4 ms·

The market seems to think this is great news. I disagree strongly here, but I can see why traders and potentially the board thought this was the right move. A

The market seems to think this is great news. I disagree strongly here, but I can see why traders and potentially the board thought this was the right move. A lot of hate for Pat Gelsinger on Reddit and YouTube from armchair experts who don't really grasp the situation Intel were in or what was needed to turn the ship around, so if he was pushed it seems like it might be to pacify the (not particularly informed) YouTube/gamer community and bump the share price. That's all speculation, though. I'd be interested to see who Intel intends to get to run the company in his place, as that would signal which audience they're trying to keep happy here (if any).

rsanek 2y ago
why would the board care about "pacifying the YouTube/gamer community"? seems like a very unlikely reason for a CEO to be fired.
- dragontamer 2y ago
  If anything, the streams are reversed. I'd expect Intel marketing and Public Relations to be paying YouTube Influencers to have a particular opinion, the one most favorable to the board.
etempleton 2y ago
Both of the Co-CEOs have a finance background. I think that is rather telling. They are trying to appeal to Wallstreet and potentially have people that are equipped to manage an M&A deal.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The guy that got them into this situation started as an engineer. Swan was a money guy, but he did better than Krzanich. So, I think it is just hard to guess based on somebody’s background how they’ll do. However, IMO: they need somebody like Lisa Su, somebody with more of an R&D-engineering background. Gelsinger was a step in the right direction, but he got a masters degree in the 80’s and did technically hardcore stuff in the late 80’s, early 90’s. That was when stuff just started to explode. Su finished her PhD in the 90’s, and did technically interesting stuff through the computer revolution. It appears to have made a world of difference.
Aromasin 2y ago
Agreed. My career at Intel coincided with Pat's, although I jumped ship a little earlier. Admittedly this means I probably have a little bias, but based on my hundreds of conversations with Intel vets I do think his business strategy was the right decision. He came on board a company years behind on process, packaging, and architecture technology after years of mismanagement by a largely nontechnical staff, which favoured buybacks and acquisitions over core business practice. He had two routes with the capital available following a cash injection from COVID-19 and the rapid digitization of the workplace - compete with AMD/NVIDIA, or compete with TSMC/Samsung. The only sensible option that would capture the kind of capital needed to turn the ship around would be to become a company critical to the national security of the US, during a time of geopolitical stability, onshoring chip manufacture and receiving support from the government in doing so. He could either compete with competitors at home or those abroad, but not both simultaneously. The thesis makes sense; you've lost the advantage to NVIDIA/AMD, so pivot to become a partner rather than a rival. I don't think it's a coincidence that just a week after Intel finally received the grant from the government, he announced his departure. The CHIPS act was a seminal moment in his career. It makes sense he'd want to see that through till completion. He's 63; now is as good a time as ever to hand over the reins, in this case to a very capable duo of MJ and Zisner (who were always two of the most impressive EVPs of the bunch in my book).
- paulpan 2y ago
  Pat was seemed to understand the criticality of fabrication process lead in today's day and age. Hence his push and decision to invest in IFS, plus to win over the government funding to sustain the effort. In short, a bad or subpar chip design/architecture can be masked by having the chip fabricated on a leading edge node but not the inverse. Hence everyone is vying for capacity on TSMC's newest nodes - especially Apple in trying to secure all capacity for themselves.
- 7speter 2y ago
  I'm not in the industry but from what I gather, i agree with you 100%. Bloomberg published an article on the matter though, but it seems they are reporting that Gelsinger was pushed out by a frustrated board because of "slow progress." This is a real head scratcher to me, even as someone looking in: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/intel-ceo-pat-gelsinger-retires-amid-chipmaker-s-turnaround-plan?srnd=homepage-europe&leadSource=reddit_wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/intel-ceo...
mrweasel 2y ago
The market isn't really the greatest indicator of anything. Gelsinger has spend three years trying to turn Intel around and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel. It will be at least another three years before we see any results. The market doesn't have a three year patience, three months maybe. I hold no opinion on Pat Gelsinger, but changing the CEO in the middle of ensuring that Intel remains relevant in the long term, seems like a bad move. Probably his plan for "fixing" Intel is to slow for the market and the board. Let's see who takes over, if it's not an engineer, then things just became more dangerous for Intel. The interim people are an administrator and a sales person, that does not bode well.
- moh_maya 2y ago
  IIRC, Lisa Su and her team took nearly decade to orchestrate the turn-around at AMD, and they are still a distant second player in GPUs. Expecting Pat Gelsinger to turn around Intel (or any company in an industry with such long development and tech lead times), and replacing him in 3 years - given that he is an engineer with extensive domain and leadership experience - seems - reactive, as opposed to thoughtful and directed. Wonder if they will approach Lisa Su to take the job now :D
- paxys 2y ago
  > and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel How is it starting to turn the wheel?
  - 7speter 2y ago
    It takes something like 5 or 6 years to go from the drawing board for a chip design, and many years to create a process node. Gelsinger hasn't really even had the chance to execute on designs that were started during his tenure. My understanding is that would've started with Intel 18A.
    - paxys 2y ago
      That doesn't really answer the question. Yes he has started initiatives that will take 5-6 years to pan out. Is there an early indication that they aren't all duds? How can anyone state with any certainty that Intel is on a better path today than it was 4 years ago when every single measurable metric is continuing to decline?
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Bad news can be good news depending on your time horizon.

