3 ms·
> but in 3.5 years couldn't do the actual goal ...which means he was allowed to release maybe 1 if even that of Intel's bread and butter, CPUs. They have a lea
by kllrnohj 2y ago
> but in 3.5 years couldn't do the actual goal
...which means he was allowed to release maybe 1 if even that of Intel's bread and butter, CPUs. They have a lead time of somewhere between 3-5 years. And that's not including fab development, which takes even longer.
So was he "burning billions" or was he investing billions into what made Intel a dominant force in the first place? We'll probably never know, but 3.5 years isn't anywhere close to long enough in this industry.
- godzillabrennus 2y agoInvestment of cash without profits to make those investments is still a burn… Pat still deserved longer. Intel is basically a storied brand that needs to be run like a startup because all of its legacy revenue products/models are dying.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kllrnohj 2y ago> Investment of cash without profits to make those investments is still a burn… there was, though? That's why net income averaged zero, and cash on hand is flat the last 4 years. He didn't run Intel at a loss.