2025 going to be an interesting year. I can't imagine NV playing if they aren't playing to win.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Gelsinger out as Intel CEO
- Thread starter Gigantopithecus
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,792
Maybe intel will finally decide to licence out X86 so we can have more than a couple of companies making cpus.
x86 are the keys to the castle. Much more likely is a fab sell off which addresses the root of the problem.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,792
They cant sell the fabs now that they took the goverment money. Thats why pat is gone, he wanted to sell off the fabs.
I dont see why Intel cant back out and give the money back.. They are stopping construction in Germany and possibly other fabs that will free up the cash. Who knows - the way the govt works they may not even have the cash from them yet.
Gelsinger also played a key role leading work on Core CPUs, USB, and Wi-Fi... so I wouldn't say he had a dismal record before he left for EMC.
I don't count those as major wins. Core your right he was running the teams that... decided to ignore security research, and build a branch prediction unit that ignored security. Intel got lucky, very lucky that no one noticed they did that for a few years. I won't call the paying off of researchers for a few years past that to shut up as luck. The truth is if those design choices were made public instantly it would have been a face plant as hard and perhaps harder then 14th and ultra have been.
USB has been a stream of confusing standards. Pat is a smart guy, which is also why I can't believe he wasn't fully aware of many of the terrible technical choices. The idea that Pat has had the pulse of the future is the main issue. They made the guy their first CTO, as Andy seemed to think the guy had a good feel of where things were going. He burned Intels 80s war chest on things like itanium and larabee. Missed the boat on mobile. As CEO he seems to have canned all the projects with potential to actually put Intel back on top... and seems to make choices like any other non engineer marketing CEO.
I don't know if anyone could have done better with Intel being where it was when he took the CEO job. I just can't believe the board put him their to begin with. USB and WI-FI... don't a good forward looking tech leader make.
Axman
VP of Extreme Liberty
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 20,277
I think AMD has to agree to bringing in new license-holders. And the only company that I think could afford it would be Nvidia, so that's probably a no-go.
At this point its too late. Their stock is trading around 20 bucks give or take depending on the day. The bump they got yesterday from Pats exit, is disappearing today.
Pats plan would have resulted in no more Intel. The Fab would have been "Intel2" the rest of Intel would have ended up sliced and diced.
If Intel backs out of chips... the stock free falls until someone starts a buy Intel process.
A fab sell nets Intel Billions in free cash flow so not necessarily. It may be exactly what Intel needs to dig itself out of the hole it dug for itself. See AMD (along with Ryzen of course). Intel is actually not that bad at chip development and getting better lately.
Germany hit huge cost overruns and delays.
Turns out the land they chose is prime agricultural land, so under German law, they have to remove and replace all that prime growing soil. The cleanup to build there will cost almost as much as the plant. It's cheaper to cut their losses, pick a new site, and start all over than it is to build in that spot.
The Government needs Intel's fabs to remain strictly under US control in a way that they would be allowed to build custom chips for the Military, the only other fabs currently rated to do that are well upwards of 90nm as their most advanced process.
The only entities currently capable of purchasing the Intel fabs would not qualify for military procurement and as such the government does not want those fabs to change hands.
If Intel tries to sell them the government will block it under national security concerns unless it's sold to a very small list of approved purchasers, and those purchasers are in no position to be operating those fabs, and they know it.
Are they... Ultra chips don't actually work. They blue screen for unknown reasons.
Bottom line is they can't sell the fab. First no one wants a failing fab. I mean who is in that market? Who is also 100% American? Who has the funds? For the US to approve any sale of the Fab... the purchasing party would need to be 100% American with no major stakes held by any other country. They would have to have the billions in cash... stock swaps are not an option. Even if a CEO of an Apple or some other player large enough with the right ownership would have sell that to shareholders. Good luck with that. So that means cash sale... who has billions in cash laying around to buy a failing fab? The only answer people could possibly come up with would be companies with major foreign (mainly Chinese) investment. The US puts the kibosh on any such deal.
No Intel is stuck with their Fab. Selling it isn't an option. It looked like they could maybe split it off under Pat. The US gov has clearly said that isn't happening to Intel.
Not to mention the real issue for Intel and for Pats stupid plan. Once the Fab is its own thing its no longer a boat anchor. THEN all of a sudden there are a ton of companies looking to buy Intel out. I mean their stock minus the fabs doesn't go up enough to make them safe from a hostile take over. It wouldn't be hostile though. Under Pat the Fab would have spun off. Intel proper stock would have probably went up to around $30-40 a share, and some big player would have made an offer to Intel shareholders at $35ish or so and Intel would have been no more. Pat was leading Intel to their end.
