Analysts Debate: Is It Time to Dump Intel?

The Motley Fool has been making successful stock picks for many years, but we don't always agree on what a great stock looks like. That's what makes us "motley," and it's one of our core values. We can disagree respectfully, as we often do. Investors do better when they share their knowledge.

In that spirit, we three Fools have banded together to find the market's best and worst stocks, which we'll rate on The Motley Fool's CAPS system as outperformers or underperformers. We'll be accountable for every pick based on the sum of our knowledge and the balance of our decisions. Today, we'll be debating whether to keep our outperform call on chip maker Intel (NASDAQ: INTC  ) .

Intel by the numbers
Here's a quick snapshot of the company's most important numbers:

Revenue

$53.8 billion

Net Income

$11.9 billion

Market Cap

$100.3 billion

Dividend Yield

4.5%

Key Competitors

AMD (NYSE: AMD  )
ARM Holdings (NASDAQ: ARMH  )
Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM  )

Sources: Yahoo! Finance and company filings. Most recent available results.

Intel also just announced that CEO Paul Otellini will retire in May after 40 years with the company. Now, a new management team will need to make the company meet its goals. Here's what we think about the stock now.

Travis' take
A disappointing quarter for PC sales really crushed shares of Intel since we made our outperform call. Not only was Intel beaten up; Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT  ) , AMD, and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ  ) , all took it on the chin operationally. The big questions is whether this is a long-term pattern or a short-term bump?

The rise of tablets certainly makes for the best challenge to Intel's chip dominance. Intel doesn't have a strong market share in tablets or smartphones, and right now it is relying on Microsoft to get into the business, which is dicey at best.

What's interesting about this dynamic is that Intel has almost 100% upside in tablets and smartphones and almost 100% downside in PCs. If tablets replace PCs in large numbers, it could be devastating for Intel.

But this is where a deeper look into PCs is really necessary. PC sales have slowed recently, but we're only talking about a predicted 1.2% decline to almost 350 million units in 2012. That's still big business and Intel is at the center of it. We also need to consider that tablets don't do many necessary business functions that PCs do, so they won't replace PCs outright in the near future. In fact, the Surface tablet that could conceivably compete with a PC is running an Intel chip, so the company still has a place in the high-end tablet market of the future.

I am concerned about rumors that Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL  ) is considering dumping Intel for an internally designed chip in the Macbook. We're years away from this happening, but Apple's a big customer for Intel and it would take a huge chunk out of the company's profits.

Most companies would love to call a quarter with $3 billion in profit a disappointment (like Intel did in the third quarter). That just shows how strong Intel is even when it's weak, and how high margins are in the chip business. I'm cautiously optimistic about Intel right now, and given the 4.5% dividend, I think there's an opportunity here for long-term investors. We've had this wrong so far but I'm sticking with my outperform call on the stock.

Sean's take
Leave Intel alone! LEAVE IT ALONE!

Intel is the microprocessor king that's had a rough year, as the expected debut of Microsoft's Windows 8 and a new lineup of MacBooks and thinner laptops all caused consumers to hold off on making purchases until the past few weeks. All in all, the PC market has seen only two down years since 2000, including this year, and it's pretty likely that these lighter designs and Microsoft's new OS will boost sales in 2013. That's one of the primary reasons I've made the bold call that PC makers are poised for a big rebound in 2013, which should ultimately play right into Intel's hands.

On another front, Intel remains a buy because its competition is faltering. Advanced Micro Devices has turned to laying off 15% of its workforce and restructuring its operations in order to return to profitability by the third quarter of next year at the earliest. Reducing its workforce is only going to complicate matters from an innovation standpoint and leaves Intel's position in microprocessors well intact.

While I do see growth potential in tablets and smartphones (as Travis has pointed out), I also see a lot of competition standing in Intel's way. What seems like the most logical path to growth for Intel is to continue what it's been doing and focus on cloud-computing hardware products. Gearing its hardware for servers and big data centers, it's my personal opinion that Intel could be generating up to 30% of its annual revenue from cloud-computing sales within the next decade.

