Intel Summary the Number of Transistors Incorporated

Intel Summary

"the number of transistors incorporated in a chip will approximately double every

months" according to the postulation known as Moore's law (Intel.com. Moore's Law and Intel Innovation. N.D.). Developed by the co-founder of Intel Gordon Moore, the theory he posited has propelled Intel to keep "pace for over 40 years, providing more functions on a chip at significantly lower cost per function, and has described the basic business model for the semiconductor industry" (Intel.com. Moore's Law. N.D.). Intel since its launch in 1968 has been at the top of the technology industry with specialization which encompasses both semiconductors and microprocessors. "A recent survey by brand consulting firm Interbrand, ranked the company as the seventh-best global brand -- outranking clients like Apple Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. And Dell Inc." (Shannon, K. October 10, 2010). The story behind Intel's forty year ascendance is one of innovation and a commitment to growth, and is the ongoing mantra of an organization which looks to continue its dominance of the next generation of technology infrastructure and information.

The Intel story began in 1968 with the co-founders Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and their handpicked director of operations Andy Grove, formulating a strategy to "develop semiconductor memory chips for mainframe computers and minicomputers" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008). Their first successful commercial offering was the "1103, a 1-kilobit DRAM (dynamic random access memory) chip which in 1972 was the world's best semiconductor product, accounting for over 90% of the company's sales revenues" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008). The decade of the 1970's saw Intel's dominance of the DRAM industry, "introducing devices and technologies that were ahead of the competition and commanding significant price premiums" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008. Intel's success depended on "pushing the envelope of product design" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008), concomitant with significant investments in "process technology to drive production yields" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008).

As happens in nearly all industries however, a company cannot continue its meteoric rise dependent on a single product line, as invariably competition forces significant price reductions as well as new offerings which dilute market share. For Intel the DRAM market in the 1980's quickly became a drag on growth as "product life cycles began to shrink and Japanese competitors began to introduce new products more rapidly" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008). Fujitsu, NEC, and Hitachi beat Intel at their own game increasing production yields for semiconductors to as high as 70-80% versus 50 to 60% for Intel (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008). Additionally, Japanese firms "were much faster at developing process technologies and ramping up production capacity" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008); which accounted for "Japanese semiconductor companies capturing nearly half the world market for DRAMs by the early 1990s" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008). Intel needed a new direction, (as "DRAM's still accounted for as much as one-third of Intel's R&D expenditures, although they generated only five percent of Intel's revenues) and they discovered it in the microprocessor market for personal computers (PC's).

The microprocessor did not begin with its use in PC's however; this application was quickly ascertained as the PC market exploded in the 1980's with offerings from Apple and IBM. Intel's first foray into this microprocessor market was the 8086 which competed directly with the other big player in the industry Motorola and their 68000. Throughout the 1980's Intel battled Motorola in the market for supplying microprocessor chips to PC makers. With strategic operational plans such as "project CRUSH and "project CHECKMATE," Intel which significantly trailed Motorola in market share authored an impressive turnaround. "Some market segments were three or four to one in favor of Motorola. By the time we finished, it had turned the other way" (Collis, D. & Pisano, G. May 22, 2008).