5 ms·

The interesting one I think about is if the current CEO is basically their version of Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. Not highly loved by tech, media or finance, b

The interesting one I think about is if the current CEO is basically their version of Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. Not highly loved by tech, media or finance, but basically held the ship together long enough to enable Microsoft to figure out how to transition away from the sinking ship that was Microsoft Windows and into new markets. Basically he just needs to keep it afloat long enough for Intel to be able to find its version of Satya Nadella and Azure to unlock the next leg of growth.

jbay808 6y ago
Maybe? Intel is in a high-technology field, where research can take a decade to bear fruit. I hope they're already planting the seeds for that growth today, or else that they have plans that will keep them afloat for a very long time.
- Filligree 6y ago
  Do you think they'd be able to hang on for a decade without catching up?
  - riffraff 6y ago
    Why wouldn't they? They probably have contracts that last over that whole time frame already, and their revenue is an order of magnitude higher than AMD. They could lose a lot of market share and then come up with something better in the end, like in the Athlon days. Not obvious that it will happen, but not impossible.
m_mueller 6y ago
The examples you cite are people with operational excellence that were built up internally over many years. As an outsider I have no trust that Intel still has such talent, it seems they are fully run by bean counters now. Who says it's a Microsoft and not a Kodak? Microsoft had the immeasurable advantage of two big markets cornered for themselves: enterprise software and home computers software. Intel meanwhile is a market leader that is getting outplayed on every market, the only thing in their favor is missing volume by their competitors - that's not an advantage that is going to last long.
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Yep - no doubt - I'm not placing any actual bets. Mostly the thought is that similar to the Windows franchise, the existing Intel x86 server franchise [1], while for sure not growing, seems boringly steady enough for a good 3-5 year runway to have a decent shot at developing or finding tech oriented leadership talent. It will be interesting to watch. As an outsider to MS, its unclear that any one particularly saw Nadella as the obvious successor to Ballmer until they announced it. He somewhat came out of wood work IIRC. Same with Lisa Su. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/income-statement?freq=Q https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/income-...
- mark-r 6y ago
  Kodak gets unfairly picked on. They built their business by taking a cut from every single picture taken. There was nothing in the digital camera model that could replicate that revenue stream.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Except that the digital camera was literally invented at Kodak! What if they had pivoted to building cameras themselves?
    - mark-r 6y ago
      They did manufacture cameras themselves, but it wasn't enough. Remember that Kodak was making money in film manufacturing, film processing, and printing. They were literally making money from every click of the shutter. Even if they built the best cameras in the world, it wouldn't have saved them. And the ability of any electronics company to make cameras from standardized components made it impossible for them to keep a lead in cameras too.
      - flower-giraffe 6y ago
        > They were literally making money from every click of the shutter. and that’s the pivot the software players made in tech, they monetised every click of the mouse (and every tap) while intel is stuck with the burden of the platform costs
tw04 6y ago
Really? Because Ballmer was there from basically the start (employee #30). He held positions of leadership all over the company and quite frankly knew it inside and out. Agree or disagree with how he ran the ship he knew the ship and it was his life. The current Intel CEO has been there for 4 years as a CFO prior to taking over as CEO. We know he can spell Intel... we know he isn't even a little bit technical (his degrees are business administration and MBA and just about all of his previous positions of note are as CFO). So basically he's going to run the company like a beancounter... which always works out well at companies that need heavy R&D to stay competitive.

jbay808 6y ago

Maybe? Intel is in a high-technology field, where research can take a decade to bear fruit. I hope they're already planting the seeds for that growth today, or else that they have plans that will keep them afloat for a very long time.

Filligree 6y ago
Do you think they'd be able to hang on for a decade without catching up?
- riffraff 6y ago
  Why wouldn't they? They probably have contracts that last over that whole time frame already, and their revenue is an order of magnitude higher than AMD. They could lose a lot of market share and then come up with something better in the end, like in the Athlon days. Not obvious that it will happen, but not impossible.

m_mueller 6y ago

The examples you cite are people with operational excellence that were built up internally over many years. As an outsider I have no trust that Intel still has such talent, it seems they are fully run by bean counters now. Who says it's a Microsoft and not a Kodak? Microsoft had the immeasurable advantage of two big markets cornered for themselves: enterprise software and home computers software. Intel meanwhile is a market leader that is getting outplayed on every market, the only thing in their favor is missing volume by their competitors - that's not an advantage that is going to last long.

somethoughts 6y ago
Yep - no doubt - I'm not placing any actual bets. Mostly the thought is that similar to the Windows franchise, the existing Intel x86 server franchise [1], while for sure not growing, seems boringly steady enough for a good 3-5 year runway to have a decent shot at developing or finding tech oriented leadership talent. It will be interesting to watch. As an outsider to MS, its unclear that any one particularly saw Nadella as the obvious successor to Ballmer until they announced it. He somewhat came out of wood work IIRC. Same with Lisa Su. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/income-statement?freq=Q https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/income-...
mark-r 6y ago
Kodak gets unfairly picked on. They built their business by taking a cut from every single picture taken. There was nothing in the digital camera model that could replicate that revenue stream.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Except that the digital camera was literally invented at Kodak! What if they had pivoted to building cameras themselves?
  - mark-r 6y ago
    They did manufacture cameras themselves, but it wasn't enough. Remember that Kodak was making money in film manufacturing, film processing, and printing. They were literally making money from every click of the shutter. Even if they built the best cameras in the world, it wouldn't have saved them. And the ability of any electronics company to make cameras from standardized components made it impossible for them to keep a lead in cameras too.
    - flower-giraffe 6y ago
      > They were literally making money from every click of the shutter. and that’s the pivot the software players made in tech, they monetised every click of the mouse (and every tap) while intel is stuck with the burden of the platform costs

tw04 6y ago

Really? Because Ballmer was there from basically the start (employee #30). He held positions of leadership all over the company and quite frankly knew it inside and out. Agree or disagree with how he ran the ship he knew the ship and it was his life. The current Intel CEO has been there for 4 years as a CFO prior to taking over as CEO. We know he can spell Intel... we know he isn't even a little bit technical (his degrees are business administration and MBA and just about all of his previous positions of note are as CFO). So basically he's going to run the company like a beancounter... which always works out well at companies that need heavy R&D to stay competitive.