During the period of 1957, eight young scholars in Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in the United States left their jobs collectively under the leadership of a man named Noyce because they could not stand the autocratic management style of shockley, the Nobel Prize winner in physics. They are called "Rebellion Eight" in history! With the famous venture capitalist Arthur? With the support of Locke and Fairchild Camera Instruments, eight people founded Fairchild Semiconductor. "Brothers are United, but force can break gold". With the cooperation of eight people, Fairchild Semiconductor has developed rapidly and ushered in its own golden age. By 1967, the company's turnover was close to 200 million dollars, which was astronomical at that time. According to Dr. Yu Youcheng (now vice president of Intel China), "Entering Fairchild Company is equivalent to stepping into the gate of Silicon Valley semiconductor industry." However, it was also during this period that Fairchild began to breed crisis. Fairchild's major shareholder (Fairchild Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd.) keeps shifting profits to the East Coast to support the development of photographic equipment. Seeing this situation, there is nothing we can do. The "Rebel Eight Gang" left angrily, and a large number of talents in the company also lost. Fairchild is in decline. However, as the image of Steve Jobs of Apple said, "Fairchild Semiconductor Company is like a mature dandelion. As soon as you blow, the seeds of this entrepreneurial spirit will fly everywhere with the wind. " These seeds later gave birth to many well-known enterprises, including Intel and AMD.
Noyce and Moore were the last of the eight people to leave Fairchild. 1968, they founded NM electron with Grove or with the support of venture capitalist Locke. Soon after, they spent 15000 dollars to buy an Intel company, which was renamed and the great Intel company was established! Compared with Intel, the birth of AMD is much more tortuous. AMD founder Jerry? Jerry. Saunders worked for Motorola in his early years and was a sales star. Later, he was attracted by Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor and was recruited as the sales general manager of Fairchild Semiconductor. Noyce and Saunders have a good personal relationship. It stands to reason that Noyce should take Sanders with him when he left his business, but it is said that he had to give up because of Moore's opposition. Shortly after Noyce left, Fairchild Semiconductor reorganized internally and Sanders was dismissed. With seven old employees and confidence in the bright future of the semiconductor industry, Sanders began his entrepreneurial journey. However, it is difficult to start a business because there is no technical prestige and strong financial strength of Noyce and others. Even the registered capital can hardly be recovered, and AMD is almost stillborn! Later, Noyce relied on personal credit to guarantee AMD's business plan, which solved the urgent needs of Saunders and others! We can't know now whether Noyce wants to help Saunders out of human feelings or other reasons, but history is such a coincidence. This "father of integrated circuits" not only invented integrated circuit technology, but also created two future industry leaders intentionally or unintentionally. In this sense, it is not an exaggeration that Intel and AMD share the same roots!
1 may, 9691day, AMD was formally established. Sanders, a layman who was abandoned and fired and didn't know much about semiconductor technology, opened AMD's first year with his tenacious belief or paranoid spirit, and also planted a time bomb for Intel. Looking back on this history, some people can't help thinking, if Moore agreed to join Intel with Sanders, if Noyce didn't guarantee AMD, and if Sanders was less paranoid, what would Intel be like today? However, history does not allow to assume that AMD is destined to have a "fate" with Intel from birth, and they still have many years to go.
Second, entrepreneurship: dislocation management.
Intel's initial development was smooth sailing!
1. 1969 successfully launched the company's first product-64k bipolar static random access memory (SRAM) chip, and soon opened the market on a small scale, with soaring sales.
2. 1970 introduced the world's first dynamic random access memory (DRAM)-103 memory;
3. 197 1 year, the company successfully listed on Nasdaq, and raised 6.8 million yuan at the price of 25 yuan per share; In the same year, the first microprocessor 4004 was released.
4. 1972, Intel achieved a profit of $23.4 million and became one of the leading semiconductor manufacturers in the world! During this period, Intel's products were mainly concentrated in memory, especially DRAM, and its profit contribution was as high as 90%. Intel at this time is a veritable memory company.
At the beginning of AMD's establishment, Saunders had a clear positioning: to become the second source of various products with high quality and low price. As a second supplier, what is required is not technological leadership and innovation ability, but learning imitation and manufacturing ability, which obviously matches AMD's own conditions at that time. In order to establish an image, AMD has made unprecedented quality assurance in the industry. All products are produced and tested according to strict MIL-STD-883 standards. The relevant guarantee is applicable to all customers and does not charge any extra fees. AMD flaunted "better parameter performance" and became famous in one fell swoop, and quickly gained a foothold. 1972, one year after Intel went public, AMD went public and successfully raised more than 5 million US dollars. From 65438 to 0974, AMD's sales reached $26.5 million, and the market position of the second supplier of high-quality semiconductors was basically established.