With Intel now sporting a forward P/E of less than 9 and yielding 4.5% (for a payout ratio that's only around 45% of next year's projected EPS), I have absolutely no intention or want to close out this long-term winner.

Alex's take
The PC's dying? Really? Five years ago, 271.2 million machines were sold in the worldwide PC market, according to Gartner. The first three quarters of 2012 have been very close in terms of sales, with 88 million PCs sold in the first quarter, 87 million in the second quarter, and 87 million in the third quarter. Annualize the numbers out and you get 351.9 million PCs sold for the year.

That's a 30% increase in five years. Virtually all of these machines run on Intel x86 chips. Intel owned 83.3% of that market in the third quarter. Nearly all servers now run on x86 chips as well. Intel owned 95.1% of that market in the third quarter. Where do you think all those smartphones and tablets are getting their data?

I know, I know. The PC's dying because the industry had lower sales this year than it did last year. This is a terrible, absolutely unsolvable problem that will surely spell the end of Intel. And at this late stage of the mobile explosion, Intel simply has no chance of capturing market share. ARM chips have mobile in a chokehold. Qualcomm's the Intel of mobile chips now. All Intel has are six measly smartphones in various international markets, with a market share barely a sliver of a shred of a single percent.

The "death" of the PC is a larger problem for HP and the like than it is for Intel, and Intel remains in a much stronger financial position than virtually any of its mobile competition. Intel's trailing-12-month free cash flow is twice as large as HP's, and has held up far better -- HP's results have shown a terrible free cash flow decline in recent years. In the smartphone chip arena, Intel's free cash flow is higher than Qualcomm's, Broadcom's (NASDAQ: BRCM  ) , Taiwan Semiconductor's  (NYSE: TSM  ) , NVIDIA's (NASDAQ: NVDA  ) , and ARM Holdings' combined free cash flow for the same period.

I've pointed out that Intel has come from behind to dominate new market segments before, and I remain convinced that it will do so again. Intel is not PCs. Its problems (such as they are) are not HP's or Microsoft's. In the short run, you're getting an extremely cheap company that is absolutely essential to the vast majority of our interconnected global computing network, with a tasty dividend to boot. In the long run, Intel will find its footing, as it has before. Nothing has fundamentally changed since we first looked at Intel, so my original outperform call won't change either.

The final call
It's clear that none of us are eager to dump Intel at this point. There are challenges, sure, but with a ridiculously low P/E ratio and a great dividend, we still think this stock will outperform long-term.

When it comes to dominating markets, it doesn't get much better than Intel's position in the PC microprocessor arena. However, that market is maturing, and Intel might find itself in a precarious situation longer term if it doesn't find new avenues for growth. In this premium research report on Intel, our analyst runs through all of the key topics investors should understand about the chip giant. Better yet, you'll continue to receive updates for an entire year. Click here now to learn more.


Read/Post Comments (30) | Recommend This Article (49)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 10:38 PM, DAG1996MF wrote:

    Well said, guys. I've been trying my best to challenge my own conviction, but I've yet to hear or come up with a remotely compelling case for why Intel is anything but insanely cheap ... temporarily.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 11:07 PM, maniladad wrote:

    Lots of fine arguments about the decllne of the PC, and about INTC getting left behind in mobile, etc., but I'll base all my conviction on one simple parameter: R&D. Intel spent 8.4 Billion dollars on R&D in the fiscal year ending in Dec 2011. It spent 2.3B progressively rising to 2.6B per quarter since then. To put that in perspective, IBM, with twice the market capitalization of INTC, raised its R&D budget to 6.3B per year over the same time and Qualcomm, with about the same market cap spent 3.9B in the most recent fiscal year. For AMD and ARMH, the other competitors you mentioned, Intel spends more for R&D per quarter than they do per year. The leadership at Intel is sharp. With that kind of investment in the future, they can dominate any segment of the market they choose.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2012, at 1:50 PM, TMFBiggles wrote:

    @ maniladad -

    The R&D spend is a good point, and one I've made before as well:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/01/26/why-intel-i...

    "It would take ARM more than 15 years to invest as much into research as Intel spends in a single quarter."

    Thanks for reading!

