Bill Gates is, in every way, a successful retired businessman – one of the most successful businessmen ever to have lived – by any traditional measure of wealth or impact on wealth. the world. For better or for worse, Windows is functionally powered by the majority of the consumer PC revolution, especially during the Internet-driven boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s. according to Gates, his biggest mistake was not to see the threat presented by Android and miss the mark when it came to ensure that Microsoft continues to dominate the phones in the same way he had dominated mobile .
In an interview with Global Village, VC, Gates revealed what has views like her greatest miss.
In the world of software, especially for platforms, these are winning markets for everyone. The biggest mistake of all time is therefore the mismanagement in which I committed that Microsoft did not look like Android. In other words, Android is the standard non-Apple phone platform. It was a natural thing for Microsoft to win. It's really the winner who takes everything. If you have two times less applications or 90% of applications, you are about to finish. There is room for exactly one non-Apple operating system and what is its value? $ 400 billion that would be transferred from G to M
On the one hand, he is not mistaken and this is not the only category of products that Microsoft has not managed to win. A few years ago, an article became viral for reporting that Bill Gates had correctly guessed 15 distinct predictions that would occur (or would have come close enough), and Microsoft has either a limited presence or no presence in any of the 15 markets . This is not necessarily a proof of failure, because in most cases, Microsoft has never even tried to penetrate the space. What says a lot, however, is the difference between seeing the potential of how the market will evolve and having a business plan to become the pivotal one that will dictate the course of this evolution . It should also be noted that Gates was not the CEO of Microsoft at that time, after his resignation in 2000. Steve Ballmer was running the company with Gates apart as the chief software architect.
Of course, Gates is not wrong Microsoft has undeniably missed the mobile revolution. His phone operating systems were years behind in the evening. I've often had the impression that Windows Mobile (which had enjoyed some success) had the success that the latest Windows Phone deserved, in what could be described as cosmic karma, but that could also be perceived as the vagaries of the market and human nature. What is interesting about this new period, in my opinion, is that it is simply impossible to claim that Microsoft and Intel have not made enormous efforts to succeed in the mobile market. Both did.
For Microsoft, this involved the entire push of the Surface device, the porting of Windows 8 to ARM, and a desired market for slates and tablets that did not materialize. For Intel, he focused on writing his own open source operating system (Moblin, MeeGo, Tizen) and inventing a new type of low-power processor to serve those markets. Intel and Microsoft had smart engineers who understood the need for new products to meet new markets. What they lacked was to understand what types of products would be successful. Intel's ideas for MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices) included large keypads, small displays, and generally undesirable form factors. Microsoft's Windows Mobile devices at the time before Android were phones equipped with a keyboard, though, honestly, that's what everyone was building – BlackBerry did not build an empire based on the idea that everyone wanted touch screens.
It would be easy to stop the criticism and say that Microsoft lacked Android because it lacked the importance of touch screens. I think, however, that the current problem goes further. From what I understood, with Microsoft, particularly at that time, the question of the company was always to know "How does this fit into our current market of products?" Windows and Office? " perfect meaning for Microsoft to ask. But it is also an issue that tends to function as a form of lock-in. If you start thinking about a mobile product from the point of view "How do we provide Windows and Office features?" The UX and UI elements you will use come directly from the Windows / Office paradigms that people already know. . This is what Windows Mobile, based on Windows CE, has tried to offer. This is not an approach that fits well with what people actually have selected to use, though, and this is an idea that prompted Microsoft to think about how to use phones in a much more restrictive way than Apple or Android, which invented new user interface concepts to accompany their touch architectures.
The fact that Microsoft has adopted such a different visual design for Windows Phone 7 is proof that the company was able to think outside the box and create its own new and distinct visual language. The problem is that Microsoft did not start early enough. Steve Ballmer's reaction to the iPhone is one of the most infamous remarks in history. Asked about the device, Ballmer said USA Today: There is no chance that the iPhone gets a significant market share. No chance. "
But I can not mess up Ballmer for that. Because if I am really Honestly, I did not see it coming either. In 2007, I did not have a great opinion about the iPhone, but I honestly believed that tablets would not cannibalize the computer market in 2011. Like Ballmer, I thought that a physical keyboard was a critical factor for many people. . Like Ballmer, I was wrong. Although I get paid to watch technology trends and see what's coming up, I thought the PC market was mostly driven by people needing a keyboard. Why because I need a keyboard. To this day, the idea of doing all my writing on an iPad or equivalent gives me hives.
