Intel Q4 net income $2.3 billion, up 875%

Intel Q4 net income $2.3 billion, up 875%

Summary: Q4 was a good quarter for Intel.

SHARE:
11

This hot off the Intel press release:

  • Revenue $10.6 Billion, up $2.3 Billion and 28% Year-over-Year
  • Record Gross Margin of 65%, up 12 Points Year-over-Year
  • Operating Income $2.5 Billion, up $958 Million and 62% Year-over-Year
  • Net Income $2.3 Billion, up $2.0 Billion and 875% Year-over-Year

"Intel's strong 2009 results reflect our investment in industry-leading manufacturing and product innovation," said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. "This strategy has enabled us to generate unprecedented operating efficiencies while growing our traditional businesses and creating exciting new market opportunities, even in difficult economic times. Our ability to weather this business cycle demonstrates that microprocessors are indispensable in our modern world. Looking forward, we plan to deliver the benefits of computing to an expanding set of products, markets and customers."

I think that counts are a very good quarter for Intel.

Topics: Intel, Hardware, Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

11 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Wow

    Those i5 and i7 chips and chipsets must be making
    a pretty penny for them...
    unredeemed
  • RE: Intel Q4 net income $2.3 billion, up 875%

    I wonder if Intel's lawyers and accountants will be able to write of the 1.5 billion the EU just took from them? How bout whatever the feds take from them? I wonder how much profit will be there after that?
    trust2112@...
    • People need to learn a few things...

      <i>I wonder if Intel's lawyers and accountants will be able to write of the 1.5 billion the EU just took from them? How bout whatever the feds take from them? I wonder how much profit will be there after that?</i>

      Get this straight:

      Any time a company is penalized, like the EU did with Intel, and any time that the feds (or any other form of government), taxes (or penalizes a company), it is not always the company that is being taxed or penalized. All of those penalties and taxes are eventually paid by the customers or purchasers of whatever that company produces. Those "costs" are usually passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices on the products that a company produces. Sometimes the higher costs are negligible, and sometimes they are noticeable and could hurt the consumer, and when the consumer doesn't go for the higher prices, the company might have to make cuts elsewhere (like in job cuts or salary cuts) or sometimes go out of business. Nothing that government does is without consequences.

      Now, with Intel having such a great quarter and year, the feds may be tempted to levy a windfall profits tax on them, but the taxes will eventually be paid by the consumers in the form of higher prices from Intel. People need to learn a few things about corporate taxes and government legislation and intrusion into the free markets.
      adornoe
      • Profit is because of unfair business practice, which hurts customers

        Either Intel paid you to write this message or you are just not too bright. The reason Intel is being penalized is for unfair business practice, which results in their amazing profit this past quarter. Profit that they otherwise would NOT have earned in the first place if they have been ethical and honest and fairly completing with AMD. This is why they should be penalized. And they can't and shouldn't pass the cost of their penalty to the customers since AMD is still around to complete, which I guess I should mention (since some people can't think on their own) would be bankrupt if Intel is allowed to continue their unfair business practice. And without AMD, do you think the processor price would go up or down? But you say the government should not intervene even if Intel is unethical? Are you really for or against paying artificial high price for Intel's product? I am tired of people claiming let company do whatever they want, just look what happen to the banks, and who is ultimately paying the price for letting free market runs wild? I am all for anyone or any company who has the ability to make as much money as they are capable of, as long as they are doing it ethically and fairly, and not through cheating, bribery, threatening, lying, or other unethical means to gain unfair advantage over their competition.
        SonofChef
        • go live in your communist country of choice...

          whats that you say... your choice of communist
          countries is dwindling? I wonder why....

          If your referring to the actions that got Intel
          fined by the EU, they were only anti-
          competitive by the largest stretch of the
          communist imagination.

          There were many retailers that didn't have the
          capitol to buy in bulk, but were selling in
          bulk. Intel, to help the retailers (OMG! They
          were helping small businesses?! WTF! This can
          not be true, big companies DO NOT help small
          businesses, we know this, therefor it CANNOT be
          true) by providing a kickback based on how many
          processors they sold equal to AS IF they had
          bought in bulk. They didn't say those companies
          couldn't sell AMD, they did nothing of the kind
          in spite of all the ranting that they did.

          So... the EU fines them some 3 billion dollars
          (er... that seem a little rediculous to you?
          really? 3 billion?) and so Intel stops their
          anticompetitive practices by providing chips at
          a discount no matter if they're bought in bulk
          or not. Hmmm... now how does that help AMD?