    - Alex

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2012, at 7:06 PM, EquityBull wrote:

    I theorize that Desktops and laptops will see a softening going forward for awhile. For some a tablet can replace a desktop/laptop. For others this is not possible and those people or co's will choose potentially both platforms.

    As long as Intel keeps hold of the data center the fact is that every phone, tablet, laptop and desktop that is connected to the internet is a plus for them. All the data center servers these devices connect to are powered by Intel chips. Until that changes Intel is in little danger of going away.

    I own a smartphone, tablet and PC. Could I live without any single one of them? No. Not now. No going back. Must have all 3. Would completely miss any of them if I had to do without just one.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 1:22 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    I think it would benefit us all to shift our paradigm from the terms "Desktop" and "Laptop" and "Mobile device". These are all merging together. We will see portable devices with large virtual displays that can be used for workplace or as your phone. It's not too far off. Intel won't be going anywhere. HP and Microsoft have bigger problems.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 1:43 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    "The first three quarters of 2002 have been very close in terms of sales, with 88 million PCs sold in the first quarter, 87 million in the second quarter, and 87 million in the third quarter. Annualize the numbers out and you get 351.9 million PCs sold for the year."

    Alex, are you talking about 2002 or this year 2012?

    "It's clear that none of us are eager to dump Intel at this point" Not much of a debate.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 1:57 PM, TMFBiggles wrote:

    @ pondee619 -

    Er, yes. Should be 2012. That was a typo. Thanks for the catch!

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 3:04 PM, griderX wrote:

    Surprised no one mentioned Intel's advantage in chip design (Roadmap to 22nm...14nm)

    The costs of the existing fabs to upgrade to that technology will be HUGE! In addition, INTC clearly stated that chip prices will continue to decrease....the same can not be said for other fabs upgrading to 22nm. INTC is at least 2 generations ahead of everyone...they already developed chips that rival ARMH Mobile chips that have better power consumption...when they move to 22nm next year I almost gurantee you that the chips will be much better and lower power than ARMH.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 5:47 PM, BarryInLA wrote:

    Remember that the processing has to be done somewhere. All these tablets and smartphones are relying on ever more powerful server clouds to do the heavy lifting, and those servers are predominantly powered by Intel's highest margin products.

    Disclaimer - I worked for both Intel and Apple in the distant past.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 5:49 PM, tkell31 wrote:

    Doesnt the fact Intel missed the ball completely on phones and tablets really say more about upper management than claiming it's well run based on past performance in the PC market? I suppose there could be a next generation device that Intel gets the inside track on, but that seems unlikely right now.

    Frankly any transaction with Intel looks like it should be a short term trade. Seems cheap now, but doesnt have the growth prospects to get back to it's recent high. If you have the discipline to sell and pocket a 20% gain I bet this will be a fine short term trade, or you could sell calls against a position, but as a long term buy and hold it doesnt look exciting at all.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 5:59 PM, TheRealRacc wrote:

    tkell31,

    20% short-term gain with INTC? Poor upper management?

    Are we talking about the same Intel?

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 6:09 PM, prginww wrote:

    I don't quite see the 'spend on R&D' arguement. If two companies each develope the wheel.., one for a dollar and the other for a dime, which would you invest in?

    I would agree that the PC/laptop is far from dead a tablet is like a comic to the laptop's newspaper. I guess that would make the PC a set of encyclopedia. I think all the laptops were sold, growth slowed.., and they're becoming due for replacement (if you're wondering it's over 10years old, but as you can see still plodding along) Personally I'm just waiting for the bugs to drop out of Windows 8.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 6:47 PM, chipdiasporia wrote:

    Intel's core competency has been it's ability to out-manufacture it's competitors. They spend lots of money to stay at least 1 to 1.5 generations ahead of their natural X86 chip competitors,e.g. AMD. However the game has changed for the following reasons:

    1. Moor's law is running into large physical barriers which makes is more expensive to implement. Meanwhile smaller transistor geometries cause chips to leak more current. I conclude that you get way less "bang-for-the-buck" by continuing to out manufacture your competitors.

