[HN Gopher] Intel sells 51% stake in Altera to private equity fi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Intel sells 51% stake in Altera to private equity firm on a $8.75B
       valuation
        
       Author : voxadam
       Score  : 66 points
       Date   : 2025-04-14 21:59 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (newsroom.intel.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (newsroom.intel.com)
        
       | bigfatkitten wrote:
       | It was a silly acquisition in the first place, and their
       | justification clearly came from a coke-addled fever dream.
       | 
       | Intel soon discovered the obvious, which is that customers with
       | applications well-suited to FPGAs already use FPGAs.
        
         | mschuster91 wrote:
         | > Intel soon discovered the obvious, which is that customers
         | with applications well-suited to FPGAs already use FPGAs.
         | 
         | Yes, but pairing an FPGA somewhat tightly integrated with an
         | actually powerful x86 CPU would have made an interesting
         | alternative to the usual FPGA+some low end ARM combo that's
         | common these days.
        
           | bigfatkitten wrote:
           | Applications that benefit from the Zynq-style combination
           | (e.g. radio systems) generally take that approach because
           | they have SWaP concerns that preclude the use of big x86 CPUs
           | in the first place.
        
             | snihalani wrote:
             | What's a SWaP concern?
        
               | superkuh wrote:
               | Size Weight and Power.
        
               | 201984 wrote:
               | Size, Weight, and Power. It would be very nice if people
               | would take the two seconds to type those words out
               | instead of using ungoogleable acronyms on a public forum
               | unfamilar with the terms.
        
           | michaelt wrote:
           | Sure, if they wanted to intel _could_ have done what nvidia
           | did with CUDA: Put the tech into everything, even their
           | lowest end consumer devices, and sink hundreds of millions
           | into tooling and developer education given away free of
           | charge.
           | 
           | And _maybe_ it would have lead somewhere. Perhaps. But they
           | didn 't.
        
             | danielmarkbruce wrote:
             | It was the thought at the time that they'd do this. It's
             | amazing that they don't seem to have _actually tried_ ? Any
             | sense as to why or what went wrong?
        
         | georgeburdell wrote:
         | If AMD did the same thing years later, was it really that
         | foolish?
        
         | komadori wrote:
         | Do you think AMD's decision to buy Xilinx was any better or
         | not?
        
           | Alupis wrote:
           | Perhaps we can say it was less of a distraction for AMD,
           | given AMD is not having the basic execution issue that Intel
           | is currently suffering.
        
             | rcxdude wrote:
             | And less disastrous for Xilinx, given they could basically
             | just keep going as they were before, instead of being
             | significantly diverted onto a sinking ship of a process.
        
         | danielmarkbruce wrote:
         | There was some hope at the time that FPGAs could be used in a
         | lot more applications in the data center. It is likely still
         | feasible. Remember Hennessy published:
         | 
         | https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~wl/teachlocal/arch/papers/cacm19go...
         | 
         | And maybe this is/was a pipe dream - maybe there aren't enough
         | people with the skills to have a "golden age of architecture".
         | But MSFT was deploying FPGAs in the data center and there were
         | certainly hopes and dreams this would become a big thing.
        
           | bigfatkitten wrote:
           | That was certainly the dream, but unfortunately for them it
           | didn't turn out to be a new market.
        
             | danielmarkbruce wrote:
             | I don't know enough about hardware to know why - why didn't
             | this story play out as hoped?
        
         | matt3210 wrote:
         | It made their stock pop for a while which was all that mattered
         | to Brian Krzanich who took the bonus and left the mess in the
         | hands of Bob Swan who did the same things and left the mess ...
         | (recursion her).
        
         | nativeit wrote:
         | > Intel soon discovered the obvious, which is that customers
         | with applications well-suited to FPGAs already use FPGAs.
         | 
         | So selling FPGA's was a bad move? Or was the purchase price
         | just wildly out-of-line with the--checking...$9.8B annual
         | market that's expected to rise to $23.3B by 2030?
        