In terms of strategic positioning, the two companies were basically misplaced and complementary at that time:
Intel products are typical technology leaders and innovators with memory as the core and technology development as the guide. AMD, on the other hand, is market-oriented, with scattered products, and is a typical technology follower and imitator. There is little conflict between the two. The only conflict mainly focuses on whether AMD's imitation infringes Intel's intellectual property rights. 1975, Intel sued AMD for infringing its patented technology of erasable programmable memory (EPROM). After Saunders' mediation, the danger was saved. Instead of delving into or suppressing AMD, Intel accepted AMD as its second supplier system and established a strategic partnership. It can also be seen from this that the two companies were not competitors of the same level at that time. Intel did not regard AMD as a competitor, but regarded it as a pawn in the strategic layout. One is the guide and the other is the support. In the 1970s, when the demand for semiconductors expanded rapidly, both companies were happy and made remarkable achievements!
However, the good times did not last long. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the rise of a large number of semiconductor companies such as Japan and South Korea, the competition in the memory market became increasingly fierce, and Intel's memory market share declined all the way. At that time, strategic transformation became an unavoidable topic for Intel.
Third, growth: Intel "stands aside"
I understand that the word' point' at the strategic turning point is misused. It is not a point, but a long and arduous struggle. "Recalling the transformation in the late 1970s, Grove, then president of Intel, was not without difficulties and helplessness. Yes, it is not easy for any enterprise to abandon its past success, get rid of historical inertia and re-establish a country! Today, many case studies on Intel's growth are basically an understatement of Intel's transformation, and the conclusion is mostly to praise how Intel's top management has a strategic vision and how to actively adapt to and even create changes in this industry.
But they don't know that when DRAM was dying, Gordon, the inventor of the great Moore's Law? Moore is still clamoring, "Intel is a memory company, and we will never sell microprocessors." It is this sentence that made Federico. 197 1, an outstanding engineer who participated in the development and production of the first microprocessor 4004, left Intel to set up Zilog, becoming one of Intel's fiercest competitors in the microprocessor business. In fact, Noyce, Moore and Grove are all great men, and they are not always good gods. Therefore, their greatness is often not that they are far-sighted or always correct, but that they are good at grasping opportunities and dare to admit mistakes. In the early 1980 s, a good opportunity fell from the sky, and a minicomputer storm brought Intel the hope of nirvana!
Microcomputer originated from Altair 8800. Since then, the trend of miniaturization and socialization of computers has been out of control. Many enterprises took part in the R&D competition. First, MITS, People's Computer Company, Apple Company and many other start-ups joined in, and then even the blue giant IBM, which had been dismissive of PC, joined in. 198 1 year, as a latecomer to the PC market, in order to quickly launch products and re-establish a leading image in technology, IBM adopted an open architecture for the first time and adopted an outsourcing strategy for the two core components of the PC-the operating system and the microprocessor. The story of Microsoft is well known, but how did Intel get this life-and-death order? In addition to Intel, the microprocessor manufacturers available to IBM at that time at least included: Motorola, Zilog, National Semiconductor, Fairchild Semiconductor and AMD. Although Intel has a slight advantage in technical strength, it is not easy to get the absolute support of IBM! Because the battle-hardened IBM knows that if the microprocessor is completely handed over to a supplier, it is likely to be difficult to control. For this reason, IBM strongly urges its microprocessor supplier to license the technology to a second supplier, "I am open, you are open"! There is little suspense in the following story. Deep historical origins, years of cooperation, appropriate technology gap, and more importantly, the lure of the blue ocean in the microprocessor market made Intel and AMD hit it off quickly. Intel's open technology fully authorized AMD to produce x86 series processors, while AMD gave up its own competitive products and became Intel's backup supplier. The two sides cooperated together and finally won the order from IBM, which also locked the development path of personal computer technology! Just as many years later, in the lawsuit against Intel, AMD repeatedly stressed that "AMD's support made Intel become a personal star from a choir member of a semiconductor company"!
As we all know, as a second supplier, we don't need a false name to get real profits. Therefore, what AMD regrets so far is certainly not the fact that Intel became a star, but Intel's later "treachery". 1985, at a high-level meeting of Intel, it was made clear for the first time that the core business of the company in the future is microprocessor business, and its strategic objectives are:
(1) Maintain the leading position of corporate architecture in the microprocessor market;
(2) Become the exclusive supplier of 386 and new generation microprocessors based on company architecture;
(3) Become a world-class manufacturer.