    2. Intel isn't competing with AMD anymore; it's main competitor is ARM. As Chiang Kai-Shek said during WWII "the Japanese are a skin disease, the Communists are a cancer." A similar statement could be made in Intel's executive suite about other chip manufactures and ARM. Here's why:

    a. ARM is IP and can be embedded in many different chips that can be fabbed at near-Intel geometries at TSMC, so you can get exactly what you want. Intel doesn't have an IP strategy. If you want an ATOM processor to run your tablet, you have to buy the chip from Intel.

    b. ARM instruction set is inherently lower power than Intel's legacy x86; consequently, ARM processors will continue to win the majority of design-ins in web-edge technologies like tablets and smartphones where low power is immensely important . Moreover, as ARM gains momentum in these applications, it will become harder and harder to justify an Intel solution even if they are performance competitive.

    3. Intel has been unsuccessful at penetrating other markets. Case-in-point: They tried to buy their way into the networking market in the 90s only to have sold off their investment to Marvell several years ago for pennies on the dollar.

    Here's what I think will happen to Intel: Their finest days are behind them; their income will continue to rise and fall as x86 notebook and PC orders fluctuate. Intel will continue to dominate the switch and router biz because of all the legacy x86 software that the systems have to run. However, my bet is that they won't be able to compete in the brave new world low power, high performance edge devices. And that's where the processor growth is. So like a dying star, they will continue to shine for a long time until they fade away.

    PS. ARM is trying to go after Intel's IT business. "Be afraid, be very afraid."

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 7:16 PM, mansourg54 wrote:

    Bill Gates holding in MSFT shares keep dropping. 2 years ago it was over 900million today it is less than half this amount.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 8:44 PM, dcorley wrote:

    Hey, let's not talk about technical superiority. The only thing that matters is financial guys poring over last quarters results.

    Not to mention the Knight's Corner 50 core 1 teraflop chip.

    Be afraid!

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 9:18 PM, optimist911 wrote:

    That's all great. I just wish someone would edify all those investors who have been dumping Intel's shares like there's no tomorrow. In what's become the daily rule rather than the exception, ARMH yet again had a nice gain while INTC dutifully crapped out lower than the broader indices.

  • Report this Comment On November 21, 2012, at 9:47 PM, russfischer1013 wrote:

    I find it amazing that PC sales have only been down a percent or so. There was the wait for the Ivy Bridge CPU with better graphics and hardware security freatures that depended onthe wait for Windows 8. touch and voice interfaces that actually work had to wait for Win 8.

    I would have expected PC sales to be down something like 20%....1% is nothing.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2012, at 12:22 AM, meatmog wrote:

    I have read all these posts and the comments with keen interest.

    While other competitors in the sector have quality products on the horizon - it is Intel who have the product range and the resources to adapt to market

    I can explain the slight fall in PC sales to you:

    Older people are still alive.

    Add this to the fact that most major domestic tech purchases are actually financed by people who are 35 and over and there are a lot of people like that. Many innovative companies forget that there are masses of consumers who will not purchase 'latest and greatest' but will look for 'tried and trusted brands'. This is especially true in the post 2008 market. Intel is a trusted brand and their profile within the tech community is almost irrelevant compared the reputation they have built with business and domestic consumers.

    The PC is far from dead and it will not be technological commentators to decide it's fate it will be consumers that make that decision. In a risk adverse atmosphere it seems unlikely the alternatives will penetrate unless Intel is behind it.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2012, at 5:07 AM, kickbishopbrenna wrote:

    hmm..you haven't really addressed the "departing ceo" and other management issues..hopfully its "pruning" and not internal disputes about direction, but we still do not seem to know.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2012, at 9:04 AM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On November 22, 2012, at 12:22 AM, meatmog wrote:

    "The PC is far from dead and it will not be technological commentators to decide it's fate it will be consumers that make that decision. In a risk adverse atmosphere it seems unlikely the alternatives will penetrate unless Intel is behind it."

    I agree.

    I use a high end tablet at work.

    I use P. Cs. at home.

    Tablets are NOT going to replace P. Cs. They will be purchased in addition to P. Cs. I hate working with one.

    The reasons are too numerous to list.

    I'll take a lite weight laptop any day over a "tablet".

