Each Saturday, Farhad Manjoo and Mike Isaac, technology reporters at The New York Times, review the week’s news, offering analysis and maybe a joke or two about the most important developments in the tech industry.

Mike: Aloha, Farhad! I’m back from vacation in Hawaii, where I spent a week eating fish and getting tan. I would have stayed forever, but I think my presence was affecting their tourist economy. Also I need to find a way to keep this tan going, because I look great.

How was work? I have no idea what was going on in my absence.

Farhad: I had the best week of my life.

Mike: Hmm. I’ll try not to read too much into that. Let’s talk tech.

So Genius, formerly known as RapGenius, formerly known as “the company whose co-founder couldn’t stop getting in trouble,” seems to be in some sort of trouble. The Verge reported on Genius’s strategic shifts and layoffs this week, which includes apparently moving away from the company’s focus on annotation of texts on the internet and embracing some sort of video-centric plan. I honestly have no idea what that means, but it bums me out mostly because I was a big fan of Genius and its annotations, which were crowdsourced from the knowledgeable folks on the web.

Perhaps that’s my inner English nerd coming out. Have you ever read a modern Norton edition of “Moby Dick”? The footnotes are beautiful!

Farhad: Everyone had the same take on Twitter, but let me repeat it here: Genius could have been a nice simple website with a nice simple business. Its annotations of rap lyrics are often good (though sometimes they read like white teenagers explaining black people to the world: I was once looking up the lyrics of the Chance the Rapper song “Summer Friends” and found this gem: “In the black culture, grandmas play no games and don’t tolerate talking back.”)

Mike: Good lord. That’s embarrassing.

Farhad: Anyway, RapGenius was a fine idea but, fueled by venture capital dollars, it set its sights on something much grander: not just annotating rap lyrics but annotating the world — news documents, speeches, anything.

I never got this. The company never proved the case that people online wanted to read long primary texts and then annotations of the text. The whole interface seemed too finicky and required too much work of a reader. And unless David Foster Wallace himself was annotating the news, most annotations weren’t very good.

I hope the lyrics site survives, but I’m not surprised that the rest of it is blowing up.

Mike: Venture capitalists desperately chasing growth at all costs, eh? Color me shocked.

GoPro, meanwhile, continued its slow trudge toward complete irrelevance, as it laid off a significant number of people in an attempt to move toward profitability. Sad, but I guess the market for videos of “shredding that sick powder” isn’t as large as they previously believed.

Farhad: It’s just another one of those companies swallowed up by the smartphone. Now that the iPhone is waterproof I’m not sure why most of us would ever need to go pro.

Mike: You’re just trying to cover up your disappointment at not being the next Tony Hawk.

Oh, also, McDonald’s was in the news a few times this week. They’re working on a mobile ordering option, like Starbucks, which I think is brilliant. Now I don’t have to face the shame of ordering “two double quarter-pounders with extra cheese” from a cashier who is clearly disgusted with my life choices. Thank god for the internet.

They also decided to call Trump a “disgusting excuse for a president” who has “tiny hands,” but apparently that was a hacker going hog wild on the company’s Twitter account. And here I thought brands were starting to become more combative. Too bad.

Farhad: Sure, a “hacker” did it. Did I tell you about the time a hacker bought a brand-new big-screen TV and shipped it to my house? My wife didn’t really want a big new TV, but a hacker did it, so what can you do?

Mike: Here’s something big that I seem to have missed while I was gone. On Monday, Intel announced it had bought Mobileye, an Israeli company that builds sensors and cameras that go into self-driving vehicles. Intel paid $15.3 billion for the company. You can weigh the pros and cons of an acquisition like this — and many have already — but for me it brings up another larger theme around Intel and its strategy of the last, oh, 10 years or so.

Farhad: Wait, you want to launch into a deep exploration of the chip business? Vacation changed you, Mike.

Mike: I think I got too much sun. Now all I can think about is microprocessing.

Seriously though, do you remember years ago when Intel was king of the mountain? The company held court over the realm of the desktop personal computer. Intel made powerful chips that were the workhorses of PCs for decades, and for decades the trend was that people wanted bigger, better and faster desktops to power more and more programs that were growing more sophisticated. That includes stunning games with complicated graphics, the rise of Photoshop, and video editing software.

The problem came in the shift to mobile devices. BlackBerry, Palm and, of course, the rise of the iPhone, decimated Intel’s gargantuan lead in desktop computing as people found that they could do so much of what they did at home, sitting in front of a screen, from their phones. Now the smartphone is a global phenomenon, forever changing modern computing, and Intel’s power-hungry processors tailor-made for desktops don’t fit in with that new version of the world.

So for the past 10 years, Intel has tried to forge a path ahead. First it was attempts to build smartphone chips, which didn’t really work. Next was a huge bet on the Internet of Things, a future in which every device from our toasters to our TV sets will be connected to the internet and powered by processors. We’re far from that being a reality, and Intel’s bet there hasn’t really yielded dividends quite yet.

So now, apparently, the bet for Intel is self-driving cars — or rather, providing the components for them — an industry currently receiving untold billions of dollars of investment from automakers to technology giants, all betting on an autonomous future.

Do you think this is a smart move for Intel? I found it a bit schizophrenic, but also not necessarily ill advised.

Farhad: There are two obvious problems with this deal: It’s expensive and it’s late. Intel should be creating companies like Mobileye, not waiting until they’re mature and worth billions to buy them.

Otherwise, though, this does seem like a better bet than a lot of other stuff the company has been into lately. The auto market is huge, and every car is going to get more and more intelligence. Intel can combine its own manufacturing expertise with Mobileeye’s insights to become the main shop for carmakers looking to add smarts to their vehicles.

To me, the real question in this deal is what happens to the automakers. This deal is yet another sign that the future of the auto business will be determined as much by what happens in Silicon Valley as what happens in Detroit. Not only are tech companies creating more of the tech in cars, they’re also changing the business model of the industry (through things like sharing) and the infrastructure around it (by pushing for electrification of cars). None if this bodes well for traditional carmakers.

Anyway, nice to have you back, Mike.

Mike: Mahalo!