          Just because a company can out-perform another
          company does not mean they are being anti-
          competitive. It means they are being MORE
          competitive.... "I'm sorry Mr. Phelps, you are
          too competitive, you have won too many gold
          medals, this is immoral, we are going to fine
          you a few of those medals for being so
          competitive, try to be less competitive next
          time."... this is what I hear you saying... or
          this... "waaaahhh, a big business has money,
          thats not fair, you should give it to the
          little guy that can't do as well cause its not
          fair one company have more than another,
          waaaaah"

          You think Intel doesn't KNOW that it would be
          bad for them if AMD went under? Intel will KEEP
          amd a float if they have to. They don't want to
          be sitting in a monopoly seat.

          Why don't we ever hear this... "shouldn't some
          companies intervene with the government, its
          not being moral and I think Intel should
          intervene." Of course not, cause we all know
          government is god and big business is the
          DEVIL.

          YAAAAY!
          shadfurman
        • and why do you blame the free market for the bank collapse?

          You know how much government regulation there
          is with banking and loans in the US?
          You know how much of that regulation was passed
          in the last two decades?

          But again... we all know corporations are just
          big evil money grubbers while government are
          saints from heaven... government is only as
          good as we make it, and we seem to be doing a
          damn good job of turning a blind eye in the US.
          shadfurman
        • If you had used your head instead of your rear,

          you might not have made so many stupid statements in your post.

          <i>Profit is because of unfair business practice, which hurts customers</i>

          That?s all dependent upon who is defining ?unfair?. The government should not be in the business of deciding who or what is unfair. In the business world, just like in life, the fittest will be the survivors. The government has taken it upon themselves to define who is being monopolistic, but yet, it has also created monopolies in some areas of the economy. The most unfair thing that has happened to the economy is for government to intervene. Regulations are okay by me, but intrusions to the point that some businesses can be harmed is quite another.

          <i>Either Intel paid you to write this message or you are just not too bright.</i>

          That?s an utterly idiotic statement.

          Just because I don?t agree with government intervention into the free-markets does not make me a shill for a company. The idiocy is coming from you. The only idiots are those that cannot see that whenever government intervenes, companies get hurt and consequentially, the customers who have to pay for that government intervention.

          <i>The reason Intel is being penalized is for unfair business practice, which results in their amazing profit this past quarter.</i>

          That?s another amazingly idiotic statement.

          Now that AMD has sought and received government help in penalizing Intel, people are made to wonder whether AMD could be competitive on their own without that government intervention. I myself will never buy AMD again, even though I own a computer with their CPU, though already 4 years old. I have no doubt that AMD makes good products, but they?ve alienated me and a whole bunch of other potential buyers. Nothing is ever without consequences. Like I said in my previous post, though Intel was the company penalized, the real victims of the government?s intervention are the customers of Intel and AMD. Any company that seeks and gets government intervention might then suffer from the perception, rightly or wrongly, that they couldn?t compete in the free-market system on their own.

          <i> Profit that they otherwise would NOT have earned in the first place if they have been ethical and honest and fairly completing with AMD. This is why they should be penalized. </i>

          You?re full of so many idiotic assumptions.

          Intel was and still is the bigger company and with a lot more products to sell than AMD. By that fact alone, they will outsell and out-compete AMD. Good products often determine the growth of a market and the success of a company. But, more than anything else, it?s the people who determine the success of a company. It a company does not make a product that people want, and that product is not competitive in price, then that company won?t succeed.


          To me and to many others, it is highly unethical for a company to seek and get the help of government to try to equalize things. Instead of ending up ?winners? with that penalty against Intel, AMD may have ended up the losers in the skirmish.

          I have no doubt that having competition is good for the markets and for consumers. More products and larger varieties of products are the result of competition, and prices for products tend to get lowered. AMD should?ve found a way to outmaneuver Intel. Any good company will find its way in the market. Linux distributors and Apple are not seeking the help of government in order to try to equalize Microsoft. If they can?t make it on their own, then it was by the choices that consumers made. But, most times consumers go for what is seen as a good product with reasonable prices and from a self-sustaining company.

          <i>And they can't and shouldn't pass the cost of their penalty to the customers</i>

          No company would ever be in business if they couldn?t cover their costs by passing them on to consumers. It?s like that in any business, no matter what type.