Last edited:
Even broken the fabs are worth more than the rest of Intel is.
The fabs were what made Intel worth what it was and with them floundering the rest of Intel is pooched until they get that fixed.
Intels upper management forgot that for a good decade and change and it’s cooked them.
Last edited:
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,763
If you think ARM has anything to do with Intel's situation, then I have a bridge to sell you. Intel's situation has to do with AMD and Nvidia taking away market share. And no, not Nvidia's ARM chips but their GPU's. It's not like Intel is doing bad in sales when they have 70% of the laptop market and 50% of the server market. That's called healthy competition. Intel being a publicly traded company who has to always grow... didn't grow. Intel had to spend all their money and then some on their fabs, along with them quickly trying to catch up to AMD, Apple, and Nvidia. Gelsinger wasn't the problem, but the previous CEO who invested into nothing.
A bit more than that
Intel revenues 10 years ago in 2014 were of 56 billions in 2014 money, it was 54.2 billions last year in 2023 money,, that only 72.5% of the 2014 revenues in constant dollar. And the 2024 forecast are again a decline.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/pre-tax-income
| 2023 | $762 |
| 2022 | $7,768 |
| 2021 | $21,703 |
| 2020 | $25,078 |
| 2019 | $24,058 |
| 2018 | $23,317 |
| 2017 | $20,352 |
| 2016 | $12,936 |
| 2015 | $14,212 |
| 2014 | $15,801 |
| 2013 | $12,611 |
| 2012 | $14,873 |
| 2011 | $17,781 |
Negative and by a lot of billions in 2024 quarters result (https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...lion-in-q3-reports-usd13-3-billion-in-revenue, Intel lost $16.6 billion in Q3)
That is not some just being public and people wanting always grow, that quite the actual drop.
Sound a bit of an hyperbole.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/research-development-expenses#:~:text=Intel research and development expenses for the twelve months ending,a 8.46% decline from 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Intel
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,763
When AMD released their Bulldozer chips and failed, it gave Intel a lot of free market share. At least five years of no competition for Intel. How much market share should Intel have to be healthy? Despite how ahead AMD is in performance and power efficiency, it's not like they dominate the market like Intel did in 2014.
I'm sure the $152 Billion Intel spent on stock buybacks over the last few decades had nothing to do with it. Maybe if Intel bought Nuvia instead of Qualcomm, they would have had really good CPU engineers.
Then why is it now that Intel is scrambling to do better? We're now seeing Intel with chips made by TSMC, where AMD has been doing this with Ryzen since 2017. Even Apple dumped Intel and went with TSMC's 5nm, which at the time all Intel can do is tell people that 10nm is around the corner. In the 4 years that Apple left Intel, we saw AMD go from Zen3, Zen4, and Zen5 which all saw pretty big changes. Intel's Alder Lake and Raptor Lake are basically the same chip with different clocks. The first real major change came from Arrow Lake, and that design isn't living up to expectations. Previous CEO's had Intel go Tick Tok and then it was Tick Tick Tok. I remember when Kyle Bennett did an Intel CPU review that he said that it was a 3% average improvement over previous generation. I think it was Skylake because Broadwell was a surprisingly better chip at the time. We're now upset over AMD's Zen5 having a similar 3% improvements over Zen4. We agree that a 3% improvement over previous generation is considered bad, so why didn't anyone see this was a problem years ago? Intel's Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge and then Haswell were all a 10% IPC increase each time. Whatever money Intel's CEO's were throwing into research and development, might as well been into the void.
I think it absolutely is a threat right now that can’t be ignored, but that’s just me.
I’m well aware of the root causes of Intel’s problem, but if you think ARM is not a genuine threat to x86, I’m not sure what else I can say. If you want to talk the laptop market, Apple’s showing everyone the potential ARM has to be a serious disrupter. Intel has to take that threat seriously. Calling that “insignificant” would fall under the “famous last words” classification, in my opinion.
Intel’s being propped up right now by legacy relationships with OEMs like Dell and HP more than anything else, as far as I can see.