    I like Intel here at this price. I have it on my watch list.

    I've owned it before and sold at a nice profit.

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2012, at 4:19 PM, volcan357 wrote:

    You can buy a decent laptop pretty cheap and it will be much more capable than a smartphone or a tablet. Also you can get a very compact, thin and lightweight laptop that takes up no more space than a tablet so why buy a tablet. A tablet is nothing more than a crippled version of a laptop without a keyboard and less processing power. People are not going to trade in their laptop for a tablet but they might buy a tablet in addition to their laptop. People might want a tablet to use as an e-reader such as the kindle but I can't see that affecting the sales of laptops. I agree with Motley Fool that Intel is here to stay much like IBM.

  • Report this Comment On November 22, 2012, at 4:55 PM, steveotto999 wrote:

    The current Surface tablet does NOT use Intel chips. Be careful. There is apparently a future "pro" version which will be true Windows 8 / Intel, but it is not out yet.

  • Report this Comment On November 23, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Jurobi wrote:

    "The PC Is Dead". I have heard this every two-three years since the palm pilot came out. Palm is dead, as are a lot of "new tech" devices that were to kill the PC. Desk tops sold still out number laptops sold. Apple's Macintosh still has a small fraction of the PC market. And the overall market focuses on Dell and HP, while ignoring all the local and custom computer builders, not to mention those who build/upgrade their own. (The desktop I am using is the first one I didn't build in 15 years).

    All of those use Intel or AMD chips (intel preferred).

    My view of the IPAD and Tablets: a nice to have supplement for students and consumers, who then go home and do their real work on a laptop or a desktop. Good for e-mail and taking notes (if you have a stylus, the touch keyboards are a pain), reading e-books or watching a show (if you can see anything on that small screen), but lacking the power, flexibility and upgradeability of the PCs.

  • Report this Comment On November 23, 2012, at 3:31 PM, blacklab13 wrote:

    Great article.. I've built 4 desktop systems. I get more bang for the buck, I know what's inside the system and I don't get all the crap software addins that I usually remove. I use an IPad 3 as a play toy, aThinkpad laptop for mobile and a Thinlpad laptop for work.. The tablet's won't cut it for work (I'm a Unix system admin at the former owner of the Thinkpad name).

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2012, at 12:18 AM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    Damn, I feel so old- I have been putting my own computers together since the 80's, lol. Even back then, the IBM computers had a clock speed of 4Mhz. By building my own, I could make them run at 10Mhz. These numbers by today's standards seem ridiculous, lol. Oh, and you could only put in a maximum of 640mb of ram. The first "large" HDD I had was an external drive the size of a LP record player (and it took about 6 hours to format it).

    Intel is not going anywhere. Their chips power most laptop and desktop computers, for both the Microsoft windows and Apple. My question is why don't they make a bigger margin? Is it just horribly mismanaged?

    I think maniladad made a great point about R&D. The early Apple computers had Motorola microprocessors in them which I considered to be superior to the Intel chips, but since Intel gained such a huge advantage in market penetration, Motorola just couldn't keep up. Not many years ago, AMD had the best ones, but they couldn't keep up either.

    chipdiasporia made the point that they are bumping into physical limits as pertains to Moore's law. That is probably true to an extent, but it will only slow down, not stop advancements. Even with currently known fabrication techniques, transistor switching speed could be bumped up by using a different semiconductor. And then there is design. Who will dominate this market space? the guys with the talent and the cash, or the other guys?

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2012, at 3:05 AM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    oops, i meant 640kb of ram

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2012, at 10:24 AM, OnTheContrary wrote:

    All computing is in the end a function of: (1) CPU chips; (2) some combination of memory and peripheral storage; and (3) software. And Intel has the closest thing possible to a legal monopoly of (1). Sure AMD provides token competition for general CPU chips and there are a host of companies competing in the gadget CPU chip market, but Intel, by virtue of its size and financial strength, it's technological manufacturing superiority, its patents, its experience and excellence of management, only needs to figure out how best to utilize its abundant assets to dominate any particular CPU chip market.