Under the guidance of the thought, on the one hand, Intel accelerated the termination of the technology authorization to the original cooperative manufacturers and enhanced the uniqueness of processor technology; On the other hand, in order to strengthen direct communication and contact with PC consumers and further improve the negotiation ability with OEMs such as IBM, Intel broke the convention of advertising only for computer OEMs and advertised for ordinary consumers for the first time. At that time, the "Red X" advertisement of 386 instead of 286 was still a classic in the history of IT advertising.
1987, bad luck came to AMD, and Intel ended the cross-licensing agreement signed with AMD five years ago ahead of schedule and stopped licensing 386 technology to AMD. AMD was caught off guard and could only defend its legitimate interests with legal weapons. After five years of litigation, the court ruled that AMD can obtain:
A) compensation of10 million USD, plus pre-judgment interest,
B) Permanent, non-exclusive and royalty-free license right of any intellectual property right (including x86 instruction set) in the 386 microprocessor.
Despite this, Intel took various measures to postpone the execution of the judgment for two years. The lawsuit was won, but AMD never missed the golden age of PC market development, so the processor technology stopped. In the past seven years, Intel has introduced 386( 1985), 486( 1989) and Pentium processors (1993). In marketing, the Intel Inside activity initiated by 1993 is in full swing, and consumers "bought Compaq's Intel computer instead of Compaq's". Intel is in full swing, becoming the PC industry chain overlord on a par with Microsoft!
In the following years, under the guidance of Moore's Law, Intel adhered to the following business philosophy:
First of all, by virtue of technological advantages, take the lead in launching new products and promoting the upgrading of the industrial chain;
Secondly, adopt high-priced skimming pricing strategy for new products to obtain excess profits;
Then, when competitors imitate and launch similar products, Intel will take advantage of the cost advantage formed by the learning curve to actively reduce prices to suppress competitors;
Finally, before the opponent has recovered, he launched an updated product and started a new round of competition!
These steps are closely linked, forming Intel's strategic logic circle. Intel is like a sophisticated machine that drives this circle to rotate quickly, just like a chariot wheel! The wheels crushed a number of challengers such as Cyrix, Transmeta, IDT and even IBM. Although AMD was spared, it was also scarred and unable to shake the tree! Intel is not only inside, but also on the edge. Its competitive position is high. What can AMD do for me?
Fourth, confrontation: Who will die?
As the saying goes, "there is no big tile house that has not leaked for 30 years"! In the late 1990s, intel capital developed a 64-bit processor with hundreds of millions of dollars, which abandoned the original X86 system. If accepted by the market, many processor manufacturers, including AMD, will be fatally hit. Perhaps Intel overestimated its dominant position in the industrial chain and ignored the coordination of potential conflicts of interest with complementary vendors (such as Microsoft). Itanium processor adopted backward incompatibility strategy, which eventually led to the failure of this product named An Teng due to the lack of supporting applications after its launch on 200 1.
Taking this opportunity, AMD launched the first 64-bit chip compatible with x86 pre-production in April 2003-Opteron microprocessor for server, and launched Athlon64 microprocessor compatible with desktop and mobile computer pre-production six months later. In the competitive history of more than 30 years, AMD broke the image of technology follower and imitator for the first time, and proved its technical strength with 64-bit processors! Under the leadership of hector. Ruiz, the new president of AMD, who is convinced that Barton's philosophy is "attack is the best defense", has launched an all-round counterattack!
In product development, AMD has increased its investment in R&D to promote the launch of new products. In 2005, AMD's investment in R&D exceeded the company's profit in 2000.
Following the 64-bit processor, an industry-leading processor based on dual-core technology was introduced in 2005. Although it was behind Intel at that time and its technical level was slightly better, it still brought market reputation and share to AMD. (But later, Intel's dual-core CPU, represented by Yonah, used Smart Cache*** to enjoy the second-level cache technology, which was obviously superior to AMD's second-level cache technology. )
In terms of partner expansion, AMD not only attracted a large number of Intel's former "loyal" OEM partners such as Lenovo, Hewlett-Packard and Dell through good service, rapid market response and flexible marketing strategies, but also opened up a channel network.