rsanek 2y ago

why would the board care about "pacifying the YouTube/gamer community"? seems like a very unlikely reason for a CEO to be fired.

dragontamer 2y ago
If anything, the streams are reversed. I'd expect Intel marketing and Public Relations to be paying YouTube Influencers to have a particular opinion, the one most favorable to the board.

etempleton 2y ago

Both of the Co-CEOs have a finance background. I think that is rather telling. They are trying to appeal to Wallstreet and potentially have people that are equipped to manage an M&A deal.

bee_rider 2y ago
The guy that got them into this situation started as an engineer. Swan was a money guy, but he did better than Krzanich. So, I think it is just hard to guess based on somebody’s background how they’ll do. However, IMO: they need somebody like Lisa Su, somebody with more of an R&D-engineering background. Gelsinger was a step in the right direction, but he got a masters degree in the 80’s and did technically hardcore stuff in the late 80’s, early 90’s. That was when stuff just started to explode. Su finished her PhD in the 90’s, and did technically interesting stuff through the computer revolution. It appears to have made a world of difference.

Aromasin 2y ago

Agreed. My career at Intel coincided with Pat's, although I jumped ship a little earlier. Admittedly this means I probably have a little bias, but based on my hundreds of conversations with Intel vets I do think his business strategy was the right decision. He came on board a company years behind on process, packaging, and architecture technology after years of mismanagement by a largely nontechnical staff, which favoured buybacks and acquisitions over core business practice. He had two routes with the capital available following a cash injection from COVID-19 and the rapid digitization of the workplace - compete with AMD/NVIDIA, or compete with TSMC/Samsung. The only sensible option that would capture the kind of capital needed to turn the ship around would be to become a company critical to the national security of the US, during a time of geopolitical stability, onshoring chip manufacture and receiving support from the government in doing so. He could either compete with competitors at home or those abroad, but not both simultaneously. The thesis makes sense; you've lost the advantage to NVIDIA/AMD, so pivot to become a partner rather than a rival. I don't think it's a coincidence that just a week after Intel finally received the grant from the government, he announced his departure. The CHIPS act was a seminal moment in his career. It makes sense he'd want to see that through till completion. He's 63; now is as good a time as ever to hand over the reins, in this case to a very capable duo of MJ and Zisner (who were always two of the most impressive EVPs of the bunch in my book).

paulpan 2y ago
Pat was seemed to understand the criticality of fabrication process lead in today's day and age. Hence his push and decision to invest in IFS, plus to win over the government funding to sustain the effort. In short, a bad or subpar chip design/architecture can be masked by having the chip fabricated on a leading edge node but not the inverse. Hence everyone is vying for capacity on TSMC's newest nodes - especially Apple in trying to secure all capacity for themselves.
7speter 2y ago
I'm not in the industry but from what I gather, i agree with you 100%. Bloomberg published an article on the matter though, but it seems they are reporting that Gelsinger was pushed out by a frustrated board because of "slow progress." This is a real head scratcher to me, even as someone looking in: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/intel-ceo-pat-gelsinger-retires-amid-chipmaker-s-turnaround-plan?srnd=homepage-europe&leadSource=reddit_wall https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-02/intel-ceo...

mrweasel 2y ago

The market isn't really the greatest indicator of anything. Gelsinger has spend three years trying to turn Intel around and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel. It will be at least another three years before we see any results. The market doesn't have a three year patience, three months maybe. I hold no opinion on Pat Gelsinger, but changing the CEO in the middle of ensuring that Intel remains relevant in the long term, seems like a bad move. Probably his plan for "fixing" Intel is to slow for the market and the board. Let's see who takes over, if it's not an engineer, then things just became more dangerous for Intel. The interim people are an administrator and a sales person, that does not bode well.

moh_maya 2y ago
IIRC, Lisa Su and her team took nearly decade to orchestrate the turn-around at AMD, and they are still a distant second player in GPUs. Expecting Pat Gelsinger to turn around Intel (or any company in an industry with such long development and tech lead times), and replacing him in 3 years - given that he is an engineer with extensive domain and leadership experience - seems - reactive, as opposed to thoughtful and directed. Wonder if they will approach Lisa Su to take the job now :D
paxys 2y ago
> and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel How is it starting to turn the wheel?
- 7speter 2y ago
  It takes something like 5 or 6 years to go from the drawing board for a chip design, and many years to create a process node. Gelsinger hasn't really even had the chance to execute on designs that were started during his tenure. My understanding is that would've started with Intel 18A.
  - paxys 2y ago
    That doesn't really answer the question. Yes he has started initiatives that will take 5-6 years to pan out. Is there an early indication that they aren't all duds? How can anyone state with any certainty that Intel is on a better path today than it was 4 years ago when every single measurable metric is continuing to decline?

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

Bad news can be good news depending on your time horizon.