers eventually, like they did on mobile, because they are not able to compete when consumers aren’t drowning in their marketing.

        I have intel in my desktop but that is a niche space for power users. Intel can’t continue to do business as it has and stay in business in 10 years. They are of course free to adapt as businesses can when faced with IBM level decline…

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          Phones, tablets, Xbox, Blu-ray players, smart watches.. All media consumption devices. Practically just dumb terminals waiting for data from servers or PCs. Can they survive on their own without REAL computers like servers and desktops/laptops? I doubt it. And ARM is practically zero in the markets dominated by x86 (i.e. REAL computers). The world’s biggest and most important computers are still largely based on x86.

            • sweatshopking
            • 3 years ago

            No they’re not. They’re becoming inhouse Chinese designs

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            yep… I’m not against intel, I like intel, I’m saying they are about to fall off the wagon, wtf are they doing. And it was pointed out to me by a qualcomm person. They do not compete time and time again, there was also some patent licensing stuff going on in the background too, I can’t remember the details on that either. But intel is in a goofy spot in terms of preserving market share.

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            I suppose we’re on different ends of the spectrum. You love Intel but think their future is bleak. I have been pro-AMD (and hence, feel a tiny bit anti-Intel) but I think Intel’s future is more secure than you think it is. Given that…

            x86 is gonna be pretty difficult to unseat. Tons of companies around the world will not go out of their way to try something from ARM, which at the moment holds the greatest potential of unseating Intel in the world of servers. IBM MAY have a shot too but their years and years of trying to beat Intel tells me they’ve had their chance and if at this point they haven’t succeeded, chances are they never will. SPARC is practically super niche. MIPS is just hanging in there. New ISAs like RISC-V don’t stand a chance. AMD’s K12 MAY have a shot but AMD’s tendency to shoot themselves in the foot is unprecedented. Besides, the fact that AMD prioritized Zen over K12 speaks volumes, despite their aforementioned unprecedentedness (coined that up).

            I’m not saying Intel doesn’t have its own problems; they very much do. Contra revenue proves that they wanted to nip the rose in the bud. But that failed because they can’t stand losing money like AMD. Their process tech advantage will die out as everyone catches up (like you know, how everyone eventually caught up to Sony’s Trinitron and even bested it with flat CRT TVs across X and Y, not just Y). Their IPC advantage will also die out sooner or later because everyone will catch up to them too as they run out of tricks to push IPC forward.

            Their burden of keeping tons of fabs running will, combined with the aforementioned reasons, plus the fact that the industry is wary of their monopolistic and heavy-handed tactics, will eventually spell their demise if they don’t right the ship soon. But it will be difficult and will take some time to happen if it’s meant to happen.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            I see intel having one issue, their is no way to stomach loss of margin. Their investors are weak and used to them making tons of dollars every quarter. If investors flee because they face actual competition their cash will seize up. Its the same stinking thing that happens to all the legacy tech companies. The underdog is going for market share not for profitability, if you think businesses have to operate profitably to have good stock values you don’t know how investment works.

            Some might say the laws are structured to dethrone legacy business because it makes it possible for the underdog to operate in an anti competitive fashion. A business that is growing can go an undisclosed window of time without posting a return or dividend as long as they continually expand, until such time as they have majority market share then the expectations reverse.

            So its how Intel justified contra w/o getting blown out of the water, expanding into a new market. And its how ARM is going to undercut Intel.

            IBM has not been a well run company in my adult life time, similar to HP of late. IBM was dedicated to self destruction to generate positive quarterly reports… habitually selling off functions of its business until it was in the most highly competitive tech niche’s without the cash from other business groups to fund their efforts, while being to large to really kamikaze their way into the cloud and server markets.

            HP has publicly declared the same genius strategy that created the IBM decline.

            I’m not so much for or against any brand at this point. I love AMD GPU’s hate their drivers, I love Nvidia drivers hate their hardware prices and anti competitive antics. Nvidia had some real momentum with tegra rolling and kinda fizzled out. If they can rekindle that and push their GPU computing further they might have a real shot at something special.

            AMD cpus… I had the 1070T x6, their first 6 core, it was a niche CPU but the darn associated chipset was a nightmare. driver problems plagued it. I’ve had 3 GPU’s in the last decade from AMD, all great hardware, but driver anomalies that make you scratch your head.

            Compare stock prices to revenue you’ll see the smart money is following my expectations.

            • NTMBK
            • 3 years ago

            It’s been 10 years since Conroe. 10 years ago, the iPhone hadn’t even launched. Compare how far ARM has come in 10 years with how far Intel has come… If I were Intel, I would be worried.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            If I were intel and my Atom processors were totally useless and I’d spent 10 years and a bajillion dollars.. I’d be a tad upset or afraid.