That's why I'm not sure Bill Gates can really claim that the value of what Android would become for Google is his error I guess it was the mistake of a very large number of people, most of whom were more directly responsible for Microsoft than him.
To really catch the wave, Microsoft should have started working much earlier than on a Windows Phone product, and it would have had to follow a radically different strategy. do not have focus on her two biggest cash cows. It is extremely rare for large companies to pivot that elegantly, let alone earlier, and we are well placed at the forefront: being a large successful business in a marketplace does not necessarily help you to succeed in another. If that were the case, Intel and Microsoft would be the owners of the mobile sector right now.
Top Image Credit: Bill Gates (photo by JP Yim / Getty Images)
The United States on Friday added five Chinese companies to a blacklist, limiting their access to US technology. The "list of entities" identifies entities for which there is a reasonable basis to believe, based on specific and explainable facts, that are involved, involved or have a significant risk of being or participating in activities contrary to US foreign national security policy ".
The companies in question are: Sugon, Higon, Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit, Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology and Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computer Technology. One of them, Higon (also spelled Hygon), is a semiconductor joint venture between AMD and THATIC, in charge of selling x86 processors for the Chinese server market. THATIC itself consists of two separate joint ventures: Chengdu Haiguang microelectronics technology and Chengdu Haiguang integrated circuit design. If you look at the list above, these two companies are included.
In short, the US government seems to have just banned THATIC, the two companies that formed it, and the non-factory semiconductor company to design and sell x86 processors in China. According to the government's information document, all of these companies are owned in part by Sugon, which seems to be the main target company. The document of the Ministry of Commerce states It was decided that Sugon and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computer Technology were involved in activities:
United States … Sugon, the Institute of Computer Technology Wuxi Jiangnan and the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) are the three main Chinese entities in the development of exascale high performance computing . Sugon has publicly acknowledged a variety of military end-uses and end-users of his high-performance computers.
This would seem to be a serious problem for AMD's efforts to expand its operations in China as part of the THATIC joint venture. We contacted AMD and received the following statement:
We are currently evaluating the addition of five new entities to the list of entities by the Bureau of Industry and Security. AMD will comply with the regulations governing this list, just as we have complied with US laws to date. We are reviewing the order details to determine the next steps for our joint ventures with THATIC in China.
Reports of earlier this month stated that AMD did not license Zen Architecture 2 to THATIC. The future involvement of AMD, its revenue forecast and exposure to it are currently not clear.
The move comes as President Trump prepares to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping in China next week and discusses how export laws can be used to radically change the competitive landscape. These determinations will change the balance of power between AMD and Intel in China, as well as the market available for Semiconductor in this nation the NYT reports that the United States is considering adding Hikvision to the list. Sugon is a leading exascale computer manufacturer in China, with 10 of the fastest Chinese supercomputers according to the TOP500. Sugon is a much smaller company than Huawei, but these specific lists will continue to impact the semiconductor industry given their exposure to the HPC market – a critical area in which AMD hopes to gain market share.
There was a time when computer capabilities were considered a national resource of the United States, and strict restrictions were imposed on the export of computer technologies. As Steve Jobs has already said: in 1999"The Power Mac G4 is so fast that it is classified as a supercomputer by the US government, and we are prohibited from exporting to 50 countries around the world." These restrictions have been considerably relaxed over the years. following, but some steps have been taken to tighten them since then. In 2015, for example, the Obama administration banned Intel, Nvidia and AMD from selling chips to the Chinese government. The Trump Administration's decision to further tighten the rules and lock down some subsidiaries is a welcome expansion of these restrictions, but not without precedent.
According to rumors, Intel could prepare to significantly reduce the price of its processors, with the upcoming launch of the AMD Ryzen 3000 family. What is less clear is if it represents a real potential outcome or simply wishful thinking.
According to DigiTimes (subscription necessary), Intel could reduce processor prices by up to 15 percent in response to AMD's upcoming Ryzen parts and has already informed motherboard manufacturers of this change. It is possible that Intel will take this step, but judging by the company's actions since AMD introduced Ryzen in 2017, it is rather unlikely.