Moreover, through the acquisition of AVI, a strong alliance has been realized and the control ability of complementary products has been enhanced;
In the promotion of corporate image, AMD also spared no effort. No matter how to deal with the promotion of products or the public relations of the company, it is positive and strategic. In 2005, Intel was sued for monopoly in a high-profile manner, shaping itself into an industry innovator tortured by monopoly forces in order to win social recognition and support.
In 2006, the dispute between true and false dual-core made the society have a clear understanding of AMD's technical strength!
After a series of combination punches, AMD has gained a lot. In 2004, the market share of desktop processors once exceeded 50%, which was higher than Intel for the first time, and the high-end server market also made some gains. Although Intel also fought back, the effect did not seem obvious. The total market share of the processor market has fallen below 80%. No wonder someone wrote that Intel's boss empire began to move from prosperity to mediocrity! Is this Intel's destiny?
May 2005, Paul. Otellini became CEO, while his predecessor Barrett followed Intel's practice and retired behind the scenes to become the fourth chairman. But different from the past, Otellini is the only CEO in the company's history who has no engineer background, but has been engaged in marketing and financial work for a long time. The change of senior leadership style is an important signal of the adjustment of company's strategic style. Shortly after taking office, Otellini pointed out on many occasions that in the past 30 years, Intel has produced discrete chips. At the beginning of the design, these components were not considered to be integrated. Therefore, these components naturally cannot be put on the market in the form of overall marketing. In the past, Intel's efforts focused on the performance of the chip itself, but in the future, its design activities must focus on the platform. At the beginning of 2006, Intel suddenly announced that it would carry out a large-scale corporate restructuring and set up five new departments: Mobile Division, Digital Enterprise Division, Digital Home Division, Digital Medical Division and Channel Products Division. Subsequently, the brand logo was changed, and the long-used Intel Inside slogan from 1993 was replaced by Leap Ahead. Otellini's platform-based strategic layout has quietly emerged!
Moore believes that no commodity can escape the fate of "commercialization", that is, with the maturity of technology and technology, the products of various manufacturers are becoming more and more homogeneous, the prices of products will inevitably fall again and again, and manufacturers will be diluted or even bankrupt. At that time, DRAM was an example, and so are today's microprocessors. In fact, over the years, processor manufacturers have been constantly comparing and upgrading the main frequency, from the dispute between 32-bit and 64-bit architectures to the recent competition between dual-core and multi-core processors. During this period, manufacturers generally pay attention to products rather than creating value for consumers. This competition may be more effective for immature products, because consumers will be willing to pay a premium for good products. However, once the products are too good and generally exceed the needs of consumers, the price war will be triggered. The original rich profits will flow to other links in the value chain, even if you seem to have huge sales.
A) the history of IBM's PC was like this. Although IBM's PC sales volume ranks first in the world, its rich profits flow to Microsoft and Intel; .
B) the same is true of DRAM in those days. Although Japanese and Korean companies occupied the memory market with the support of the state, the rich profits still flowed to Applied Materials, a DRAM equipment supplier.
An enterprise whose products are commercialized, like a bamboo basket, can never hold the "water" of profit. The processor industry has faced such challenges. Intel plans ahead, hoping to integrate components or technologies such as CPU, motherboard, chipset and network card with the concept of "platform" to achieve the best application experience for consumers and complete the transformation from a single hardware product manufacturer on the edge of commercialization to an "integrated service provider". This transformation process can prevent the basket from leaking again, so that Intel can still maintain its leading position in the value chain in the future, which is very similar to IBM's transformation strategy in the past! It doesn't matter whether the strategy is right or wrong, whether it can be implemented seamlessly is another matter, but personally, this strategy should be in line with the overall trend of industry development and Intel's own conditions as an industry leader. From the strategic design, Intel is at least one step ahead of AMD, and AMD still pursues "faster, higher and stronger" products!
In the confrontation with AMD, at present, although AMD seems to be slightly superior to Intel in technology in recent two years, from the psychological point of view, in the game between the strong and the weak, we always like to see the weak win over the strong, which inevitably exaggerates the local advantages and temporary victories of the weak, but the game will always be the game of the strong, and the result will not be transferred because of the subjective wishes of the spectators.
A) Internet cafe baby treasure plan,
B) The "universal building block" plan for the notebook computer market.
C) and Intel Viiv platform for home entertainment market (Intel Viiv? ),
D) Intel has successively launched a series of platformization strategies in the industrial chain.
It is reasonable to believe that the platform-based Intel, combined with its productivity advantages and market operation ability to create mass markets, will let AMD slowly experience the "difficult meal" carefully prepared by Intel.