            Again this isn’t about real vs fake computers or some crap people want to make it about. lol. Its about intel, a CPU manufacturing firm is not manufacturing in key markets. WHY NOT? not for lack of trying, but they can’t compete when price is part of the equation. Atom isn’t dead because its not powerful enough or it uses so many wats. Atom sucks because its so darn expensive for the performance/efficiency.

            That is the irrefutable reality. Intel needs their margins and without a major turn around its improbable that they could resist any major push in their sacred server segment. Changing away from x86 would have even less of an impact there than it would in desktops. It’s probable they are on course for a rapid decline with direct competition in their last major market (PC’s are not going to be mainstream soon, not saying they are going away. Just that the nature of PC’s will be more focused to work and powerusers.)

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Of course they’re worried. Remember contra revenue? If that’s not a sign of their worries, I don’t know what is.

            Edit – Added:

            Well when the iPhone came out the market it played in was still in its infancy. Nobody had Android and such. It grew and grew and now the Android market has pretty much plateaud. Back in 2006 the PC was very much mature but if you look at Intel’s numbers they’ve kept growing ten years on. Sure there were dips here and there but Intel kept raking it all in, to AMD’s chagrin.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            How was it?

            EDIT: That was a fascinating read, WTF were they doing?

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            My point is, they are worried. It’s too bad they’re practically quitting.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 3 years ago

            you are very right. big business is fascinating to watch.

      • AnotherReader
      • 3 years ago

      ARM, the presumptive heir, [u<][i<]has not maintained its efficiency[/i<][/u<] when [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19<]scaled up to compete with x86[/url<]. I wouldn't discount Intel when it comes to the datacenter. Moreover, servers have other consumers of energy besides the SOC: to name a few, gobs of RAM and 10G ethernet don't sip power. Any ARM designs that would be competitive with Intel's would require a significant design expenditure. The uncore is extremely important for servers and so far, [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/10<]ARM designs haven't included a good memory subsystem[/url<]. Then you would have to spread that design cost over less units than Intel as initially only a small part of the market would give you a second look. As the designs would be very different from the ubiquitous phone SOCs, volumes wouldn't offset the design cost. This means that prices are unlikely to be low enough to price Intel out.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 3 years ago

        I get what your saying, but I didn’t think they would have kicked intel out of mobile a decade ago either. I don’t think intel is done tomorrow, but in 3-6 years… mark my words, ARM will have officially taken a significant chunk of servers. Atleast 20 % and will explode from there. Intel has proven bad at competing when margins are involved, inversely Qualcomm and ARM have proven adept at managing to undercut there.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Given how these big corporations throw money around like they’re pebbles, would it be too much to ask from one of them to throw me a bone here? Even just a measly $5M would be life-changing for me. Thanks, Intel! You guys can PM me on how we should go about it.

      • Wirko
      • 3 years ago

      I’ve heard they pay in square coins called zoins or zeons or something. $50,000 worth of them barely fills a purse.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Well, I’d take them over buckazoids any day.

    • Thanato
    • 3 years ago

    Well Zen is coming, I guess Intel is preparing for the worst.

      • smilingcrow
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t be so hard on Zen and it’s not even out yet!

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        The old Zen-eroo

        • blastdoor
        • 3 years ago

        Nicely played

      • Neutronbeam
      • 3 years ago

      Is that similar to “Winter is coming” only more, ah, chipper?

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        But is it more or less Stark?

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Speaking of winter, the day Zen drives Intel nuts will be the day hell freezes over.

    • ultima_trev
    • 3 years ago

    Is this finally the sting of the Post-PC era that we’re now seeing?

      • bfar
      • 3 years ago

      It’s not cut and dry. Part of the problem is that they bet too much on mobile.

      • yogibbear
      • 3 years ago

      No, pretty much every single large company has had to cut people in the last 12 months. Those redundancy packages hurt their bottom line as they adjust to be “leaner” and then inevitably realise they fired many of the wrong people and have to rehire plenty of them on higher wages because the only people that get made redundant are usually the ones working so hard they can’t be bothered to “network”.

      • Prestige Worldwide
      • 3 years ago

      Nope.

    • sweatshopking
    • 3 years ago

    Laying all those guys off was intel’s first mistake in a while
    Guize I really just wanted to type first in the first post.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t be sexist!

      They also got rid of women and “other” too.

      Besides, the real mistake was buying Mcafee, which made little or no sense.

        • sweatshopking
        • 3 years ago

        Actually, that’s true. McAfee was quite the blunder.

          • nanoflower
          • 3 years ago

          I still don’t get what Intel hoped to get out of buying McAfee. It’s not like the AV marketplace was growing that fast when they bought the company. It was an established marketplace so where did they see the room for high growth that would make the purchase worthwhile?

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Yeah, me too. Heck, many antivirus companies even just give their stuff for free. Since around 2011 or so every time we bought an Intel CPU there’s this leaflet in the box about some sort of McAfee offer, but I just ignore it, and I’m sure most other folks do as well. Does Intel expect folks to just grab McAfee because they found a leaflet in the box? I mean, granny probably would, but grandson will tell her to just get Avast Free or AVG Free.

