The inevitable monopoly of Intel

By Dana Blankenhorn | Sep 16, 2009 |

There is a decades-old secret hidden in the news that Intel is resisting a European Community fine of $1.45 billion, arguing its use of rebates was not anti-competitive and that it’s not a monopoly in any case.

Whether it is a monopoly or not, Intel will eventually become one. Its fate was sealed practically at its birth.

You will find it in what is known as the Moore’s Law paper, actually a magazine article by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, then working with Robert Noyce at Fairchild.

Here it is in Moore’s own words:

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase.

In other words, while Moore predicted that the density of components on a chip could double every two years, he also predicted that complexity would rise at the same rate.

The first prediction is known as Moore’s Law and 44 years later it still works. That’s the miracle that has made PCs, the Internet, and your XBox possible.

The second, less well-known prediction, is sometimes called Moore’s Second Law. It is holding up as well.

Each time Intel, or any chip-maker, increases circuit density, the costs of the equipment needed to make the chip rises. The investment needed to build a chip-making fabrication plant or “fab” keeps rising, too.

Thus many big chip-makers, like nVidia, are now called “fab-less” because they contract out the actual production and concentrate on design.

Combine the cost of designing a microprocessor with Moore’s Second Law and you get a cost squeeze that is driving everyone else out of the chip business.

Even AMD, Intel’s longest and best-known rival, is now on the ropes, despite having beaten Intel to the punch on many important innovations this decade, like low-power designs and “multi-core” technology that divides processing into parts.

Even if Intel is not a monopoly today, in time it will be and must become one. Moore’s Second Law decrees it.

A lot of ink, both real and virtual, has been spilled in the last decade asking whether Moore’s Law can hold up. Even Mr. Moore himself has weighed-in.

The real question, however, is not the fate of Moore’s Law, but the fate of Moore’s Second Law. On that hangs the fate of Intel, and the whole chip-making industry it gave birth to.

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    ksheppard@...

    09/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: The inevitable monopoly of Intel

    I disagree. I don't believe that Intel will become a monopoly. Where microchips are more and more becoming a commodity, so to speak, time and distance, that is, regionality will be an increasingly more important market share factor. Also, Intel may have 80 percent of the market, but the remaining 20 is still huge, and growing "huge-er." 80 percent does not a monopoly make, and neither does an edict by the EC.

    I don't see your linkage between Moore's second law and the inevitiblity of an Intel monopoly. Intel puts its pants on just like anybody else, that is, it upgrades one factory at time just like anybody else.

    Thanks for the opportunity to think.

  •  
    2

    shadfurman

    09/17/09 | Report as spam

    I also disagree... but I see your point...

    The immense capitol it takes to develop and manufacture a modern
    desktop CPU is not even out of reach for a startup. Of course no one
    can go from 0-100 instantly, but a smart (and lucky) bunch of
    individuals could very feasibility design and maintain a roadmap to
    penetrate the market. Starting small and fabless, relying on innovative
    IP in their design, they could raise capitol, then buy out a fab (I imagine
    would be easier than building one) and would easily be on the tail of
    intel. Whether or not they could surpass Intel would have to take into
    account market pressures, but it's quite feasible I believe. I think a lot of
    AMD's problem is that they went from an small innovative company to
    acting like a big baby crying entitlement everytime Intel beats them on
    something. There is adventure in being the underdog and I think they've
    lost that adventure and instead fear their demise. But I don't think Intel
    WANTS them gone, I think enough people in Intel know that AMD's
    doom would spell one hell of a headache in legal matters. Its bad
    enough with the way the EC is behaving now.

  •  
    3

    Uncle Stoat

    09/20/09 | Report as spam

    I try to buy AMD, but.....

    Management decrees Intel every single time. Even when AMDs technical advantages are overwhelming for a particular app.

    This is an organisation which spends upwards of $20 million on hardware each year.

    Faced with that I agree with the inevitable monopoly of Intel - in fact there's a lot of merit in arguments that allowing AMD to survive as a crippled competitor is in Intel's favour as it allows them to claim there is competition in the marketplace.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

John Dodge

John Dodge has answered the call of journalism for 33 years, most of the time covering technology, engineering and business. While he's run magazines, newsweeklies and web sites, reporting and writing always took up half his time. He has have plied his craft at the WSJ, Boston Globe, PC Week (now eWeek), EDN, Design News, Electronic Business, Bio-IT World, Health-IT World, the Lowell Sun, Haverhill Gazette and Newburyport Daily News. He would have like to have been around when Boston supported seven or more newspapers (1940s) and while steam locomotives still pulled trains, but that era was nearly over by the time he raced into the world. That said, he has been blogging and shooting and editing video, writing for web and other online contents tasks for years now.

He has won numerous journalism awards in the past two years, including two Eddie Golds, one Neal finalist and the IEEE Award for Distinguished Journalism all for his reporting and coverage of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Besides his family and myriad hobbies, reporting and writing is why he gets up in the morning. His personal blog focuses on netbooks and is called The Dodge Retort.

John Dodge

John Dodge prides himself on completely independent journalism. His opinions, observations and reporting are not influenced by any financial holdings. He holds no shares in computer, electronics, software or Internet companies. He also has no business affiliations with organizations except with those for which he creates content as a freelancer.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.
The Thinking Tech blog focuses on technologies such as virtualization, smart electric grids, enterprise 2.0, open source, data center management, green technology and the intersection between the innovation and application of these advancements.