Of course ARM is the reason Intel is where it is. No its not AMD taking some server market share, its not Nvidia. Its the core issue with Intel that is the issue. Frankly its interesting that the problem has been Pat the entire time. (going back to his time as CTO and systems group dude before that)
Intel has not been nimble enough to adjust to the market. They have been the IBM standing at the moment of change and refusing to do things different. Over and Over and Over.
Pat a couple years before the Iphone. (close enough that no doubt the iphone already existed in an Apple lab) Actually said x86 would rule mobile. His exact quote is pure cringe. "One day people will be on the internet 24/7, but that day is many many years from now." - Pat 2004
Pat didn't see ARM as a real threat at that point, in mobile. The thing ARM was best at (being efficient) combined with a model that allowed smaller companies to produce their own CPUs. Pat should have realized OH this product does what it needs to do well enough. They are going to be the VCR to our Beta. Like Beta we control who makes the hardware and keep most players out, quality is better but costs are higher. If Intel had made the correct choice at that point x86 is sitting on 90% of mobile today. Pat didn't see it coming at all. Worse then loosing the mobile market. Pat didn't understand that we were so close to everyone having a computer in their pocket. How did he not see that... the blackberry was out their, their were windows phones using x86. To not see a product like the iphone coming to start the decline of the consumer PC... I mean he was the CTO. No excuse for not seeing that coming. It should have been obvious where that was heading, and that ARM was better positioned to power mobile replacing consumer PC as the market driver.
In servers. ARM is a huge reason why AMD is making the inroads they are. The moment Intel realized ARM servers were attractive to customers. They should have got moving on a counter. They didn't bother. ARM made power efficiency (more) of a selling point in those markets. So when AMD offers a x86 product that lands right in between Intel and ARM on that metric. It becomes a selling point for AMD.
To be fair on the more recent Consumer Laptop ARM plays. Intel has tried to adapt. Their ultra CPUs are obviously an attempt to head off ARM. Intel is taking them serious now. It is 4 years too late however. They should have got their backsides moving on a Ultra type CPU 4 years ago. You know when they lost Apple as a customer. That was a huge deal. Intel got a lof of mind share boost when Apple switched to Intel. They also took a shot to the nuts when Apple fired them. That was when they should have started working on a Ultra like CPU. So 4 years late they try and release a highly integrated SOC style super efficiency tailored solution. ITS TOO late. It also doesn't work, I mean the icing on ARMs cake is ultra is buggy as all hell. Apples ARM bag them if you want... Apple has never released a M chip that cashes iOS at launch.
At this point anyone that can't see what is about to happen is dillusional. AMD to kick off '25 is going to release Strix Point. They are probably going to power new and interesting things like a real Steam Machine. Gaming laptops and Intel has no answer too. Inexpensive gaming capable desktops that Intel has no answer too. Then end of '25 Nvidia is going to start shipping their ARM gaming hardware. We might laugh at Qualcomm. No one is going to laugh when Nvidia steps into the ring.
As far as Pat having no vision... just a small add to the end. He is also the guy that ended Larabee. That is research Intel should have continued. With all the R&D money they burned on stupid things that went no were. All the money they burned buying startups only to close and shelve them a year later. They really really should have kept spending money on GPU type compute solutions. They were years ahead of Nvidia. They had it and let it go.
I honestly feel bad for whoever takes over at Intel. It is probably going to take them 3-4 years to reposition and design top tier products. I am not sure that is even possible. Jensen is not a moron. He is reinvesting in R&D. I mean there is a very good logical reason AMD is targeting mid range GPUs going forward. Its not going to be easy keeping up to the high end vs a company spending 4x as much on R&D. You can maybe swing for the center knowing your competition is going ot have a hard time scaling their big boy chips down. Intels new CEO is going to be under a lot of pressure to fix the CPU and Server side of things, they aren't even going to have the GPU R&D of AMD. I do feel for them, they can't NOT pursue GPU... they also can't win.
Last edited:
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,763
Intel's problem started becoming a reality within the past 4 years, and ARM isn't exactly new to market. Apple may have played a role, but Apple's been losing sales since they went ARM. Qualcomm isn't selling many Snapdragon X laptops, and Intel hasn't had much luck in the past to get x86 into smart phones. When AMD released Zen3 with X3D is when things began to go wrong for Intel. Intel had to spend a lot of money to catch up and that's hurting their bottom line. Their market share isn't bad, but that's not making shareholders happy.
Then where is ARM taking market share away from Intel? Keep in mind this would also effect AMD, but AMD is doing fine.
That's still just 50% market share for AMD, but the other 50% is for Intel.
