U.S. President Donald Trump demanded the immediate resignation of new Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, calling him "highly conflicted" due to his ties to Chinese firms and raising doubts about plans to turn around the struggling American chip icon.  Tan invested at least $200 million in 100s of Chinese advanced manufacturing and chip firms, some linked to the Chinese military.  Trump's comments came after Republican Senator Tom Cotton had sent a letter to Intel's board chair with questions about Tan's ties to Chinese firms and a recent criminal case involving his former firm, Cadence Design. In December 2024 Intel fired its then CEO Pat Gelsinger well before the completion of his 4-year roadmap to restore Intel's lead in making the fastest and smallest computer chips. The ousting followed a Reuters report in October that Intel had failed to live up to the lofty ambitions he had set for manufacturing and AI capabilities, ultimately losing or canceling contracts under his watch and scrapping a revenue forecast Gelsinger had made, even though it exceeded Intel's estimates. The board named former board member Tan as CEO, betting on his deep roots in the chip industry and track record as a longtime investor in promising tech startups. Tan has largely abandoned his predecessor's strategy, aggressively shrinking the company's workforce and putting on hold planned manufacturing plants globally. The 18A production process that Intel hoped would pave the way to winning manufacturing deals and restore its edge in churning out high-end, high-margin chips is also facing a big hurdle on quality as it puts newer technologies to the test. Intel has also further slowed the pace of construction of a factory in Ohio, now expected to be completed around 2030 or 2031. Ohio Republican U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno said on X that it is "pretty obvious" that Intel failed its commitments to the state and that Ohio should start a fraud investigation.

In this masterclass, Dr. Anatoly Agulyansky guides us through analyzing a process, in this case, the creation of Silicon Oxide in microelectronics manufacturing. Process Functional Modeling (PFM) is an analytical tool to learn the process through modeling different operations, solving problems, and defining ways to improve any fabrication process. PFM is an extension of the System Functional Modeling (SFM) and it allows us to analyze the whole process vs one particular operation in the process.

In this PRIZ Academy webinar, Alex and Anatoly Agulyansky introduce Process Functional Modelling (PFM)—a powerful framework for deeply understanding and improving processes by classifying operations based on their true functional contribution.

Discover:
- Why are most processes filled with non-value-adding operations?
- The four operation types: Productive, Providing, Corrective, and Metrology—and how to treat each.
- How functional modeling reveals hidden waste, duplication, and complexity.
- Real-world applications in manufacturing and beyond.

See how the PRIZ Engineering Thinking Platform empowers teams to model processes, make better improvement decisions, and align operations with strategic goals. Whether you're in QA, production, engineering, or operations, this session will shift how you think about process design.

Learn how to simplify, focus, and improve—with science on your side.

In this masterclass, Dr. Anatoly Agulyansky guides us through the process of analyzing a system, in this case, a vacuum cleaner, identifying ways to simplify it, and ultimately, innovating.

Analyzing engineering systems is a complex process that involves processing large amounts of information. The challenge lies in understanding how each system component affects the final product.

Functional Modeling is a tool designed to assist with this process. It enables us to visualize the interactions of all system components and estimate their effects on the product. This tool allows us to explore various options for changes and understand their impact, even before implementing a prototype.

Claus Aasholm has created a raw and unfiltered video showcasing his analysis process as he navigates some of the tools he uses. The target of analysis was TSMC, with their recently reported quarterly results for Q2 2025.

PRIZ Guru, the provider of an all-in-one Engineering Thinking platform, has launched Change Flow Thinking (CFT) – a game-changing tool that transforms how companies tackle complex engineering challenges. Billed as the ultimate “stubborn challenge to celebrated win” machine, CFT guides teams through a systematic yet creative problem-solving journey, from pinpointing root causes to implementing innovative fixes.

The result? Resilient, high-quality solutions delivered with scientific precision, turning every tough problem into an opportunity for measurable impact. PRIZ Guru’s latest offering underscores its mission: to elevate engineering teams from reactive troubleshooting to proactive innovation, ensuring organizations can generate the innovative solutions that they need to stay competitive and profitable.