Intel has taken several important steps to improve its products in the months leading up to the launch of Ryzen. He added hyper-threading to some processors in the Pentium class, and then, with the 8th generation family, increased the number of cores on his various processors. Similarly, the HEDT Skylake family of pieces has increased the number of base pieces at the same price. Intel's six-core and eight-core processors are about half the price they were four to six years ago.
What Intel has not done all this time is actually a reduction of its CPU. the prices as such. Instead, the company simply waited until the time came to introduce a new generation of parts and position the new processors more favorably than the old ones. This allowed Chipzilla to adjust its prices to take into account AMD 's competitiveness without launching into titles such as "Intel could reduce the price of its processor before the launch of Ryzen 3000 by AMD".
Intel does not want to see prices directly because it means you have competition in the first place. Not only that, but the fact that Intel's HEDT components are priced, even in the face of AMD's high performance Threadripper competition, means that the company has not faced much of the current threat of these chips. If users aggressively transferred their workstation purchases from Xeon to TR, Intel would have been forced to react. The fact that he did not suggest that they had not done it.
Intel chief executive Bob Swan has previously admitted that his company expects increased AMD competition in the server market and that gross margins could suffer, which would imply that some price cuts could take place, but not where society would prevail. Currently, the high-end parts of Intel are those where are virtually the essential price differences. An eight-core Intel processor can cost around $ 500 versus $ 300 for an AMD equivalent, but a 16-core AMD processor costs $ 829 on Newegg, while a 16-core Intel Core i9 Skylake X processor costs 1,700. USD. It would take more than 15% of the price to bring the two chips to parity.
Based on Intel's actions to date and its competitive response to Ryzen, we believe the company will reduce its prices as much as necessary. It may not be ready to happen before the launch of the Ryzen 3000 family and may choose to focus on lowering prices on specific SKUs for which it needs to improve its competitiveness rather than significantly reducing costs. At the same time, the room for maneuvering Intel to achieve certain price cuts, at least on some parts, is unclear. We will have to see how Ryzen 7nm parts stand out before saying more.
Intel has released a new automatic overclocking tool that could even be worth using, provided it meets the stringent requirements to do so.
Historically, the automatic overclocking options offered by manufacturers have never been worth using, in my opinion. These types of solutions typically offer little or no practical clocking validation, often running a handful of arithmetic stress tests after slamming each adjustable voltage on the processor to its maximum security value.
If you overclave your bragging rights and only care about keeping a stable machine long enough to run a test or two, extended stability validation is not necessary. If you really want to use the system and get useful results, you will need to do a stress test to make sure nothing gets stuck. Intel Performance Maximizer is designed to do some of this tuning.
The IPM is compatible with the following processors:
You'll also need a Z390 motherboard, at least 8GB of RAM, at least 16GB of free space on your drive, and Windows 1809 or later. In addition, processor overclocking must be enabled in UEFI, as well as all processor cores, Hyper-Threading (if supported), Turbo Boost 2.0, Intel SpeedStep Enhanced, and Intel WatchDog Timer. The startup mode must be set to UEFI.
Once installed, the IPM creates a separate partition for itself and runs from it. You are prompted to purchase an Intel Performance Tuning Protection Plan (Intel will extend the processor replacement warranty for catastrophic overclocking for $ 19.99).
according to PC Perspective, the IPM performed remarkably well, pushing its processor up to 4.9 GHz @ 1296v. Previous tests have shown that the core of the processor could reach 5GHz 100% at 1.35V, but this type of aggressive voltage and the sharp increase needed to reach the 4.9 GHz core prove that the processor has already exceeded the ideal voltage point deposit.
The only additional performance that was taken away was to enable XMP and set DDR4-3200 performance specifications. The IPM module of Intel does not try at all to change the clock of the RAM. Therefore, if you want to take advantage of these improvements, you must do it separately. Once IPM is installed, it will overwrite any modified settings in UEFI in favor of its own overclock settings. If you want to remove the overclock or try it manually, you have to uninstall IPM.
This kind of simple one-click tool will not suit everyone and Intel has limited its use to a limited number of enthusiasts to prevent users from blowing up their platforms. But we like the fact that it would take some time for the IPM to complete the CPU stress test. because all too often, these parameters are composed aggressively and with very few tests. It will take a while before knowing if it results in fully stable results: good automatic overclockers are accurate because they usually do not sufficiently solicit the system to be sure that they have eliminated every last point of potential crash. extra margin in the kernel instead.
