10 ms·

This sounds worryingly like “sales are down, cut costs to maintain profitability to spike our stock numbers” and not enough focus on what I believe is actually

This sounds worryingly like “sales are down, cut costs to maintain profitability to spike our stock numbers” and not enough focus on what I believe is actually wrong, which is that they can’t seem to reliably make competitive processors in a stiff market. Anyone else feel like this is bean counters at Intel playing the wrong game? I personally feel like leadership at Intel lost the plot almost a decade ago.

crowcroft 2y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, although even after reducing headcount by 15k they still have about as many employees as TSMC, NVIDIA and AMD combined.
- 0xB31B1B 2y ago
  they design and produce chips, TSMC produces but does not design, NVIDIA and AMD design but do not produce
  - phonon 2y ago
    That's the point. They have more employees than the #1 silicon fabricator, the number #1 GPU designer, and the #2 CPU and GPU designer, COMBINED.
  - bgnn 2y ago
    all these companies combined design and produce more chips than intel combined
- tz18 2y ago
  Number of employees is not the correct comparison, total labor cost is. Intel intentionally pays middling compensation so you would expect to need more people to do the same job.
Detrytus 2y ago
I believe the ambitious plan by Gelsinger to release "5 nodes in 4 years", as well as building couple of new factories necessarily resulted in a lot of redundancy and hiring people who were needed for the transition period, but not necessarily long term. Now that they are nearing the completion of Intel 20A and 18A R&D cycle it seems logical point to start cost-cutting.
- softfalcon 2y ago
  One can only hope. Goodness knows it would be better if Intel were more competitive in this market. Let's cross our fingers that you're right and we see a resurgence after the new fabs come online.
bluedino 2y ago
10 years from now, when the downfall of Intel is being taught at business schools, what are going to be the big takeways and now-obvious mistakes?
- bgnn 2y ago
  legacy. being over confident about their fab innovating faster than competition made their design side take the second seat and not innovate. There wasn't a real need for big design innovation although a lot of R&D spending happened on design. Plus they didn't diversify their product portfolio. They missed the whole mobile market because of this, likewise the GPU and accelerator market. When their fab hit a rock with 14nm and 10nm process tech advantage was more. This gave rhe edge to all other design companies and made it clear that how behind Intel was on design front.
- osnium123 2y ago
  Maybe they should have shut down the fabs and gone all on TSMC. Manufacturing in the US is a dead end due to costs and incompetence.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Don't run your own fab? It makes business sense but I don't know if I like that answer. What if everyone did that? Should everyone just use TSMC? That's stupid IMO.
  - softfalcon 2y ago
    This is what Boeing did for their manufacturing... look how it's playing out for them now.
  - frognumber 2y ago
    Don't screw up running your own fab is the better lesson. * Intel foundry services were perhaps a decade or two too late. Running a fab needs scale. That had to come before they lost the technology edge. * Intel treatment and mismanagement of engineers was well-known in 2000, and you need the best and brightest. * Leadership needs to understand core business / technology. Bob Swan. Arguably Brian Krzanich. Paul Otellini. Just a lot of clueless at the top. Etc. The point is Intel wasn't "everyone." Intel was at the very top of the game a quarter-century ago. That was their position to lose, which they did in a spectacular fashion. I continue to hope for a Microsoft-style comeback, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely.
layer8 2y ago
Leadership changed back to an engineer with the return of Pat Gelsinger in 2021. I’d give him a couple more years. It takes time to turn around a big ship like Intel.
- ladyanita22 2y ago
  Everyone around here keeps talking about how the problem of Intel is that it was a Business guy running the company and not an engineer, and it feels so similar to when people claimed Phil Spencer was going to save Xbox. Truth is, Pat is doing nothing despite the generous government subsidies
  - osnium123 2y ago
    The previous CEO was going to shut down the fabs. Maybe it would have been the right strategy but Pat Gelsinger had reoriented towards fab manufacturing for what it’s worth.
  - mey 2y ago
    Not everyone is cut from the same cloth. Look at AMD, their CEO history has been staffed exclusively by people with engineering backgrounds, but their performance has had more than a few rocky points.
  - epolanski 2y ago
    I think that in a business like hardware and foundries you can really judge the CEO in no less than 4/5 years.
  - LarsDu88 2y ago
    This is simply not true. They are building giant fabs in Arizona and Ohio from those subsidies. It takes YEARS to realize the benefits of these changes. The problem is, to stopgap TSMCs growing lead, Intel resorted to cranking up voltage on the last two generations of chips leading to what will be an imminent gigantic ass lawsuit.
    - yndoendo 2y ago
electriclove 2y ago
Bean counters were not the cause of this titanic fail. And at this point, they need to shed their excess weight and find a way to stay relevant.
NoPicklez 2y ago
We have very little understanding of the bloat that Intel might be carrying, or the projects they have underway that were not making progress or perhaps not the innovation expected. Financial reports are going to be exactly that, focused on the numbers and appearing to investors to be maximising their value. You want to carry a perception that you are focusing on the positives and the innovations being carries forward, as opposed to mulling over what "might be wrong". All companies go through ups and downs, but you do not want your financial report to have a theme of these are the things that are wrong.
- bgnn 2y ago
  well all of their fab operations can be called bloat because they aren't doing progress but this is still arguably the most valuable portion of the company. they should have spun-off their fab years ago as AMD did. fabs business model isn't shareholder value compatible.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >You want to carry a perception that you are focusing on the positives and the innovations being carries forward, as opposed to mulling over what "might be wrong". so, empty platitudes that turn into none or negative change. Gotta love the modern day business.
  - NoPicklez 2y ago
    Stipulating in your financial report where your R&D is focusing and what those outcomes are hopefully going to be are not empty platitudes that turn into none or negative change. I doubt that Nvidia putting in their financial reports last year they were focusing their R&D on AI hardware turned into none or negative change
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Lots of hope in your comment. Not much hope in my mind. It's just been too shitty a year for me to trust these reports. The worst parts are that the shareholders barely care if they lie. They want to be lied to. They aren't investing because of product confidence after all. Pessimism aside: they did this exact song and dance some 7 years ago. So I'm not entirely operating off bad vibes but on history and current trends. Like I said, they already basicslly lost the AI race. If they want to compete for scraps, power to them. I just hope employees jump ship before the next layoff wave.