The CFT Difference

What sets Change Flow Thinking apart is its unique ability to merge change and risk management with systematic innovation tools into one visual workflow. In practice, CFT acts as a central command center for improvement projects: engineers map each step of a proposed change, flag potential risks or roadblocks, and collaborate on solutions in real time.

Data from Canalys shows shipments of desktops and notebooks to the United States grew 15% Y-o-Y in Q1 '25 hitting 16.9M units. A surge in sell-in activity by vendors, driven by efforts to navigate tariff announcements, led to significant inventory buildup that now needs to be cleared. Combined with downward pressure on consumer spending, will lead to a market slowdown for the remainder of 2025, with total PC shipments forecast to increase by ~2%. With a considerable portion of Windows refresh activity set to occur after the Windows 10 End-of-Support deadline in October 2025, growth in 2026 is expected to come in at 4%. “Despite the sense of urgency driven by the Windows 10 EoS date, consumer demand in the US has remained largely unaffected”. “This highlights a key reality: many PC users are indifferent to the Windows 10 EoS until it becomes a significant pain point. Consumer PC purchases tend to be largely driven by factors like poor battery life, slow performance, or hardware failures. Overwhelming specifications and unclear messaging also exacerbate the complexity of the PC buying journey. For vendors and channel partners, this underscores the need to simplify the buyer experience through clear, needs-based messaging and streamlined product portfolios. The channel must proactively guide consumers through a coherent and intuitive purchasing process, helping them easily identify devices tailored to their needs.”

Kevin Zhang, Deputy Co-Chief Operating Officer at TSMC, recently reiterated the company's cautious approach toward adopting High NA EUV lithography tools, emphasizing that TSMC is "in no rush" to bring the advanced technology into high-volume production. His remarks have reignited industry speculation around ASML's multi-billion-dollar next-generation lithography platform.

Root-Cause Analysis is the engine of proactive, world-class Quality Assurance—yet most teams still rely on “inspect-and-react” tactics that bleed time, money, and trust. Whether you’re a QA lead, process engineer, or manufacturing exec, you’ll see how structured, science-based thinking drives measurable quality gains.   In this PRIZ Academy session, Alex & Dr. Anatoly Agulyansky show how to replace firefighting with Predict-and-Prevent practices and demonstrate the PRIZ Engineering-Thinking Platform in a live case from microchip manufacturing. In this webinar, you’ll learn

• Why inspection-centric QA fails—and how cross-functional RCA closes the gap.
• Practical vs. “historical” root causes: focusing on causes you can actually remove.
• Cause-and-Effect Chains & Functional Modelling: tools that expose hidden interactions.
• Real success story: cutting wafer scrap by uncovering chemical over-etching, not “human error.”
• Hands-on platform tour: from problem statement to auto-generated report and action tracking.

Try it yourself. Start a free project on the PRIZ platform and experience continuous RCA in action.

In this webinar, Dr. Anatoly Agulyansky explores the fascinating evolution of Moore's Law in semiconductor manufacturing. From historical breakthroughs to current challenges, discover how the industry has progressed from early computers to today's complex microchips with billions of transistors. Learn about critical technical hurdles in transistor scaling, material innovations, and the shift toward function-based design approaches. This comprehensive overview provides valuable insights into the future of semiconductor technology and the need for innovative thinking in addressing manufacturing challenges.

Key Takeaway
The semiconductor industry's continued advancement requires not just material innovations but a fundamental rethinking of how we approach design and manufacturing processes. The focus should shift from simply making components smaller to improving their functional efficiency.

This webinar provides valuable insights into the materials science challenges in semiconductor manufacturing and suggests new ways of thinking about innovation in this critical industry.

 Who should watch: Engineers, QA managers, process‑improvement leads, and anyone tasked with reducing defects or boosting reliability across semiconductor, automotive, medical devices, aerospace, and more.

Traditional schematics show what is connected, but rarely reveal why systems succeed or fail. Functional modeling flips that script by mapping the Subject‑Action‑Object (SAO) relationships that drive performance, risk, and cost. In this hands‑on PRIZ Academy session, co‑founders Alex and Anatoly Agulyansky demonstrate how to transform any product or process into a clear, data‑driven action map—then use the PRIZ Platform to pinpoint the fastest path to improvement.  