Looking back at Intel's history, we will find that in the process of Intel's first transformation, the formation and implementation of its strategy did not rely on high-level foresight and careful planning to instill enlightenment and promote implementation from top to bottom, as our textbooks teach today. On the contrary, it originated from the grassroots and spontaneously formed under the constant interaction between the grassroots and the top. This process requires the active explanation and continuous struggle of grass-roots employees (especially those in non-core business), and also requires the mental openness and openness of senior employees. Although Fagin left, he made Moore and Grove understand the bright future of the processor business, which indirectly contributed to Intel's first successful transformation. Through such hardships, Intel gained more crisis awareness and tolerance culture. In the 1990s, when the company's processor business was in full swing, Barrett, the third leader of the company, reminded that "the processor business will not become the engine of the company's growth as in the past", and compared the processor business to a creosote bush, a plant in the desert, which would release toxic substances in the soil and inhibit the growth of surrounding plants, and clearly pointed out that the development of the processor business inhibited the innovation and development of other businesses. It also provides great support for actively promoting the exploration and growth of new business, and the establishment of 1999 network computing department and new business department is the best explanation. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that as early as the late 1990s, Intel was already thinking about and practicing the second transformation and entrepreneurship.
Some people say that Barrett is far from his predecessor. He is a stickler for the golden mean and a firm executor of past strategies. In fact, in the Barrett era, Intel completed the transformation from a single processor manufacturing company to a diversified company including network, communication and digital imaging. If you carefully study the platform strategy of the new president Otellini, you can easily understand Barrett's far-reaching influence! It is very likely that in five years, you will find that, just like when you got rid of memory and became an expert in microprocessors, Intel has already left microprocessors and become the overlord in another field. In my opinion, Barrett's value lies in the exploration and repositioning of Intel's strategy. Barrett may not have put forward any clear direction directly, but he dared to admit that he knew nothing about the whereabouts of a company at the peak of the industry, and provided an open exploration environment for Intel in the future, and accumulated experience (for example, Barrett successfully launched the Centrino plan during his tenure, which laid a good experience foundation for Otellini's platform strategy). The highest reason of human beings is to see the hole of their ignorance, not arrogance. Having this innate gene, I think it is the fundamental performance of enterprise maturity and an important factor to make the foundation evergreen! From this perspective, AMD and Intel are not on the same level.
AMD's advantage lies in its quick response and its ability to catch fighters, but the biggest problem lies in its lack of systematic thinking and planning for the future. After a rush, the biggest problem AMD encountered was what to do next. In 2006, AMD announced the acquisition of AVI, and the slogan of platform strategy spread everywhere, but it sounded like a replica of Intel's strategy. No wonder a reporter asked, does AMD want to copy another Intel? Ruiz replied, "No, Intel is an apple, and we are oranges". The answer is clever, but the reality is: you have a high-end server processor, and I want to produce it; You have the power of image chipset self-research, and I will spend huge sums of money to acquire integration; You push the platform strategy, and I also have a platform strategy; You lower the price, I lower the price. AMD has changed from a product-following company to a strategic-following company! AMD claims to have the "brain" of the fastest PC in the world, but it seems to lack the "brain" of enterprise management. (AMD is better than Intel) Two companies whose market value is nearly 400 times different and their sales revenue is nearly 10 times different from their cash reserves adopt exactly the same strategy. Can't you see AMD's winning geometry?
Five, a little reflection: carbolic shrubs that don't do industry.
Not long ago, there was a story that two long-term competitors finally merged in China retail market. After being familiar with the capital market, M&A has become a common tool for China enterprises to eliminate their competitors. Huang Guangyu, the proud president of Gome, announced to the world that the next acquisition target will be Suning, the second largest home appliance retailer in China! Vice President Xiang of Sany Heavy Industry also sent acquisition information through Xiang. At the time of writing this article, I was thinking that with the developed capital market in the United States, although there are obstacles for Intel to eliminate AMD through mergers and acquisitions, it cannot be said that there is no chance in the 30-year-long competition process, but this story is rarely reported. Why? Is it because of the restrictions of the anti-monopoly law? Is it because the opponent's anti-merger measures are equally developed? Maybe, but maybe it is also a great business wisdom! Barrett, chairman of Intel, said that within the enterprise, the current pillar business is like a carbolic acid shrub, which will stifle business innovation and must be vigilant! Then, in the industry, if an enterprise monopolizes and stifles all its competitors, it will actually stifle its own innovation power and maintain a good competitive atmosphere in the industry. Perhaps it is another important factor of enterprise evergreen.