It's not like Nvidia hasn't tried multiple times with their ARM chips. The only difference was it was on Android while this might be on Windows. I don't see people running out to buy Nvidia ARM based laptops when the games will still run slower than AMD or Intel based machines. Especially when AMD releases Strix Halo which gives AMD a very Apple M3/M4 Max like chip that might be on TSMC's 3nm. The chip wasn't designed with gaming in mind, but my mind is interested in it for gaming.
Intel's new CEO needs to work on hiring new engineers while slowly firing the old terrible ones. Restructuring the company is just not enough. My suspicion was that Gelsinger had long term plans that didn't make the company much money in the foreseeable future, but gave Intel a better future. Shareholders don't like waiting to make money. They want a CEO that can turn things around today. I think Gelsinger had the right idea, but the wrong engineers to do it. Arrow Lake should have been a home run, but it just wasn't even close.
ARM is taking market from Intel in a few ways. One directly via Nvidia. Their are a lot of large data center installs now running grace. There was a time those would be Intel/Nviida setups. NV is now selling a one vendor solutions. Server purchasers are very much aware of efficency costs. They always were of course but ARM has made that more accute. People using cloud computing are seeing the savings using ARM can mean and have been building ARM tools. Google, Amazon, and Oracle are all selling ARM cloud server services. Those are all products that previously would have been Intel. ARM is also responsible for many AMD server sales. Their are mid size server purchasers who have considered ARM for the power/cost savings... realized their niech use case would drive up costs on the software side. OH look at this next best thing we switch to AMD save 40% power, and retain x86. ARM has been a great sales tool for AMD who is stealling Intels golden goose market share.
Arm also TOOK mobile from them. The mobile CPU market in 2023 was $23.7 billion a market that is 99% ARM. There was a time under Pat G as CTO that Intel had a major portion of the mobile compute market. Pat was so confident in Atom that he got Intel to sell off xscale. Woops. So you ask where is ARM taking market share from Intel. Intel SHOULD have the majority of that market today. That they don't is on them. As the decline of the PC sales hit them, they should have been growing anyway. Every single lost PC sale could have been replaced by 3 Atom or Xscale chip sales. When are they going to take over laptop or worse desktop sales? Guess we'll see. Major players are predicting 50% windows ARM in the wild within 5 years. Qualcomm may or may not have it in them to make that happen. I have learned, betting against Nvidia isn't wise. Nvidia is no doubt going to release before the end of the year. Guess we'll see if its junk or not.
On strix I agree with you. It may take the shine of Nvidias consumer ARM play. I have learned not to bet against Nvidia and Jensen. Strix is going to be something Intel has no answer for. The question I guess will be is strix good enough to head off NV ARM. Its gonig to be fun to watch. If Strix does keep Nvidia from getting traction.... I mean its great for x86 but not through Intels doing.
I hope your right on Pat having a few good skunk works projects. Who knows maybe they have an arrow lake follow up on the books that is far enough along it can be moved up and pushed out to errase Arrow. Who ever they get isn't going to have much wiggle room. They are going to have to make decions fast and hope they almost all pan out. Intel doesn't have the funds to have multiple design groups going, nor do they have the war chest to survive another string of crap launches. They need a good server part, they need a good consumer cpu, they need a good mobile cpu, they really need some sort of AI compute play (or Nvidia will sell even more complete grace setups)... and idealy their AI play needs to be robust and designed in a way that it can directly spin off consumer parts. (idealy I guess if they give up on consumer GPU its not the end of the company its not like they have ever made money on GPUs). That is a tall order based on where it seems Intel is right now. That is just the design side, never mind that the new CEO is now also going to have to solve the FAB issues as its clear Pats idea of making that someone elses problem is a no go.
Intel is building the new SoCs for the new C&C systems being developed to update the Army, Navy, and Airforce.
SkyWater is currently the only approved supplier for the US Military for custom chips and they only do 130nm and 90nm.
Getting access to Intel anything through the Foundry Services is a huge deal for the Military.
Skywater just had a record quarter with revenue of 93 million.
I mean as good as the military contract is for Intel. Its not that big a deal either. We are talking 300-500m a year in revenue for Intel. Assuming they scoop up the majority of the pie. Which they won't Skywater is still going to get a lot of that business. End of the day It's not going to make any real difference to Intels bottom line.