What you’ll learn:

• SAO Basics – How to define subjects, actions, and objects that matter
• Useful vs. Harmful Functions – Ranking what helps and what hurts
• Live Case Study – Solving wafer breakage in a semiconductor chamber
• Platform Demo – Building and scoring a functional model in minutes
• Practical Takeaways – Prioritize high‑impact fixes and accelerate root‑cause analysis

Every engineer and their manager wants to be successful. We are all paid to solve problems, but when we encounter problems, we often default to brainstorming. However, there are better methods for problem-solving. Today, I am interviewing Richard Platt, a seasoned veteran in systematic and systemic problem-solving and innovation, with an extensive track record of successful innovation projects as a consultant to various companies. Here we discussed the value add of systematic solution generation vs. traditional brainstorming

Intel has been in a dire state these past few years, with seemingly nothing going right. (and you can blame that directly on the Private Equity Hijack of its C-suite and Board of Directors). Its attempt to modernize x86 with a hybrid big.LITTLE architecture, à la ARM, failed to make a meaningful impact, only made worse by last-gen's Arrow Lake chips barely registering a response against AMD’s cache-stacked X3D lineup.

On the GPU front, Intel served an undercooked product far too late that, while not entirely hopeless, was nowhere near enough to challenge the industry’s dominant players. A final nail may have come with Intel’s recent loss of contract manufacturing for its upcoming flagship 18A node. (only because Lip-Bu Tan attacked all of the Talent inside of Intel).

All of this compounds into a grim reality, seemingly confirmed by the new Private Equity CEO Lip-Bu Tan in a leaked internal conversation today.

According to OregonTech, it's on a borderline fight for survival for the once-great American innovation powerhouse as it struggles to even acknowledge being among the top contenders anymore.

Despite Tan's insistence, Intel would still rank fairly well given its extensive legacy. (That he has been attempting to destroy with all of his P-E Cronies from BlackRock, -Barbara Novick & Larry Fink, Third Point LLC and Apollo Global Managment - Daniel Loeb, Brookfield, 

While companies like AMD, Nvidia, Apple, TSMC, and even Samsung might be more successful today, smaller chipmakers like Broadcom, MediaTek, Micron, and SK Hynix are not above Intel in terms of sheer impact. Regardless, talking to employees around the world in a QnA session, Intel's CEO shared these bleak words:

"20, 30 years ago, we are really the leader. Now I think the world has changed. We are not in the top 10 semiconductor companies."

Lip-Bu Tan, Intel CEO.  As evident from the quote, this is a far cry from a few decades ago when Intel essentially held a monopoly over the CPU market, making barely perceptible upgrades each generation in order to sustain its dominance. At one time, Intel was so powerful that it considered acquiring Nvidia for $20 billion. The GPU maker is now worth $4 trillion.

Intel says foundry business won't break even until 14A in 2027 (Which is the dumbest idea ever....again, as I have repeatedly posted on LinkedIn, that Lip Bu Tan is the lead on the Private Equity Cartel that is trying to turn Intel into its own personal one-armed bandit, as they tear the company apart from the inside out.  And they have been doing this since they attacked former CEO Bob Swan, where Third Point LLC, forced Bob's hand to sell off the NAND division and the Fabs in China to SK Hynix in 2020. - You can see the when the decliine started and it was done so with malice of forethought.  This breaching the Fiduciary Responsibility of the company - Clearly, and Definitively)

Intel never saw AMD as an honorable competitor until it was too late, and Ryzen pulled the carpet from underneath Intel's feet. Now, more people choose to build an AMD system than ever before. Not only that, but AMD also powers your favorite handhelds like the Steam Deck and Rog Ally X, alongside the biggest consoles: Xbox Series and PlayStation 5. AMD works closely with TSMC, another one of Intel's competitors, as the company makes its own chips in-house.

