2 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoPat 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 agoI'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...
- Aromasin 2y agoGelsinger always said this was a 5-year plan, yet the board jettisons him at 4 just as IFS customers are starting to ramp up, the 18A node is close to readiness - the company's saving grace at this point - with Panther Lake on the horizon and Altera preparing for IPO in 2026 which should be a relatively good cash injection with PE investors already negotiating stakes. Maybe I just don't have the whole picture, but it seems poorly timed. I hate the idea that the board might do this just as Intel's prospects start looking up after years of cost-cutting measures to bring the company back to profitability and take credit for a "miraculous turnaround" that was actually instigated 4 years prior by the same person they sacked. It's like an incoming political party coming in and within a couple of months of office taking credit for a good economy that they had no hand in creating.