    Unlike most of the other chip markers who are mired in a low-profit commodity business, Intel has the luxury of sticking to its high-profit, minimally competitive, and absolute essential niche. And if it can't readily find ways to expand its business beyond the organic growth in the need for ever more CPU computing power, so what? They can simply pay through their profits to their owners - the stockholders. As a conservative, value-oriented, investor looking for alternatives to paltry and now risky fixed-income investments, what I care about with any stock is the actual predictable return on my investment, and between the dividend and the buybacks, Intel is the only tech stock that I own or would seriously consider owning, and I am taking advantage of this buying opportunity to load up.

  • Report this Comment On November 25, 2012, at 12:50 PM, basohn wrote:

    I work in the tech business for the Army (Signal Officer) and I have been building computers since the mid 90's when 56 Kbps was high speed internet 512 RAM was massive and 40 Gigs was a ton of disk space, so basically I am very familiar with and have been participating in this industry for years.

    In the last few years the prices of laptops have dropped like a rock. I paid a little over $1200 (discounted from $1600 with special offers & rebates) for the high-end laptop I am writing this on about four years ago and today I can by a laptop with better specs for about $550.

    Just last night I was shopping for a new laptop for my wife and the average price for a new system with Windows 7 was about $400 with several laptops from the $250 range. To be honest I was shocked at the low prices.

    Even when I was shopping for laptops for the Army this year (and we always pay about 1.5 X higher than the average consumer) the top prices were in the low $800 dollar range where two years ago similar systems were $1200+

    Then you have the gamers (which I am not) and computer geeks (which I am) that will never buy a "name brand" (i.e. HP, Dell, Lenovo, ) desktop system because we like to customize and build our and tailor the system to our needs, so we go to Amazon and Newegg to buy components which continue to lower in price.

    The bottom line is the big name computer manufactures have to reduce their prices to a point where their profit margins are so low it becomes uneconomical to manufacture computers.

    There will continue to be a market for computers and laptops for Government, education, and business, but that market share and profitability will continue to drop as alternate sources and the next generation of innovation comes forward.

    Finally, the cultural change in technology cannot be underestimated. Almost everybody has a smart phone and those upcoming consumers in their teens and twenties are so used to texting on a small screen that the bridge to typing on a tablet is not considered an inconvenience, which furthers the point of the article and pushes the future of big computer manufactures further down the road to oblivion.

    After all when was the last time you used a word processor, typewriter, payphone, or even a fax machine?

    I can take a picture of a check with a tablet and deposit it into my checking account and I can pay a merchant with my credit card on their Smartphone.

    Mobility is the future and cloud based technologies will benefit, but large computer manufacturing companies will in my opinion go the way of the payphone.

  • Report this Comment On November 25, 2012, at 8:21 PM, comissar wrote:

    What percentage of Intel's sales (and AMD, ARMH, etc) go to PCs, phones, other personal digital devices, servers, and other industrial hardware (routers, etc.)? If we are going to try and guess the future of Intel, we should have hard numbers on that before wringing our hands over a 1% drop in PC sales.

    I noticed a number of references to do it yourself or custom machines. Does anybody know what the market share is for custom PCs vs. HP/Dell/Acer/Lenovo, etc? I built my own machines for 25 years, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. Off the shelf machines are much cheaper, and there just aren't many features I want to add that aren't standard now. I really don't care about Intel vs. AMD or which southbridge chipset it has - that stuff used to be important, but isn't for all but a tiny fraction of consumers. A gamer may want a high end video card, but everything else is external - fancy keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc. And you can see the market impact - the neighborhood computer store is gone, many of the big chains are gone (remember CompUSA?) and computers are bought mostly through Walmart, Best Buy, and the web.

    Isn't that sort of the definition of a commodity? I really wouldn't want to be HP or Dell right now. The money is in the components, which are not all commodities, rather than the system, which is. But I think Intel is going to be making a lot of components for somebody for a long time.

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2012, at 8:27 AM, mikecart1 wrote:

    Whoever sells Intel today will regret it 10 years from now. Intel is in a league of its own. In my opinion, they are busy creating the new standard instead of doing what all the other tech companies are doing - CLTR+C each other.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2119928, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/2/2014 12:26:43 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement