4 ms·

> If true … I don’t know about his investments, but one fact is clear: he was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which has just pleaded guilty to federal charges f

by tlogan 1y ago

> If true … I don’t know about his investments, but one fact is clear: he was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which has just pleaded guilty to federal charges for exporting technology to China. That alone should make him ineligible to lead a company with major government contracts. If he resigns (and he will), the board should go with him.

dangus 1y ago
If I was an Intel shareholder I would be livid. Can you imagine the look you'd get if it was 1998 and you told me that AMD would have over twice the market capitalization of Intel in the next few decades? In 1998 Intel was 50x larger by market cap than AMD. It is a company that has been catastrophically mismanaged.
- hedgehog 1y ago
  Livid about the problem or livid that they're talking about axing the first CEO in decades that might have a shot at fixing the problems?
  - jordanb 1y ago
    Fixing how? His first major act is to fire 20% of employees, refocus on old technology (smt) and deprioritize next gen (14a) process development. This is tantamount to surrendering as a leading foundry.
    - hedgehog 1y ago
      Fixing the willful ignorance that the market structure today is very different from 20 years ago. Process leadership and volume leadership are tightly coupled, and no integrated chip company will again have volume leadership. Intel's historical margin power built on a combination of monopoly on performance (in some markets) and superior economies of scale, that's not coming back. The question is not whether they can get fabs up and going with process nodes competitive with TSMC, the question is whether doing it actually leads to any kind of success given the costs involved. The key question is what the basis is for competition going forward, and what Intel's strengths are in that context. To paraphrase, Intel has to go of the notion that for Intel to win AMD and TSMC have to lose. The strategy that follows from that might involve some painful choices.
      - brahhd 1y ago
        He came in and trashed everyone's effort then fired them It played out so smoothly over 3 months it seemed scripted from the start That's not going to inspire people to step up. Everything is legal for sure, lawyers were paid to agree. But it feels 100% like an orchestrated short of Intel. A GameStop situation. I am fucking tired of 60+ year olds setting everyone else up for failure. They've been in charge as the problems came about. They're the problem then. Boomers and GenX need to get out of the way or get stomped by youth.
        thejazzman 1y ago
        [flagged]
        brahhd 1y ago
        [dead]
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > Fixing the willful ignorance that the market structure today is very different from 20 years ago Indeed. And his first action was to diss their own AI efforts. Because AI is just some niche area that they can ignore. Just as Battlemage GPUs were getting decent reviews and sold above the MSRP.
        to11mtm 1y ago
        The craziest thing is... Intel could totally try to capture the LLM market 'bottom up' if they wanted to. As an underdog in the GPU market, all they need to do is start by making cheap boards with lots of VRAM. I'm talking 32GB boards under 1k. They don't have to be fast. They just have to take these bigger models into VRAM and be fast enough that it's better than dealing with normal CPU+RAM. That gets them into the market, and then they can follow up with more expensive and 'enterprisey' silicon that is faster for the data centers. Alas, that's probably too alien a thought for Intel, as they prefer that thick margin...
    - dismalaf 1y ago
      You got this wrong. He's de-prioritizing 18a in order to leapfrog to 14a.
      - jordanb 1y ago
        Going forward, our investment in Intel 14A will be based on confirmed customer commitments. There are no more blank checks. Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution. https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/lip-bu-tan-steps-in-the-right-direction https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/lip-bu-tan-steps-in-the...
        melling 1y ago
        Yes, build fabs based on demand. Don’t spend $100 billion on capacity that’s not needed.
    - melling 1y ago
      He said he’s only building out 14a capacity as needed. A fab is $20 billion a pop. TSMC has 500 customers to pay for each fab. Intel has Intel. Every new generation is increasingly expensive. Intel needs to find other customers Why don’t you already understand this??? You are misleading everyone.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- Mars008 1y ago
  I wonder if Six Sigmas has something to do with it...
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    they became a bit too 'lean'
- happycube 1y ago
  AMD was in critical trouble just ten years ago - if Zen 1 had failed AMD would have faced bankruptcy. Probably a good reason why they're so behind on the software side. So AMD going from that to 2-3x intel's market cap is just... not quite as impressive as Apple's turnaround, but certainly in that direction.
everfrustrated 1y ago
If Tan resigns I suspect only way Pat would come back is with an entirely new board, so either way it's likely the board is done.
- 7speter 1y ago
  How effective would Gelsinger be at returning after the then previous CEO took the company in a totally different path and practically trashed Gelsinger’s original plan?
  - addaon 1y ago
    > How effective would Gelsinger be Effective at what? Intel’s done, it’s on the Boeing trajectory, it’s just about grabbing what you can as the ship goes down.
    - prinny_ 1y ago
      I highly doubt the US government will let Intel sink. I think one way or another they will bail them, either by emergency funds or through government contracts, and keep the lights on until they turn things around. For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
      - addaon 1y ago
        > For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out. Right — so that extends the time window for pillaging, and means that you can raid future taxpayer money, not just current assets. But there’s still no “turn around,” it’s just different flavors of getting paid massively to go down with the ship.
snapetom 1y ago
The Board is a disgrace. For all his fault, Gelsinger had Intel at least on a path back, yes, it's going to take a lot of money because the past two decades have been missed opportunities. And not only did the Board not do their proper due diligence on Tan, but just let him toss Gelsinger's plan out? Shareholders should sue every one of them.
rootjknak 1y ago
Intel board members: Frank Yeary, managing member Darwin capital advisors James Goetz, partner Sequoia Capital Andrea Goldsmith, dean of engineering Princeton University Alyssa Henry, former square CEO Eric Meurice, former CEO ASML Barbara Novick, cofounder BlackRock Steve Sanghi, CEO microchip Gregory Smith, former CFO Boeing company Stacy Smith, chair of Autodesk Dion Weisler, former CEO HP There are a lot of people that should not be on the board of a semiconductor company.
- versteegen 1y ago
  "Should not be" is too harsh, you should have diversity on a board, not only people from that single industry, but maybe you mean "too many". Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies. The type of people who should know how to hire a CEO.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies Investors have experience "managing" money to themselves. What is controversial about this? It's like saying pilots have experience flying planes. These investors have a lot experience financializing everything about a company. We know where that leads, and it's not to success ... well, except for the investors with inside information that get out at the right time.
  - to11mtm 1y ago
    I'll bite. Autodesk turned into a rent seeking company over a decade ago. Anyone Ex Boeing is sus, but maybe I'm wrong. Ex HP CEO is also sus because HP has been slowly circling the drain for the last 20 years.
    - adastra22 1y ago
      Depends a lot on whether the ex-Boeing was pre McDonnell Douglas.
- mgdev 1y ago
like_any_other 1y ago
Lets not be hasty in condemning him - some "cross pollination" is probably standard in this business. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese high-tech companies, with CEOs named something like Jack Smith, or Andrew Callahan, that were caught exporting technology to the USA.