This vertical alignment was once a core strength for the firm, but it has turned into more of a liability these days. Faltering nodes that can't quite match the prowess of Taiwan have arguably held back Intel's processors from reaching their full potential. In fact, starting in 2023, the company tasked TSMC with manufacturing the GPU tile on its Meteor Lake chips. This partnership extended to TSMC, essentially making the entire compute tile for Lunar Lake—and now, in 2025, roughly 30% of fabrication has been outsourced to TSMC. A long-overdue admission of total failure that could've been prevented had Intel been allowed to make CPUs with external manufacturing in mind from the start. Its own foundry was the limiting factor, and now the rot has already set in.

Lip Bu Tan and his cronies have been laying off 1000's across the world in a bid to cut costs. Costs that have skyrocketed due to the high R&D spending for future nodes, and with Intel facing a $16 Billion loss in Q3 2024, it can't survive on freeballing anymore. Intel's resurrection has to be a "marathon," said Tan, as he hopes to turn around the company culture and "be humble" in listening to shifting demands of the industry. Intel wants to be more like AMD and NVIDIA, who are faster, meaner, and more ruthless competitors these days, especially with the advent of AI. Of course, artificial intelligence has been around for a while, but it wasn't until OpenAI's ChatGPT that a 2nd big bang occurred, ushering in a new era of Machine Learning. An era almost entirely powered by Nvidia's datacenter GPUs, highlighting another sector where Intel failed to capitalize on its position.

"On training I think it is too late for us." - Lip-Bu Tan, Intel CEO

Intel, instead plans to shift its focus toward edge AI, aiming to bring AI processing directly to devices like PCs rather than relying on cloud-based compute. Tan also highlighted agentic AI—an emerging field where AI systems can act autonomously without constant human input—as a key growth area. He expressed optimism that recent high-level hires could help steer Intel back into relevance in AI, hinting that more talent acquisitions are on the way. “Stay tuned. “A few more people are coming on board,” said Tan. At this point, Nvidia is simply too far ahead to catch up to, so it's almost exciting to see Intel change gears and look to close the gap in a different way.

That being said, Intel now lags behind in datacenter CPUs, too where AMD's EPYC lineup has overtaken them in the past year, further dwindling the company's confidence. Also last year, Intel's board forced former CEO Pat Gelsinger out of the company and replaced him with Lip-Bu Tan, who seems to have a very different, more streamlined vision for the company. Instead of focusing on several different facets like CPU, GPU, foundry, and more, at once, Lip wants to home in on what the company can do well at one time.

This development follow's long-stemming rumors of Intel splitting in two and forming a new foundry division that would act as an independent subsidiary, turning the main Intel into a fabless chipmaker. Both AMD and Apple, Intel's rivals in the CPU market operate like this, and Nvidia has also always used TSMC or Samsung to build their graphics cards. It would be interesting to see the Blue Team shed off weight and move like a free animal in the biome. However, it's too early to speculate given that 18A, Intel's proposed savior, is still a year away, so until Nova Lake launches, we'll just be witnesses to a new Titanic.

Samsung Electronics on Tuesday projected a far worse than expected 56% plunge in Q2 2025 Operating Profit, claiming that this is  due to weak AI chip sales, deepening investor concerns over the tech giant's ability to revive its struggling semiconductor business.

Q2 2025 Operating Profit Samsung projected an operating profit of 4.6 trillion won for Q2 of 2025, reflecting a 56% drop compared to prior estimates.  Previous Quarter Performance In the Q2 of 2025, Samsung reported an operating profit of 6.7 trillion won. A very big drop.  A more detailed examination of the factors that contributed to Samsung's profit decline in 2025:

1. Chip Industry Challenges:

Oversupply: The semiconductor market faced a significant oversupply situation, particularly in the memory chip sector. This oversupply arose from previous overproduction during a period of high demand, leading to excess inventory. As a result, prices for memory chips plummeted, severely impacting profit margins for companies like Samsung that rely heavily on this segment for revenue.

Weak Demand: There was a notable decline in demand for memory chips, especially from key sectors such as data centers and consumer electronics. The slowdown in the global economy led to reduced investment in data infrastructure and hesitance among consumers to purchase new electronics, further exacerbating the situation.

