3 ms·

Ironically I think this is the nail in the coffin. Pushing the whole company towards 18A as soon as possible made a lot of sense. Arc made a lot of sense (as i

Ironically I think this is the nail in the coffin. Pushing the whole company towards 18A as soon as possible made a lot of sense. Arc made a lot of sense (as it becomes competitive when you get to 18A). We’re not there yet. Sacking the CEO, throwing him under the bus, and then publicly demanding salary back just reflects really badly on Intel. I don’t know the details of what’s happened behind the scenes and if there was any impropriety, that being said: Intel under Pat was in a bad place, but it wasn’t a public clown show.

coliveira 2y ago
Whatever Intel is now, is the direct outcome of poor leadership by Pat Gelsinger. That was his entire job, and he failed.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  Do you think Intel would have done better with him than without him? Because they were basically doing nothing for 5-10 years. How long do you think it would take to fix a company like that? I mean I'm not necessarily defending Gelsinger but throwing away the entire board and most of upper management would have been be the first step if they were about changing anything..
e3bc54b2 2y ago
Intel is strategically important corporation. Investors know that. They want to keep extracting profits, knowing that when (not if) things go dogshit (even more so than today), the public will bail them out. Since this CEO worked on other stupid things like long term technical viability, instead of pursuing the higher priority (investor returns), he was shown the way out. 2008 was an eye opening year for a lot of rich people.
ksec 2y ago
>Sacking the CEO, throwing him under the bus, and then publicly demanding salary back just reflects really badly on Intel. Now that shines a new light. Not sure where you have this idea but definitely some food for thought. Basically someone doesn't like Pat. I wouldn't be surprised if it was ex-Intel Board members.

coliveira 2y ago

Whatever Intel is now, is the direct outcome of poor leadership by Pat Gelsinger. That was his entire job, and he failed.

Wytwwww 2y ago
Do you think Intel would have done better with him than without him? Because they were basically doing nothing for 5-10 years. How long do you think it would take to fix a company like that? I mean I'm not necessarily defending Gelsinger but throwing away the entire board and most of upper management would have been be the first step if they were about changing anything..

e3bc54b2 2y ago

Intel is strategically important corporation. Investors know that. They want to keep extracting profits, knowing that when (not if) things go dogshit (even more so than today), the public will bail them out. Since this CEO worked on other stupid things like long term technical viability, instead of pursuing the higher priority (investor returns), he was shown the way out. 2008 was an eye opening year for a lot of rich people.

ksec 2y ago

>Sacking the CEO, throwing him under the bus, and then publicly demanding salary back just reflects really badly on Intel. Now that shines a new light. Not sure where you have this idea but definitely some food for thought. Basically someone doesn't like Pat. I wouldn't be surprised if it was ex-Intel Board members.