       | Alupis wrote:
       | I wonder if we'll see more Intel sell-offs, as Tan et al try to
       | get things under control.
       | 
       | Will we see an AMD-esque fab spin-off?
        
         | nxobject wrote:
         | Would market regulators allow a single buyer to acquire all of
         | Intel's fabs in one go?
        
           | Alupis wrote:
           | My guess would be no, but I could be wrong. The current
           | administration clearly wants more domestic capability, so
           | even if someone like TSMC/Samsung/etc wanted to acquire as
           | part of their US operations, my gut says it would be
           | challenged.
           | 
           | When AMD spun off their fabs into what became Global
           | Foundries, it was difficult for many to see the upside.
           | However, today, it seems not being tied to any particular
           | fab/tech is one of AMD's biggest advantages.
        
         | jsight wrote:
         | I'd guess that they'll continue to sell off mobileye over time.
        
       | rsp1984 wrote:
       | Should change title. They sold 51% at a valuation of $8.75B, so
       | cash in is ~ $4.29B.
        
         | voxadam wrote:
         | I've updated the title as best as I could within the
         | constraints of the max length.
        
       | mastax wrote:
       | Intel acquired Altera in December 2015 for $16.7 billion in cash.
        
         | nativeit wrote:
         | If only someone could have come up with a plausibly profitable
         | use-case for advanced FPGA's and highly performant, efficient,
         | real-time processing or hardware acceleration in those
         | intervening years? What are ya gonna do?
        
           | xadhominemx wrote:
           | Well the thesis was DC accelerators but the world went with
           | ASSPs.
        
       | thot_experiment wrote:
       | Rest in Peace Altera I guess? I still drink out of my color
       | changing Altera mug (that's long stopped changing color) most
       | days. PE ruins everything so it's only a matter of time before
       | they're gutted and sold for scraps by the vultures at Silver
       | Lake. (though honestly the writing was on the wall since the
       | Intel acquisition I had held onto some hope) If only we had a
       | functioning government interested in actually maintaining our
       | technological dominance and enforcing/expanding antitrust
       | legislation. I wrote my first Verilog on an Altera chip and I'll
       | remember them fondly.
        
         | greenavocado wrote:
         | I'm totally with you on needing a government that actually
         | cares about keeping us ahead of the curve tech-wise and making
         | sure companies aren't getting too big. And you know what could
         | really help with that? Tariffs.
         | 
         | Think about it, tariffs can be a game changer for industries
         | that got totally wrecked by outsourcing to China. By slapping
         | tariffs on imports from countries that don't play fair, we can
         | give our own companies a fighting chance to get back on their
         | feet. And that's not just about bringing back manufacturing
         | jobs, it's about creating a level playing field so our
         | companies can innovate and compete without getting undercut by
         | cheaper, often stolen, tech from elsewhere.
         | 
         | Plus, tariffs can bring in some much needed cash that we can
         | then invest in the stuff that really matters - R&D, education,
         | and infrastructure. It's like a reboot for our economy. And if
         | other countries want to play nice and start respecting
         | intellectual property and labor rights, then we can work out
         | some mutually beneficial trade deals that work for everyone.
         | 
         | So, a government that's actually working for us could use
         | tariffs as a tool to help our industries thrive, while also
         | keeping the global trade system in check. It's all about
         | finding that balance and making sure we're not getting taken
         | advantage of. Make sense?
        
           | 9283409232 wrote:
           | I don't think people are opposed to tariffs, at least they
           | weren't before. Bernie Sanders has historically been for
           | tariffs when used properly. Used properly being the important
           | phrase. When you have someone who doesn't understand what a
           | trade deficit is imposing tariffs based on the difference
           | between deficit and surplus, you pretty effectively turn
           | people against tariffs on top of the whole destroying the
           | global economy thing.
        
           | knowaveragejoe wrote:
           | This comment is textbook Poe's Law.
        
       | svnt wrote:
       | For those keeping score at home, 51% sold at a total valuation of
       | $8.75B, which means they are bringing in around $4.5B, and
       | recognizing a loss of roughly 50% on what was their biggest deal
       | ever when it took place in 2015.
        
