4 ms·

Is Intel really so blind that they didn't see this coming or even have detailed inside info about it? I would wager that they knew, but execs chose to protect

by blunte 6y ago

Is Intel really so blind that they didn't see this coming or even have detailed inside info about it? I would wager that they knew, but execs chose to protect their personal short term interests overt those of the company and its long term shareholders. This is typical modern US publicly traded company behavior.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
detaro 6y ago
What would have been the choice they should have made that was not protecting their short term interests and better for the company?
- tolien 6y ago
  There's been comments here and elsewhere for a while saying that Intel's remuneration policy (i.e. salaries and benefits) have been uncompetitive and between that and the culture some of the best people have left (a number of them to Apple) so the answer's pretty obvious. Throw money at it - find the best and brightest people and stuff their mouths with gold to have them solve whatever problems Intel's still having with 10nm and beyond as quickly as possible and with honest timelines to when that'll happen (not "oh it'll totally work this quarter"). Intel blowing the lead they had on semiconductor process technology is an existential threat, especially if it's blocking them getting out improvements in IPC (i.e. see what AMD are doing) also, so it's impossible to overstate how important this should be to Intel's senior leadership (by which I mean if it's not solved real soon, the shareholders ought to be removing them from post).
heimatau 6y ago
> I would wager that they knew Same. It's pretty clear that they knew and those that were blindsided, earned to get a pink slip.
- blunte 6y ago
  But unfortunately that's not how publicly traded companies operate. The highest paid execs just hang around for a few years, and almost regardless of how the company performs, they exit with a nice package and move into another company with a similar or better agreement.
  - heimatau 6y ago
    Maybe you should read Andrew Grove's book. Intel used to be this way and I suspect they just intentionally made the easy choice, not the socially/business good choice.

by blunte 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

detaro 6y ago

What would have been the choice they should have made that was not protecting their short term interests and better for the company?

tolien 6y ago
There's been comments here and elsewhere for a while saying that Intel's remuneration policy (i.e. salaries and benefits) have been uncompetitive and between that and the culture some of the best people have left (a number of them to Apple) so the answer's pretty obvious. Throw money at it - find the best and brightest people and stuff their mouths with gold to have them solve whatever problems Intel's still having with 10nm and beyond as quickly as possible and with honest timelines to when that'll happen (not "oh it'll totally work this quarter"). Intel blowing the lead they had on semiconductor process technology is an existential threat, especially if it's blocking them getting out improvements in IPC (i.e. see what AMD are doing) also, so it's impossible to overstate how important this should be to Intel's senior leadership (by which I mean if it's not solved real soon, the shareholders ought to be removing them from post).

heimatau 6y ago

> I would wager that they knew Same. It's pretty clear that they knew and those that were blindsided, earned to get a pink slip.

blunte 6y ago
But unfortunately that's not how publicly traded companies operate. The highest paid execs just hang around for a few years, and almost regardless of how the company performs, they exit with a nice package and move into another company with a similar or better agreement.
- heimatau 6y ago
  Maybe you should read Andrew Grove's book. Intel used to be this way and I suspect they just intentionally made the easy choice, not the socially/business good choice.