            • moose17145
            • 3 years ago

            You guys actually think they cared about consumer AV territory?

            Man you guys are WAY off on this… their goal was to become a dominant market leader in the corporate market space. Think Web Proxies, SIEM, IPS/IDS’s, Firewalls (which right when the Intel merger happened they sold their firewall solution to Raytheon), etc, etc. They couldn’t care less about the consumer AV market. That is just some side thing they can make a few extra dollars on.

            Intel did with this market what they always do. They throw a bunch of money into something to try to bully their way in thinking they can become a market leader in only a few years. Then when they are not the market leader within a couple of years they give up or say it isn’t working out and abandon it part way through because Intel doesn’t know how to follow through on anything long enough to actually become a market leader in a market segment new to them.

            Now it is the employees of what used to be McAfee who are now paying the price as the lions share of the layoffs are McAfee employees. Whatever talent McAfee had or was working on regaining is being gutted from the company and shipped overseas per orders from the Intel leadership who knows nothing of the security industry. This has been happening heavily since Intel absorbed McAfee into Intel itself (meaning McAfee as a company stopped existing as a subsidiary of Intel).

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Yes we know what they wanted out of McAfee but I was just speaking of my own experience.

            On a different but related note, I’m amazed how these big companies built their empires through decades of blood, sweat, and tears, then acquire other companies or assets for bajillions, then quit after only a couple of years when things don’t go as planned.

            • moose17145
            • 3 years ago

            What I cannot wrap my head around, is that the McAfee / Intel Security division was seeing double digit growths in market share in several key segments of the enterprise market. DOUBLE DIGIT GROWTH!!! Intel’s investment in McAfee was starting to pay off, actually! And then just as things are looking like “yea man we got this! Just gotta keep the momentum going!” Their execs were like “Naw screw this. We don’t wanna do this software security thing anymore. Get rid of it and all the people what made that double digit growth possible”.

            • sweatshopking
            • 3 years ago

            The hope was to implement hardware antivirus. This was a long term play, but now seems unlikely to bear fruit.

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            NX bit was probably as much as they can ever do in hardware to prevent viruses from doing Damage.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        Maybe the CEO just fired the guys because he likes to be surrounded by more ladies?

        • NTMBK
        • 3 years ago

        Don’t forget the Altera purchase, and Infineon’s modem division. Intel’s made some questionable acquisitions lately.

          • Zizy
          • 3 years ago

          Well, I can see the point in Altera, though I believe it was too expensive. But I can’t imagine what Intel planned to gain by antivirus.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          There’s some logic behind the Altera purchase.
          Doesn’t mean it will be a success, but at least there’s logic. Similar to AMD’s buyout of ATi.

          I’m actually not a fan of expansion via corporate takeovers. They have a long track record of costing too much and failing to produce good results. Often times they occur when a company generates a huge pile of cash and doesn’t know what to do with it, so they go out spending too much on acquisitions instead of either figuring out a better use for the money or giving it back to shareholders.

            • NTMBK
            • 3 years ago

            There was logic, but the execution has been a mess. They whole idea was to bring Altera in house so they could get some synergy going, release FPGAs on kickass new Intel processes, and so on. But since the acquisition they’ve been beaten to 14/16nm by Xilinx. Same theory applied to the modem acquisition, and again Qualcomm has been running circles around them.

            I think these big acquisitions run the risk of crushing the acquired under the weight of corporate bureaucracy.

      • blastdoor
      • 3 years ago

      Layoffs are often the result of earlier management screw ups. Management makes bad decisions, employees pay the price.

      My point is just that there were almost certainly several mistakes made over the past several years that culminated in the layoffs. Mistakes like refusing to fab for Apple, refusing to make atom the best product it could be, and then using contra revenue to foist an inferior product on the market.

        • sweatshopking
        • 3 years ago

        Mistakes are often the result of current managerial screw ups. Layoffs to benefit the shareholders which screw the company over the long term. I have no idea which this is, but the cast majority of layoffs in the tech sector are the result of share holder greed, not the best managerial practices.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 3 years ago

          Well, in this case, it was because Intel shelved the x86 tablet business. It was going nowhere pretty quickly, and ARM SoCs are plenty for that sort of device, so it wasn’t likely to get better. The tablet SoC business was the mistake, and these people pay the price for it.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 3 years ago

      serious answer to your fake post…

      This restructuring and the future intel retraction is a direct result of declining managerial forethought. Intel is on a course like that of HP and IBM and AMD for that matter. They wanted to keep their heads down and ignore where the markets were going, and they got greedy and lazy.

      They have no price competitive mobile products… and their server products are about to get wiped out in the coming decade… wonder what they’ll do next?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This