Intel's Changing Future: Smartphone SoCs Broxton & SoFIA Officially Cancelledby Ryan Smith & Ian Cutress on April 29, 2016 8:15 PM EST
The past two weeks have been a busy – if not tumultuous – period for Intel. Driven by continued challenges in various semiconductor markets, culminating in weaker-than-desired earnings in the most recent quarter, Intel has set out to change their direction and refocus the company towards what they see as more lucrative, higher growth opportunity markets such as data center/server markets and cellular (5G) connectivity. To get there, the company is making changes to both their product lines and their head count, with the goal in the case of the latter to cut 11% of their workforce by the middle of next year.
Today’s big news out of Intel is along these lines, and with strategy and workforce news behind them, we have our first announcements on product changes that will come from Intel’s new strategy. In a report on Intel’s new strategy published by analyst Patrick Moorhead, Moorhead revealed that Intel would be radically changing their smartphone SoC plans, canceling their forthcoming Broxton and SoFIA products and in practice leaving the smartphone market for at least the time being.
Given the significance of this news we immediately reached out to Intel to get direct confirmation of the cancelation, and we can now confirm that Intel is indeed canceling both Broxton (smartphone and tablet) and SoFIA as part of their new strategy. This is arguably the biggest change in Intel’s mobile strategy since they first formed it last decade, representing a significant scaling back in their mobile SoC efforts. Intel’s struggles are well-published here, so this isn’t entirely unsurprising, but at the same time this comes relatively shortly before Broxton was set to launch. Otherwise as it relates to Atom itself, Intel's efforts with smaller die size and lower power cores have not ended, but there's clearly going to be a need to reevaluate where Atom fits into Intel's plans in the long run if it's not going to be in phones.
For the moment Intel’s announcement leaves some ambiguity in their larger mobile plans – where does the remaining Apollo Lake fit into the picture for tablets, if at all? – but for now we have a very clear picture of the smartphone SoC market, and how Intel will no longer be a part of it.
Intel’s full statement:
Intel is accelerating its transformation from a PC company to one that powers the cloud and billions of smart, connected computing devices. We will intensify our investments to fuel the virtuous cycle of growth in the data center, IoT, memory and FPGA businesses, and to drive more profitable mobile and PC businesses. Intel delivers a broad range of computing and connectivity technologies that are foundational to this strategy and that position us well to lead the end-to-end transition to 5G. Our connectivity strategy includes increased investment in wired and wireless communications technology for connecting all things, devices and people to the cloud, and to power the communications infrastructure behind it. We re-evaluated projects to better align to this strategy.
I can confirm that the changes included canceling the Broxton platform as well as SoFIA 3GX, SoFIA LTE and SoFIA LTE2 commercial platforms to enable us to move resources to products that deliver higher returns and advance our strategy. These changes are effective immediately.
Update 4/30: After publication, Intel sent along a second message clarifying that Broxton is canceled for both "phones and tablets," as the latter was not mentioned in their original message.
Smartphone SoCs: The Path so Far
Anyone following Intel’s exploits in the smartphone space over the last few years has been watching them with interest on product, timeliness and execution.
We’ve interviewed and appeared on video speaking with Aicha Evans, Intel’s current corporate Vice President of the Communication and Devices Group, whose large enthusiasm, energy and mantra of time to market has steered Intel over the past few years into the mobile scene, after bashfully missing an early entry. In that time, Intel has invested many billion dollars in both SoC and modem development to claw a market from the slew of ARM-based solutions in the wild. Aside from having a process node advantage during that time, Intel has had to redevelop its microarchitecture products and radio business into something that could be efficient, performant and price competitive, all the while maintaining the high margins Intel's overall business requires. Particularly in the radio business, the bread and butter of the CVP, Intel acquired and merged several companies to expand its radio portfolio, including the CDMA assets of VIA Telecom announced as recently as Q4 2015, as well as Infineon Wireless (modem/RF) and Silicon Hive (ISP).
As admitted by Intel, the first few generations were rough, either resting on their laurels or not having a complete solution. Earlier this decade Intel used a ‘contra-revenue’ strategy, investing into OEMs that would buy their chips, causing operating losses for the mobile division of $3.1 billion in 2013 and $4.2 billion in 2014 with a much lower revenue stream. Intel subsequently combined the financial reports of their mobile and consumer PC businesses into a new Client Computing Division, bringing all CPU/SoC development under a single roof but also obfuscating the investments and losses behind a high performing, high margin part of the company.