by tlogan 1y ago

dangus 1y ago

If I was an Intel shareholder I would be livid. Can you imagine the look you'd get if it was 1998 and you told me that AMD would have over twice the market capitalization of Intel in the next few decades? In 1998 Intel was 50x larger by market cap than AMD. It is a company that has been catastrophically mismanaged.

hedgehog 1y ago
Livid about the problem or livid that they're talking about axing the first CEO in decades that might have a shot at fixing the problems?
- jordanb 1y ago
  Fixing how? His first major act is to fire 20% of employees, refocus on old technology (smt) and deprioritize next gen (14a) process development. This is tantamount to surrendering as a leading foundry.
  - hedgehog 1y ago
    Fixing the willful ignorance that the market structure today is very different from 20 years ago. Process leadership and volume leadership are tightly coupled, and no integrated chip company will again have volume leadership. Intel's historical margin power built on a combination of monopoly on performance (in some markets) and superior economies of scale, that's not coming back. The question is not whether they can get fabs up and going with process nodes competitive with TSMC, the question is whether doing it actually leads to any kind of success given the costs involved. The key question is what the basis is for competition going forward, and what Intel's strengths are in that context. To paraphrase, Intel has to go of the notion that for Intel to win AMD and TSMC have to lose. The strategy that follows from that might involve some painful choices.
    - brahhd 1y ago
      He came in and trashed everyone's effort then fired them It played out so smoothly over 3 months it seemed scripted from the start That's not going to inspire people to step up. Everything is legal for sure, lawyers were paid to agree. But it feels 100% like an orchestrated short of Intel. A GameStop situation. I am fucking tired of 60+ year olds setting everyone else up for failure. They've been in charge as the problems came about. They're the problem then. Boomers and GenX need to get out of the way or get stomped by youth.
      - thejazzman 1y ago
        [flagged]
        brahhd 1y ago
        [dead]
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > Fixing the willful ignorance that the market structure today is very different from 20 years ago Indeed. And his first action was to diss their own AI efforts. Because AI is just some niche area that they can ignore. Just as Battlemage GPUs were getting decent reviews and sold above the MSRP.
      - to11mtm 1y ago
        The craziest thing is... Intel could totally try to capture the LLM market 'bottom up' if they wanted to. As an underdog in the GPU market, all they need to do is start by making cheap boards with lots of VRAM. I'm talking 32GB boards under 1k. They don't have to be fast. They just have to take these bigger models into VRAM and be fast enough that it's better than dealing with normal CPU+RAM. That gets them into the market, and then they can follow up with more expensive and 'enterprisey' silicon that is faster for the data centers. Alas, that's probably too alien a thought for Intel, as they prefer that thick margin...
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    You got this wrong. He's de-prioritizing 18a in order to leapfrog to 14a.
    - jordanb 1y ago
      Going forward, our investment in Intel 14A will be based on confirmed customer commitments. There are no more blank checks. Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution. https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/lip-bu-tan-steps-in-the-right-direction https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/lip-bu-tan-steps-in-the...
      - melling 1y ago
        Yes, build fabs based on demand. Don’t spend $100 billion on capacity that’s not needed.
  - melling 1y ago
    He said he’s only building out 14a capacity as needed. A fab is $20 billion a pop. TSMC has 500 customers to pay for each fab. Intel has Intel. Every new generation is increasingly expensive. Intel needs to find other customers Why don’t you already understand this??? You are misleading everyone.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Mars008 1y ago
I wonder if Six Sigmas has something to do with it...
- ekianjo 1y ago
  they became a bit too 'lean'
happycube 1y ago
AMD was in critical trouble just ten years ago - if Zen 1 had failed AMD would have faced bankruptcy. Probably a good reason why they're so behind on the software side. So AMD going from that to 2-3x intel's market cap is just... not quite as impressive as Apple's turnaround, but certainly in that direction.