2. Increased Competition

Rival Companies: Samsung faced intensified competition from other semiconductor manufacturers, notably SK Hynix and Micron. These competitors not only matched Samsung's production capabilities but also engaged in aggressive pricing strategies to capture market share. This competitive pressure forced Samsung to lower its prices, which negatively affected its profitability.

Emerging Players: The rise of new entrants in the semiconductor market also contributed to increased competition. These companies often offered innovative products at lower prices, compelling established players like Samsung to rethink their pricing and marketing strategies.

3. Economic Conditions
Global Economic Slowdown: The global economy experienced a slowdown, which negatively impacted consumer spending across various sectors. Economic uncertainties led consumers to prioritize essential purchases over electronics, causing a decline in sales for Samsung’s products.

Inflation and Interest Rates: Rising inflation rates and increased interest rates affected consumer purchasing power and business investments. Higher costs of living meant that consumers had less disposable income to spend on non-essential items, including smartphones, televisions, and other electronic devices.

4. Investment in AI

High R&D Costs: Samsung made substantial investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies as part of its long-term strategy to remain competitive in the rapidly evolving tech landscape. While these investments are crucial for future growth, they resulted in high research and development (R&D) costs that strained short-term profitability.

Transition Period: As Samsung transitioned to incorporating AI into its products and services, there was a lag in the realization of returns on these investments. This transitional phase often leads to increased expenses without immediate revenue benefits, contributing to the overall profit decline.

5. Supply Chain Disruptions

Logistical Issues: Ongoing supply chain disruptions, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, affected Samsung's production capabilities. Delays in sourcing raw materials and components led to inefficiencies in manufacturing processes.

Increased Costs: The disruptions not only delayed production but also resulted in increased operational costs. Samsung had to navigate higher shipping costs and longer lead times, which further squeezed profit margins.

Conclusion - The combination of these factors created a challenging environment for Samsung in 2025, leading to a significant decline in operating profit. The company’s reliance on the semiconductor market, coupled with external economic pressures and strategic investments in future technologies, highlighted the complexities of navigating a rapidly changing industry landscape. As Samsung looks to rebound, addressing these challenges while leveraging its strengths will be crucial for restoring profitability and sustaining growth

A U.S. judge on Tuesday rejected Huawei Technologies' bid to dismiss most of a federal indictment accusing the Chinese telecommunications company of trying to steal technology secrets from U.S. rivals, and misleading banks about its work in Iran. In the 16-count indictment that Huawei engaged in racketeering to expand its brand, stealing trade secrets from 6 companies, and committing bank fraud.  The Iran accusations stemmed from Huawei's alleged control of Skycom, a Hong Kong company that did business in Iran.
Donnelly said prosecutors satisfactorily alleged Skycom "operated as Huawei's Iranian subsidiary and ultimately stood to benefit, in a roundabout way," from +$100 million of money transfers through the U.S. financial system. The criminal case began during U.S. President Donald Trump's first term in 2018, the same year the Department of Justice launched its China Initiative to address Beijing's alleged theft of intellectual property.

Huawei hoped to wean China off NVIDIA's dominant GPUs via Ascend 910C GPUs, but Huawei continues to encounter substantial resistance to this, courtesy of NVIDIA's ecosystem lock-ins via the CUDA software and Huawei's own shortcomings. It's now reported that China's tech titans, including TikTok's parent ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, have yet to order Huawei's AI chips in large quantities.  Several factors create a sizable inertia around Huawei's 910C GPUs: 

(1) Many of China's tech titans are invested in NVIDIA's CUDA ecosystem, and any break from NVIDIA will entail a significant investment of time and resources, many expect Huawei to adapt to their platforms instead of the other way around.

(2) China's largest tech companies are competitors of Huawei and, feel reluctant to go all-in on their competitor's offering.

(3) Huawei's Ascend 910C ICs suffer from periodic overheating issues, that affects the perception of reliability.

(4) China's largest tech companies stashed away a sizable repository of NVIDIA's GPUs over the years, inventory has yet to run out

(5) US Department of Commerce issued sweeping guidance that any company that using Huawei's ICs without prior authorization could be deemed to be in violation of US export controls.