          When government raises taxes on a company, the company will just collect the higher taxes from consumers, or will collect the taxes in the form of higher prices for their goods or services. Any person that doesn?t understand that is really an economic moron.


          <i>since AMD is still around to complete,</i>

          AMD has been around for a long time and if they had been offering what the people wanted, then they wouldn?t still be playing second fiddle to Intel.

          <i>which I guess I should mention (since some people can't think on their own) would be bankrupt if Intel is allowed to continue their unfair business practice.</i>

          You?re the one not doing any kind of thinking.

          AMD products are everywhere and in any major computer store that people want to visit. People know they exist, but most people skip by them when it comes to computer purchases. If people don?t buy AMD computers, it?s not for lack of visibility.

          <i> And without AMD, do you think the processor price would go up or down?</i>

          When it comes to value and price, I haven?t noticed that much difference between AMD versus Intel. It?s only lately that Intel has taken the lead with their Core 2 Duos and their i5s and i7s and their Atom processors. But, the biggest deciding point oftentimes comes down to, which company is the more reliable and which one might be around a lot longer.

          <i> But you say the government should not intervene even if Intel is unethical?</i>

          The people who intervened were the Europeans with their penchant for more control by government over the economies. Why wasn?t the case handled or litigated in the U.S.? Could it be that AMD felt that the EU offered a more friendly venue for the case to be heard?

          <I>Are you really for or against paying artificial high price for Intel's product?</i>

          Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

          From all indications, computers based on Intel?s CPUs and chipsets are a lot cheaper today than much less powerful computers of 5 years and 4 years and even 2 years ago. The fact is that, if the prices did not keep coming down, people could not be enticed to part with their old computers.

          The computer industry does not have pricing schemes like what you?ll se in the automobile industry. The better and more powerful computers get, the more value that people get for their money. And those same more powerful computers have been getting cheaper by the years.

          <i> I am tired of people claiming let company do whatever they want,</i>

          When a person is not bright enough to understand free-market economies and true competition, then of course, they?ll think like you do.

          <i>just look what happen to the banks, and who is ultimately paying the price for letting free market runs wild?</i>

          You must?ve studied your ?principles of economics? from Barney Franks and Obama and Nancy Pelosi. All of them are socialists and it seems the same kind of thinking is coming out of your head.

          The banking industry got into the messes they?re in because of government intervention into the free market system and very specifically into the banking and finance sectors of the economy. Without the government intervention, which started under the Carter administration, and which was made worse under the Clinton administration, it?s very likely that the banking industry would never have gotten into the messes they?re in now.

          <i> I am all for anyone or any company who has the ability to make as much money as they are capable of,</i>

          No you?re not!

          If you actually believed that, then you would not have been in favor of government intervention in the AMD case and you would not be looking for government to equalize or ?make things fair? through government intervention. As it is, you sound very much like a socialist.

          <i>as long as they are doing it ethically and fairly,</i>

          There are already regulations which prevent unfair and anti-competitive practices. Rewarding a company with billions is unfair and anti-competition. A government should not be in the business of equalizing through penalties. In the end, all parties involved in the litigation could end up being damaged by that government intervention.

          <i>and not through cheating, bribery, threatening, lying, or other unethical means to gain unfair advantage over their competition. </i>

          Yet, that?s what governments are best at doing.

          When government steps in to create ?fairness? or equality, they could be doing more harm to the economy than it they just let things work themselves out. That?s what the free market system is about and that?s what capitalism is about. People can make their own choices and what government ultimately did with AMD is to grant AMD a huge amount of revenue which they probably would never have earned on their own. Whenever government makes the decisions for the ?free? market system, they are directly and indirectly harming that free market system. That?s a huge reason that the American economy is in such dire straits right now.

          Keep government out of the economy. Let the rules and regulations stand, but let?s not allow government be the decider on who the winners and losers should be.
          adornoe
  • RE: Intel Q4 net income $2.3 billion, up 875%

    Just remember there are four quarters in a year...
    MichaelJRodriguez@...
    • Otellini (Prez and CEO) says: "Intel?s strong 2009 results"

      <i>Just remember there are four quarters in a year... </i>

      Yet, the last quarter is enough to make for a full good year. No matter how much one tries to diminish the results, by any standard, those are some pretty impressive numbers.
      adornoe
  • RE: Intel Q4 net income $2.3 billion, up 875%

    SO why is Intel down .68 or (3.1%)?
    matt@...
    • because they rose almost 50%+ in a year and people are cashin in on it (nt)

      .
      shadfurman