         | Jach wrote:
         | "In December 2015, Intel acquired Altera for $16.7 billion in
         | cash." $21.5 bn inflation adjusted. Amazing ten year
         | performance.
        
           | addaon wrote:
           | Sure, it was down 60%. But the real question is whether it
           | outperformed Intel as a whole, and outperformed other
           | internal investments Intel could make. I certainly wouldn't
           | think that a 2015 dollar anywhere else within Intel is worth
           | more than 40C/ today, given how they've been running.
        
         | scottyah wrote:
         | Or they got what they wanted from it and are selling off the
         | rest, like when Google bought Motorola Wireless for the Patents
         | then sold off the non-googly employees, culture, and brand for
         | cheap.
        
       | roughly wrote:
       | Without arguing the merits of the Altera investment or
       | divestment, a common pattern for Intel seems to be a wild see-
       | sawing between an aggressive and a defensive market posture -
       | it's a regular occurrence for Intel to announce a bold new
       | venture to try to claim some new territory, and just as regular
       | that they announce they're halting that venture in the name of
       | "consolidating" and "focusing on their core." The consequence is
       | that they never give new ventures time to actually succeed, so
       | they just bleed money creating things they murder in the cradle,
       | and nobody born before last Tuesday is investing in bothering to
       | learn the new Intel thing because its expected lifespan is
       | shorter than the average Google product.
       | 
       | Intel either needs to focus or they need to be bold (and I'd
       | actually prefer they be bold - they've started down some cool
       | paths over time), but what they really need is to make up their
       | goddamn minds and stop panicking every other quarter that their
       | "ten-year bets" from last quarter haven't paid off yet.
        
         | jrockway wrote:
         | This seems to be common for corporate America in general. I
         | used to work at a YC startup. We kiiiiiinda maaaaaaaybe ran out
         | of money (not my department) and happened to get bought by a
         | large investor that also happens to be a US-based hardware
         | manufacturer. Two years and countless reorgs later, they laid
         | everyone off and as far as I know, are no longer in the
         | business of selling the software products they bought. They
         | never figured out how software worked, never had anyone
         | managining the division for more than 6 months, and got bored.
         | I think they thought by moving everyone over to Microsoft Word
         | and Windows laptops (peppered with a half-hearted threat about
         | RTO), they would just magically make billions of dollars the
         | first month. It didn't happen.
         | 
         | I am beginning to think M&A are just some sort of ego thing for
         | bored megacorp execs, rather than serious attempts to add
         | efficiency and value to the marketplace. (Prove me wrong, bored
         | megacorp execs. I'll wait.)
        
       | matt3210 wrote:
       | Intel's problem is that they're trying to deliver short term
       | shareholder value instead of long term stable value.
        
         | sambull wrote:
         | They'll give any market a good 18 months and then dip
        
       | Jach wrote:
       | Man I remember being excited when Intel bought Altera, maybe
       | they'd bring FPGAs to the masses, then they proceeded to do
       | nothing with them...
        
       | varispeed wrote:
       | Seems quite cheap. If I was a state I'd buy it. Possibly give
       | stake to the suitable university and then create internships and
       | other learning opportunities. I would also subsidise products to
       | SMEs and then invest more to ensure company can supply defence
       | and other industries, decoupling the country from dependence on
       | other countries from crucial tech.
       | 
       | I mean it's a pipe dream, but why not.
        
       | bjourne wrote:
       | Apparently, the FPGA industry wasn't large enough for two major
       | players. Maintaining an extremely specialized developer ecosystem
       | for a relatively small niche can't have been cheap. Almost zero
       | cross-over too, since FPGA tooling is much too foreign to be
       | repurposed for other architectures. I suspect this move will make
       | it a bit harder for Intel to collect "developer mindshare" for
       | their other hyped up stuff because no one likes having the rug
       | pulled out from under them. Hope AMD can make a better job with
       | Xilinx than what Intel could with Altera.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-04-14 23:00 UTC)