(Image Courtesy Tweakers.net)
Thus Intel’s big wins in the smartphone space have been rather limited: they haven't had a win in any particularly premium devices, and long term partners have been deploying mid-range platforms in geo-focused regions. Perhaps the biggest recipient has been ASUS, with the ever popular ZenFone 2 creating headlines when it was announced at $200 with a quad-core Intel Atom, LTE, 4GB of DRAM and a 5.5-inch 1080p display. Though not quite a premium product, the ZenFone 2 was very aggressively priced and earned a lot of attention for both ASUS and Intel over just how many higher-end features were packed into a relatively cheap phone.
Meanwhile, just under two years ago, in order to address the lower-end of the market and to more directly compete with aggressive and low-margin ARM SoC vendors, Intel announced the SoFIA program. SoFIA would see Intel partner with the Chinese SoC vendors Rockchip and Spreadtrum, working with them to design cost-competitive SoCs using Atom CPU cores and Intel modems, and then fab those SoCs at third party fabs. SoFIA was a very aggressive and unusual move for Intel that acknowledged that the company could not compete in the low-end SoC space in a traditional, high-margin Intel manner, and that as a result the company needed to try something different. The first phones based on the resulting Atom x3 SoCs launched earlier this year, so while SoFIA has made it to the market it looks like that presence will be short-lived.
Overall, Intel’s strategy of ‘Time To Market’ in order to generate revenue in a fast paced market makes sense - if you are late, then you are behind on performance, efficiency, and no-one will buy the chips. However, TTM has drawbacks if the chip comes without the features it needs, and the end result has seen Intel always play catch-up in one form or another, hoping that their strategy would encourage customers. Intel got serious about mobile, but it would appear it hasn't been enough.
Intel's Leaving the Trail: Broxton & SoFIA Cancelled
With Intel announcing the cancelation of their entire suite of smartphone SoCs, this has a significant impact on the company's overall strategy. The next generation of Intel's in-house mobile SoCs, Broxton, was lined up to use Intel’s newest generation 14nm Atom core, Goldmont. Goldmont has already been announced at IDF Shenzhen this year as part of the Apollo Lake netbook/low-cost PC platform, but we have been expecting it to arrive as part of a few handsets this year. Despite the fact that we assume Broxton should be in the final stages of silicon development and less than a few months out, the official word from Intel today is that the Broxton commercial platform has been cancelled for both smartphones and tablets, effective immediately. The resources working on the Broxton platform are being moved to areas within the company that offers better returns on investment and are more aligned with Intel’s connectivity (read: 5G) strategy.
|Comparison of Intel's Atom SoC Platforms|
|Clover Trail||Cedar Trail|
|Bay Trail-T||Bay Trail-M/D|
|Airmont||14 nm||2015||'Riverton'||Cherry Trail-T||Braswell|
The other side of this news is the cancellation of the SoFIA 3GX, LTE and LTE2 commercial platforms as well. SoFIA as a platform had missed its original targets, was delayed (some analysts suggest up to a year), and in the end was developed through agreements made with RockChip and Spreadtrum to manufacture some of the SoFIA SoCs for those markets using a less expensive process node but also using the expertise of these two bulk SoC sales companies. We were expecting SoFIA with Intel’s 2nd generation LTE, as well as the next microarchitecture in SoFIA, to be announced this year. As of today’s email exchange with Intel, these programs are now cancelled, again effective immediately. At this point details on how the arrangements with RockChip and Spreadtrum are unclear (Intel declined to comment).
One of Intel and Rockchip's current SoFIA SoCs
The Road Ahead for Intel
Intel’s announcements over the past week have included layoffs of 12000 staff, but also a clarification of Intel’s future strategy. Among those five focal points include the Cloud, the Client business, Memory and FPGAs, R&D through Moore’s Law, and 5G Connectivity. These five areas are all high margin, high grossing and high volume market segments. Sometimes an introspective look and an internal refocus on the core strengths is a good thing, depending on how your competitors are doing, but that means shedding parts of the business that don’t meet those expectations.
For the moment at least, Intel is out of the SoC side of the smartphone market. This will allow ARM architecture based SoCs to absorb the remaining market share they didn’t have already.