crowcroft 2y ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, although even after reducing headcount by 15k they still have about as many employees as TSMC, NVIDIA and AMD combined.

0xB31B1B 2y ago
they design and produce chips, TSMC produces but does not design, NVIDIA and AMD design but do not produce
- phonon 2y ago
  That's the point. They have more employees than the #1 silicon fabricator, the number #1 GPU designer, and the #2 CPU and GPU designer, COMBINED.
- bgnn 2y ago
  all these companies combined design and produce more chips than intel combined
tz18 2y ago
Number of employees is not the correct comparison, total labor cost is. Intel intentionally pays middling compensation so you would expect to need more people to do the same job.

Detrytus 2y ago

I believe the ambitious plan by Gelsinger to release "5 nodes in 4 years", as well as building couple of new factories necessarily resulted in a lot of redundancy and hiring people who were needed for the transition period, but not necessarily long term. Now that they are nearing the completion of Intel 20A and 18A R&D cycle it seems logical point to start cost-cutting.

softfalcon 2y ago
One can only hope. Goodness knows it would be better if Intel were more competitive in this market. Let's cross our fingers that you're right and we see a resurgence after the new fabs come online.

bluedino 2y ago

10 years from now, when the downfall of Intel is being taught at business schools, what are going to be the big takeways and now-obvious mistakes?