everfrustrated 1y ago

If Tan resigns I suspect only way Pat would come back is with an entirely new board, so either way it's likely the board is done.

7speter 1y ago
How effective would Gelsinger be at returning after the then previous CEO took the company in a totally different path and practically trashed Gelsinger’s original plan?
- addaon 1y ago
  > How effective would Gelsinger be Effective at what? Intel’s done, it’s on the Boeing trajectory, it’s just about grabbing what you can as the ship goes down.
  - prinny_ 1y ago
    I highly doubt the US government will let Intel sink. I think one way or another they will bail them, either by emergency funds or through government contracts, and keep the lights on until they turn things around. For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out.
    - addaon 1y ago
      > For the same reasons they didn’t let Boeing die out. Right — so that extends the time window for pillaging, and means that you can raid future taxpayer money, not just current assets. But there’s still no “turn around,” it’s just different flavors of getting paid massively to go down with the ship.

snapetom 1y ago

The Board is a disgrace. For all his fault, Gelsinger had Intel at least on a path back, yes, it's going to take a lot of money because the past two decades have been missed opportunities. And not only did the Board not do their proper due diligence on Tan, but just let him toss Gelsinger's plan out? Shareholders should sue every one of them.

rootjknak 1y ago

Intel board members: Frank Yeary, managing member Darwin capital advisors James Goetz, partner Sequoia Capital Andrea Goldsmith, dean of engineering Princeton University Alyssa Henry, former square CEO Eric Meurice, former CEO ASML Barbara Novick, cofounder BlackRock Steve Sanghi, CEO microchip Gregory Smith, former CFO Boeing company Stacy Smith, chair of Autodesk Dion Weisler, former CEO HP There are a lot of people that should not be on the board of a semiconductor company.

versteegen 1y ago
"Should not be" is too harsh, you should have diversity on a board, not only people from that single industry, but maybe you mean "too many". Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies. The type of people who should know how to hire a CEO.
- spwa4 1y ago
  > Presumably the investor-appointees have broad experience with many other companies Investors have experience "managing" money to themselves. What is controversial about this? It's like saying pilots have experience flying planes. These investors have a lot experience financializing everything about a company. We know where that leads, and it's not to success ... well, except for the investors with inside information that get out at the right time.
- to11mtm 1y ago
  I'll bite. Autodesk turned into a rent seeking company over a decade ago. Anyone Ex Boeing is sus, but maybe I'm wrong. Ex HP CEO is also sus because HP has been slowly circling the drain for the last 20 years.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    Depends a lot on whether the ex-Boeing was pre McDonnell Douglas.
mgdev 1y ago

like_any_other 1y ago

Lets not be hasty in condemning him - some "cross pollination" is probably standard in this business. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese high-tech companies, with CEOs named something like Jack Smith, or Andrew Callahan, that were caught exporting technology to the USA.