What's less clear at the moment is whether this will also impact the low-cost/non-premium tablet market, as embodied by products such as the Surface 3. In their updated statement, Intel has told us that Broxton is cancelled for both "phones and tablets." Our current understanding is that Broxton is the SoC at the heart of the Willow Trail platform – the successor to the widely used Cherry Trail-T – but at this time Intel has not explicitly confirmed whether this is in fact Willow Trail, or if Broxton's tablet variation represented another platform altogether. Though regardless of what happens with traditional tablets, we'll continue see Intel in more premium tablet-like devices such as 2-in-1s (e.g. Surface Pro) via Apollo Lake and the Core processor lineup, as Intel has previously identified convertable devices as a growth market for the company.
Update 5/02: In a newer statement, Intel has confirmed that Apollo Lake will be offered to tablet manufacturers. At this point it's not clear what the tradeoffs are for that versus Willow Trail, and whether Apollo Lake is suitable for all types of devices that the current-generation Cherry Trail has been used in. But this does mean we will see tablets using the Goldmont CPU core, while Intel Intel will flesh out the rest of their tablet SoCs with Core-based parts. Intel will also "continue to support" their tablet customers with Bay Trail, Cherry Trail, and SoFIA parts.
Also not discussed in greater detail is Intel's future plans for their overall Atom lineup. With Apollo Lake announced just earlier this month, it's clear that Intel's Atom efforts have not been cancelled entirely. We will still see the new 14nm Goldmont cores appear in low-cost PCs under Apollo Lake, most likely in several 11-to-13 inch high volume devices. However for the moment there is not an Atom core on Intel's roadmap beyond Goldmont.
Finally, despite all of this one key target for Intel will be the rest of the discrete modem market, which is currently Qualcomm’s domain, and the late 2015 acquisition of VIA Telecom’s CMDA assets will help. To put some perspective on this, two things: Intel recently hired Dr. Renduchintala, former Qualcomm VP of Mobile, to head up the client business, as well as Amir Faintuch, also formerly Qualcomm, to co-manage Intel’s Platform Engineering Group. Secondly, at Mobile World Congress 2016 in February, Aicha Evans said that she wanted a big contract in 2016, otherwise we might not see her in 2017.
Source: Intel, tip-off from Patrick Moorhead via Forbes
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
beginner99 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkMargins. You can't get >50% margins in that space. You can see that intel crippled Atom both on CPU and GPU side but especially the later. More GPU means bigger die means less money for intel.
Second point i've heard is that their whole company structure from design to fab just isn't suited for fast iterations required in the smartphone market.
Krysto - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkCompany incentives (read: profits) and an unwilling to switch to ARM for mobile. Despite what most others say, ARM is still more efficient in mobile BUT when put on a similar process node as well.
abufrejoval - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkEver since Intel entered the server market their business model has been based on their ability to sell expensive server chips that had their research and development funded by a massive desktop population.
They've used every trick in the bag to ensure those user groups stayed as separated as possible, so server users couldn't actually use desktop CPUs instead and destroy their margin.
That doesn't work in the other direction, but most importantly, keeping desktop users away from the mobile chips at ARM prices is becoming increasingly difficult: What's the benefit of selling millions of additional mobile SoC if each means a desktop CPU less?
After running RemixOS (Android x86-64) on a €100 N3700 motherboard (no moving parts) I have to conclude that anything more expensive requires special needs (workstation/heavy duty gaming) to justify as a PC, laptop or HDMI stick.
Even Windows is ok, unless your other PC happens to be a 4GHz i7 (where the change of pace becomes noticeable).
Intel is becoming a niche player. They have finally realized it and we can be sure that they'll continue to fight hard and dirty to make sure that niche stays as large and as profitable as they can make it.
name99 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkThere is one camp that says this is all economics. Intel was afraid to create good chips in this space because those would compete with their mid-range.
I don't buy this. If Intel had though that way, there were MANY different ways to avoid the problem. (For example they could have shipped phone CPUs that were x86-64 only --- able to work with modern compilers and dev tools, but unable to run any older Windows software.)
I think the issue is that same way that x86 fans constantly refuse to admit. The complexity of the x86 ISA (broadly considered; not just the instructions but also the accumulated supervisor details like PAE and SMM, the complicated hardware expectations, and the memory model) is what did them in.