If you have a Core i9 and want to see if there is a little extra room in the core – and you do not accept the risk of overclocking that results, the IPM module is perhaps the most simpler and simpler. overclocking to let you do it again. As to whether you should buy a processor protection plan … it depends on your degree of aggression. I've never seen a processor die from a moderate overclocking, but if you want to start melting the high voltage in the core or pushing the cooling limits, a $ 19 warranty replacement option on a chip of $ 400 to $ 500 may not be a bad thing. call
The IPM file from Intel can be downloaded right here.
New rumors are running that Intel may seek Samsung's assistance at 14 nm, although there are also reasons to doubt it. If this is true, it suggests that Santa Clara will remain stuck at 14 nm for a significant amount of time for at least a few games, notwithstanding recent discussions on Ice Lake.
according to SE daily (via Google Translate), Intel and Samsung are in the final stages of trading for additional capacity. Intel would have chosen to work with Samsung rather than TSMC because of concerns regarding the improved competitive performance of Huawei and AMD. TSMC stated that it thought it could continue to manufacture chips for Huawei, and that it allegedly prompted Intel to prefer Samsung as a partner, due to the possibility that new business decisions regarding retaliation would be taken against companies that do business with Huawei.
I do not want to go so far as to say that it's wrong, but the chronology seems extremely compressed. Negotiations on smelting capacity between two large companies will not be negotiated in a weekend, and the US government total blockade Huawei is still quite new. In addition, taking action against TSMC for believing that it could continue to manufacture systems on a chip for Huawei would, in some respects, be excessive. Huawei is facing enormous problems in bringing its products to market for reasons that have nothing to do with its ability to supply SoC. Even with perfect support for the smelter, its manufacturing supply chain is threatened in an existential way, not to mention its access to software and support tools.
The idea that Intel would choose to use a smelter other than its main competitor, AMD, possible Intel could be sensitive to the idea that it was passed, hat in hand, to the same company that supplies its competitors. The partnership with Samsung – whose 14nm node is generally in excellent condition and has been used for AMD hardware at GlobalFoundries after GF fired it many years ago – is a little less direct.
The biggest reason to look down on this rumor is that it suggests that Intel would launch at 14 nm the competitor "Rocket Lake" on silicon Samsung. In the past, Intel had signed agreements with TSMC for the production of Atom processors or chipsets (as is often said). Building "big hearts" in a rival foundry would be a major change. That's one of the reasons I do not want to weigh heavily in this rumor, but there's a way to make sense of this rumor.
One of the difficulties associated with setting up a new process in an existing plant is the disruption of ongoing production. If you want to replace a capacity of 14 nm by 7 nm, you may have to disable the lines to perform the upgrades. To do this, Intel has always operated its production lines in tight rates, but we know that the demand for 14 nm has been extremely high. Just last year, Intel announced the allocation of additional funds to boost production of 14 nm. At the same time, the long 10-nm delay has plagued Intel's installations. The company expects a relatively fast switchover to 7nm (production being scheduled by 2021), which means that it needs a fairly fast volume rollout at a time when demand for 14 nm can already be very busy.
If this rumor is true, it may be true to the extent that Intel has reached an agreement with Samsung to operate certain products from its own factories while aggressively upgrading its own factories. The company undoubtedly wants to restore the story of the supremacy of the process that it had 20 years before its 10 nm slide and it might prefer to run at 7 nm by taking advantage of the production of a competitor rather than conducting it alone.
The Daily SE suggests another reason why Intel and Samsung could conclude this type of agreement: prices. From the story:
The Samsung smelter recently announced that it had submitted to TSMC an unexpected unit price of 60% for some companies. Samsung has offered TSMC a complete set of less expensive masks than the "multi-layer mask" (MLM) set up to reduce low-volume production costs. A mask is a kind of film used to draw a circuit on a wafer.
While the dramatic cost reductions we've heard about were 7nm, it's quite possible that Samsung and Intel will also reach a 14nm agreement. Samsung Foundry will probably be hungry for customers and build for Intel would be a prestigious victory. Intel (again, assuming this rumor is accurate) would obviously want a good deal for the products and could find Samsung more acceptable than TSMC – or simply worry about more prosaic issues regarding parts availability.