bgnn 2y ago
legacy. being over confident about their fab innovating faster than competition made their design side take the second seat and not innovate. There wasn't a real need for big design innovation although a lot of R&D spending happened on design. Plus they didn't diversify their product portfolio. They missed the whole mobile market because of this, likewise the GPU and accelerator market. When their fab hit a rock with 14nm and 10nm process tech advantage was more. This gave rhe edge to all other design companies and made it clear that how behind Intel was on design front.
osnium123 2y ago
Maybe they should have shut down the fabs and gone all on TSMC. Manufacturing in the US is a dead end due to costs and incompetence.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Don't run your own fab? It makes business sense but I don't know if I like that answer. What if everyone did that? Should everyone just use TSMC? That's stupid IMO.
- softfalcon 2y ago
  This is what Boeing did for their manufacturing... look how it's playing out for them now.
- frognumber 2y ago
  Don't screw up running your own fab is the better lesson. * Intel foundry services were perhaps a decade or two too late. Running a fab needs scale. That had to come before they lost the technology edge. * Intel treatment and mismanagement of engineers was well-known in 2000, and you need the best and brightest. * Leadership needs to understand core business / technology. Bob Swan. Arguably Brian Krzanich. Paul Otellini. Just a lot of clueless at the top. Etc. The point is Intel wasn't "everyone." Intel was at the very top of the game a quarter-century ago. That was their position to lose, which they did in a spectacular fashion. I continue to hope for a Microsoft-style comeback, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely.

layer8 2y ago

Leadership changed back to an engineer with the return of Pat Gelsinger in 2021. I’d give him a couple more years. It takes time to turn around a big ship like Intel.

ladyanita22 2y ago
Everyone around here keeps talking about how the problem of Intel is that it was a Business guy running the company and not an engineer, and it feels so similar to when people claimed Phil Spencer was going to save Xbox. Truth is, Pat is doing nothing despite the generous government subsidies
- osnium123 2y ago
  The previous CEO was going to shut down the fabs. Maybe it would have been the right strategy but Pat Gelsinger had reoriented towards fab manufacturing for what it’s worth.
- mey 2y ago
  Not everyone is cut from the same cloth. Look at AMD, their CEO history has been staffed exclusively by people with engineering backgrounds, but their performance has had more than a few rocky points.
- epolanski 2y ago
  I think that in a business like hardware and foundries you can really judge the CEO in no less than 4/5 years.
- LarsDu88 2y ago
  This is simply not true. They are building giant fabs in Arizona and Ohio from those subsidies. It takes YEARS to realize the benefits of these changes. The problem is, to stopgap TSMCs growing lead, Intel resorted to cranking up voltage on the last two generations of chips leading to what will be an imminent gigantic ass lawsuit.
  - yndoendo 2y ago

electriclove 2y ago

Bean counters were not the cause of this titanic fail. And at this point, they need to shed their excess weight and find a way to stay relevant.

NoPicklez 2y ago

We have very little understanding of the bloat that Intel might be carrying, or the projects they have underway that were not making progress or perhaps not the innovation expected. Financial reports are going to be exactly that, focused on the numbers and appearing to investors to be maximising their value. You want to carry a perception that you are focusing on the positives and the innovations being carries forward, as opposed to mulling over what "might be wrong". All companies go through ups and downs, but you do not want your financial report to have a theme of these are the things that are wrong.

bgnn 2y ago
well all of their fab operations can be called bloat because they aren't doing progress but this is still arguably the most valuable portion of the company. they should have spun-off their fab years ago as AMD did. fabs business model isn't shareholder value compatible.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>You want to carry a perception that you are focusing on the positives and the innovations being carries forward, as opposed to mulling over what "might be wrong". so, empty platitudes that turn into none or negative change. Gotta love the modern day business.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  Stipulating in your financial report where your R&D is focusing and what those outcomes are hopefully going to be are not empty platitudes that turn into none or negative change. I doubt that Nvidia putting in their financial reports last year they were focusing their R&D on AI hardware turned into none or negative change
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Lots of hope in your comment. Not much hope in my mind. It's just been too shitty a year for me to trust these reports. The worst parts are that the shareholders barely care if they lie. They want to be lied to. They aren't investing because of product confidence after all. Pessimism aside: they did this exact song and dance some 7 years ago. So I'm not entirely operating off bad vibes but on history and current trends. Like I said, they already basicslly lost the AI race. If they want to compete for scraps, power to them. I just hope employees jump ship before the next layoff wave.