Creating one of their CPUs requires twice as long and vastly more people than on the ARM side. At first they wouldn't believe this and didn't budget enough people and enough time to maintain pace with ARM. By the time they did realize this, it was basically game over. They just could not move as fast as ARM, and once they lost process advantage the future was obvious.
If they could churn out competitive CPUs at the pace (and cost) of Apple or QC, they'd be fine. But complexity costs. They refused to accept that ten years ago, and today we see the consequences.
(And so much for their "We will power the IoT" crap. Yeah, you'll power it with what? Your stupid Quark chip that no-one's interested in and your non-existent 5G modem? Quark shows exactly the same stupidity as Atom, and will fail for exactly the same reasons. By the time Intel have finally shipped a version that matches what smartwatch vendors wanted in 2015, the ARM eco-system will have shipped three impressive updates to their various SoCs.)
ARM is, IMHO, in a fundamentally better place than Intel because they're willing to accept some short term pain in order to tame complexity. They've changed ISA a few times and they've been willing to abandon mistakes or obsolete ideas (like Jazelle). Right now they have to carry the burden of both the v7 (including Thumb) and v8 ISAs (and some hassle related to memory models and the older interrupt model), but we already have the server vendors saying they've dropped everything pre-v8, and I expect Apple will do so in the next year or three, followed by ARM itself. This is a fundamental in engineering --- complexity WILL kill you, unless you CONSTANTLY work to weed it out.
Reflex - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkYou keep making these assertions no matter how many people correct your misconceptions. I hope it makes you feel better, since obviously you need it.
sparrow2 - Saturday, April 30, 2016 - linkIntel hasn't had success with a new design since the Pentium, and that dates to 1993 or so. They managed to recover from the Itanium fiasco thanks to AMD, but that caused them to focus back on x86, while the world was changing.
extide - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - linkBasically there are a few reasons. This is my opinion, at least. I think the main point as which they messed up is when the sold off their ARM IP to Marvell, and decided to bring a low-cost, low-power x86 arch in it's place. This created the problem that this chip could now potentially compete with the 'main' x86 arch lineup of chips (currently Core). That means the Atom core has always been artificially limited in terms of performance.
See, I think they they, instead, should have kept their custom ARM IP and continued to develop that, they could have easily been a market leader. There are several reasons for this, 1) They would be selling an ARM chip into an ARM market. MUCH easier than selling an x86 chip into an ARM market. 2) Since it was an ARM chip, it wouldn't really potentially compete with the main x86 arch, which would mean it would not have to artificially limited in terms of performance or capability, and 3) I have little doubt that Intel could have designed proprietary ARM IP cores that could compete in terms of performance and efficiency with the likes of Qualcomm, Samsung, and even Apple.
JDG1980 - Sunday, May 1, 2016 - linkBecause Intel got arrogant and lazy. They thought their process advantage was big enough that they could beat ARM with one hand tied behind their backs, artificially restricting performance to avoid eating into more lucrative Core sales. Turns out that ARM 1st tier products were more than a match for Intel 2nd tier products. And now that the foundries finally got FinFET right, Intel's process advantage is much less than it once was (probably about a half-node ahead at this point).
Had they taken this market seriously from the beginning, they might have won.
digitalgriffin - Monday, May 2, 2016 - linkIntel had legacy issues. They were based on a x86 CISC design which requires a lot of transistors. This means there is a considerable power drain to maintain backwards compatibility with older x86 processors and code. So even though Intel chips used a smaller process node, the extra transistors ate up that advantage.
Add to this the fact, that Google didn't actively develop drivers specifically to use Intel chips. Intel invested a ton in programmers to create drivers for android. And quite a few of their products were less then steller in long term stability. (Ask someone who has experience with a few)
The added complexity, with lower profit margin, and need to develop in house drivers became a death nail for Atom in the long term. And Intel is LOATHE to compete in the lower profit RISC/ARM core.
I predict a long term shrink for Intel in the next 15 years of around ~50% market cap due to a number of factors. (People moving to tablets, lack of progress in any real speed improvements, and moore's law limitations) Server market and cloud is a correct strategy. But intel has a slow walk into home computer obsolescence in front of them.
NEDM64 - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link1 manufacturer vs many?