That's a political decision which can be changed at will.Chips Act subsidies only stick if Intel retains majority of ownership and of voting rights.
This is not an ad.I am not reading an ad for a full article.
Chips Act subsidies only stick if Intel retains majority of ownership and of voting rights.
I think Intel believed that their model of maintaining industry leadership by staying 1 to 2 nodes ahead in process tech from all others would continue.Did Intel they really think they'd be the only game in town forever? The answer is yes and they lost that bet.
I think Intel believed that their model of maintaining industry leadership by staying 1 to 2 nodes ahead in process tech from all others would continue.
Indeed. The introduction of EUV was a good showcase of this. TSMC managing to make it work and work well in a commercially available node appears to have taken both Intel and Samsung by surprise.IIRC, they thought if they got stuck, then everyone else would too.
Man have times changed. I remember when that guy was treated like Tom/MLID around here.This is not an ad.
Read it. Or don't but your loss.
The board wanted to break up the company, but Gelsinger refused. Interesting.The board has discussed a range of possibilities in recent months, such as private equity transactions and even a split of Intel’s factory and product-design businesses. But Gelsinger was opposed to breaking up the company, focusing instead on his plan to restore Intel’s technological edge and become a made-to-order manufacturer for outside clients.
The board has discussed a range of possibilities in recent months, such as private equity transactions and even a split of Intel’s factory and product-design businesses. But Gelsinger was opposed to breaking up the company, focusing instead on his plan to restore Intel’s technological edge and become a made-to-order manufacturer for outside clients.
The board wanted to break up the company, but Gelsinger refused. Interesting.
He has the technical acumen (at least Dr. Ian believes so) but he is absolutely naive when it comes to financials.He appeared to not have those attributes (I'm being kind).
He has the technical acumen (at least Dr. Ian believes so) but he is absolutely naive when it comes to financials.
But that's the problem. They don't listen to outsiders and that's why Jim Keller had to leave. Chicken and egg problem. Someone willing to fire on the spot is needed and that someone should have a good enough idea who to replace the fired person with.Someone with no illusions or memory of past glory, and willing to do hard stuff needed.
It's not just fire. Keller was there at the wrong time. Simple wisdom but still accurate. A message/lesson must not only be sent, but has to be received. Intel is in a far different/worse place than when Keller was there. I think they're finally ready to listen to hard truths.But that's the problem. They don't listen to outsiders and that's why Jim Keller had to leave. Chicken and egg problem. Someone willing to fire on the spot is needed and that someone should have a good enough idea who to replace the fired person with.
Story summary/timeline:
The board wanted to break up the company, but Gelsinger refused. Interesting.
That's somewhat easily solved. Create a mobo with four PCIe x8 slots, bundle four of their most powerful GPUs with it and couple that with their OneAPI for AI workload execution. A complete Intel-only solution, unless they can't do that because OneAPI is crap, in which case, it's on them.meh, they just kicked him out because AI.
... and everyone else will eventually. Others got stuck a little later is all. Intel has been stuck since the first 14++++++ debacle .IIRC, they thought if they got stuck, then everyone else would too.
Agree.The board has discussed a range of possibilities in recent months, such as private equity transactions and even a split of Intel’s factory and product-design businesses. But Gelsinger was opposed to breaking up the company, focusing instead on his plan to restore Intel’s technological edge and become a made-to-order manufacturer for outside clients.
Then the board was right.
There is no realistic way for Intel to restore leadership in everything soon, if at all in any. You need a CEO prepared for a long hard slog with a close eye on expenses. He appeared to not have those attributes (I'm being kind).
I don't get this attitude of either be THE best or be worthless. Leads to poor outcomes, most times, as in bet the farm and lose.
No, whomsoever that was opposed to any more private equity dealings was correct and from the information available it isn't clear who that was - the board or Gelsinger.Then the board was right.
Being an engineer myself, I totally sympathize with Pat.... but as you point out, his instincts were incorrect. I am sure that as good as 18A is reportedly going to be, the board is looking at the cost of getting there and the expected revenue that approach will yield and crying "Uncle!".It boils down to this. To save Intel as the fab+design entity it has historically been known from the beginning, Pat's plan and vision was the ONLY option to do that. Regain process leadership or parity, period. Without that, Intel as we know it can not exist. It was a noble effort to attempt it, but looking back now it was apparently not possible and thus boiled down to its simplest form, the wrong decision-- which is why he was ousted.
Calls to spin off the fabs started right around the time Pat was brought on. There were two paths, and being from the old guard he chose the path needed to keep Intel as one company, under design and fabrication, for all. It was not possible given the timeline Pat himself laid out, so here we are.
Retired Engineer is correct in his assessment. Taxpayers plus some sort of consortium are the only way to keep the fabs viable, spun off from the Intel design group. Effective immediately post Pats resignation, Intel is now what AMD became in 2008, a design only company.
He has the technical acumen (at least Dr. Ian believes so) but he is absolutely naive when it comes to financials.