At the present time, Intel has given limited windows to its 10-nm and 7-nm roadmaps. The company said that 10nm ++ and 7nm would overlap in 2021 and that it would result in a 7nm GPU. Deliveries of Ice Lake in notebooks are expected to begin in June, and volume shipments by the end of the year. No timeline has been provided for office rooms and roadmaps that have leaked (which may not be accurate) indicate that 14 nm hang on the desk until 2020. With the launch of 7 nm by AMD in a few weeks, the hike risks Intel.
Updated (18/06/2019): There is reason to believe that if such an agreement is concluded – and nothing has yet been publicly announced – it could be the same type of contiguity products that Intel has sometimes put to the point with partners before. This type of allocation is the kind of maneuver we expect from Intel while trying to maximize the in-house manufacturing of the highest margin parts with limited foundry space.
Until now, our coverage of E3 is focused on two major announcements made by AMD around its future processor and GPU products. But the company also gave some other interesting presentations, including one on the evolution of Socket AM4.
Some technologies attract more attention than others. Nobody blinks at a deep dive of 10 or 20 slides in processor and GPU architectures, but we rarely talk about sockets or motherboard design – even though these are essential bases of the products we use. Without Socket AM4, a Ryzen processor it's just expensive sand. And as AMD said, there is an unprecedented story about how AM4 "evolves from a monolithic die with 4x28nm cores (Bristol Ridge) to 16-core mixed process chiplets".
As Moore's law slowed down, manufacturers turned to other methods to achieve the desired improvements from one generation to the next. Rather than rely on a net reduction of nodes to improve performance, they turned to packaging to earn new winnings. The AMD Fury X family of graphics processors, which began with the use of HBM, is a good example of how changing the package significantly reduces power consumption (the power of the memory subsystem in this case) while providing significant gains. Switching to smart cards is one of the ways businesses are working to solve this problem – but smart machines must always be connected together in a common socket standard.
AMD has laid the groundwork for its modular approach to chiplets with the first generation of Ryzen. Although it does not have an input / output matrix, the idea of building CPUs in their own discrete packages and connecting them to a common structure was still a step towards the increased modularity of chiplets. today.
A major challenge for AMD is to maintain pinout compatibility by switching from a 28-core 28-core monolithic system to a 14- and 7-nm mixed-core silicon system deployed on the same enclosure. Keep in mind, there is no way to change which pins bear what dates. Improvements can be made to the socket, but a change in socket design breaks compatibility with earlier versions.
AMD has reduced its pitch from 150 to 130 um to 7 nm Ryzen, despite the difficulties that this represented. There are only two vendors building this type of solution at the moment. To effectively make this transition, AMD had traditional lead-free protuberances and adopted so-called copper pillars, with a welding cap. This significantly reduces the height of the bumps.
The 12nm input / output chip would have used the default solder bumps, but the 7nm chips use copper posts for higher density. I / O should also be equipped with this solution to allow a common interface. New materials and interfaces were also needed for PCI Express 4.0 routing – AMD chose for the first time to use low loss materials and ranked its own work in this area as follows: "Take bets that have paid off ".
The routing scheme of the underlying chip. You can see the two chiplets at the top of the matrix and the wire traces that connect them to the I / O matrix. The four rectangular blocks of each CCX probably correspond to the L3 cache.
These enhancements are the first phase of chiplet and chiplet designs. The adoption of chiplets is still a very new phenomenon in the semiconductor industry. One of the reasons why we have not used them more widely, for example, is that there is no common interface or standard for chiplet designs. It's here that AMD and Intel have one advantage: both companies have experience in building dies to connect components and extensive IP portfolios to provide the necessary function blocks . We will see more and more companies experimenting with these methods over time and the emergence of new standards. Long-term chiplets could theoretically be used to attach different IP blocks, each built with different materials or on different process nodes.
In this case, the AMD chiplets are built on 7nm, the chipset on 14nm and the I / O interface section that actually manages the use of E / S uses 12 nm – which is actually optimized at 14 nm with design rules and modified libraries. (AMD has generally indicated that the chiplets measured 7 nm and 14 nm I / Os, but the company gave us a little more depth during its deep E3 dives).
AMD has not said anything about the expected life of AM4 or the fact that it would switch to AM5 after 2020. The company has reaffirmed that it intends to support AM4 socket "until 2020" but she did not say anything later. DDR5 Chipset – and AMD might well choose to introduce the AM5 Socket to take advantage of the need for routing and circuitry to support the new DRAM. This is a hypothesis, however, and the company has made no announcement.