To be frank this might sound crazy. Skywater is likely to be the better provider for them. They are hyper focused. Intel really isn't. I mean Skywater provides stuff like 90 nm FDSOI radiation hardened silicon. I'm not actually convinced Intel is going to be able to deliver what they are actually looking for. Worse imagine of chips Intel sells the DOD for a fancy new sat blue screen like Ultra.
lol I joke I know there is way more to the military contracts then just rad hardened parts. Their is also heat hardened parts... and to be fair Intel has proven their chips can handle high heat for at least 1-2 years before degredation. /joking I am going to stop now the jokes are too easy. lol
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,763
But how much of ARM translates into lost sales for Intel? AMD is eating their lunch and maybe preventing the adoption for ARM for the time being, but that's just good business.
There was never an x86 mobile market. There was for a while but that faded away over time. For whatever reason, we never saw Intel pursue this market since 2014. Last phone that did this was ZenFone 2 and Fonepad 7.
They were doing well even when they never went after this market. ARM themselves have filed for bankruptcy multiple times, so it's not like this isn't a cut throat market. The ones benefiting from ARM are companies like Apple, Qualcomm, Samsung, and etc.
Desktops and tablets aren't doing well in sales. Laptops are kinda, but not that great. We're at a point where if it does the job, it does the job.
They did years ago. They don't now, but it's not like AMD has completely taken over the market. I think Intel still has 70% of the laptop market.
Major idiots more like it. Same idiots who thought the tablet would replace the PC nearly a decade ago. It never happened.
Unless Nvidia finds a way to emulate x86 to the point where the performance difference is like 10%, then no amount of Nvidia fanboyism is going to change anything. People like their Nvidia GPU's, but their other products? Remember their Shield tablets and TV devices? Remember the Shield game controller thing? Pretty cool device but it was only good for emulation. Even Nvidia's Tegra chips failed much like Intel's mobile x86 chips. Nvidia's is having great success in the server market due to AI, but that's about it. Nvidia's success with ARM outside of servers hasn't been good, and the reason for the server success is because of AI.
ARM will take the shine away from Nvidia's ARM play. How many people here would buy an ARM/Nvidia based laptop? How about gamers?
Let's not suck the ghost of his dick too hard.
Intel needs a miracle at this point. The whole reason Gelsinger stepped down was because Arrow Lake sucked in so many ways. Whoever engineered that chip should be fired. It's basically e-waste at this point. Really doubt Nvidia is going to make traction in the laptop market without almost implementing x86 into their ARM chips. At this point, Nvidia could fight Intel in court and win just because they can afford to.Strix is going to be something Intel has no answer for. The question I guess will be is strix good enough to head off NV ARM. Its gonig to be fun to watch. If Strix does keep Nvidia from getting traction.... I mean its great for x86 but not through Intels doing.
At this point Intel is married to Arrow Lake. Much like Intel was married to Net Burst with the Pentium 4. They're going to have to take lemons and make lemonade. We're talking about a CPU that's slightly slower than their 14900K while using slightly less power too. These were made with TSMC N3B as well. As for any projects Gelsinger had in the works, you can consider them canceled. I think Gelsinger being there so long is afraid to fire his friends. Engineers who have no business being there anymore. x86 or not, it's clear that Intel is too far behind even compared to AMD, let alone Apple. The new CEO should have the balls to fire them and hire new talent.
Spirit_Retro
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 530
So I decided to do some research regarding this.
What was found is this: Intel can spin off it's fab business. It just needs to keep 51% ownership of a separate entity.
So what I said recently is still valid. They are going to get out of the fab business. Oh they'll find some fund or venture capitalist to take 51%. Take their 8 billion from CHIPS. And as soon as the limitations to do so are lifted the fab business goes.
The restrictions of the CHIPS act are essentially tissue paper considering the amounts of money involved and 2 to 3 years before Intel could completely divest itself. There is always the regulatory trick of "asking permission" to divest because they could legally do so.
The 18a node is rumored to be crap. Intel will have to sell or fail.
Their plan seems to me to be: Do whatever is needed to get the 8 billion from CHIPS, spin off the foundries, keep the 8 billion, then totally divest themselves of the foundries.
Based on my experience in this industry- this is the way it will go.
51% ownership of a company by a corporation. Means the fabs are always at min a majority-owned subsidiary. That means if the fab sucks ass it effects Intel stock. Because its not a separate company. Its a Majority Owned Subsidiary.
Intel is not going to find anyone willing to invest 49% in a fab business. Not that they can do that anyway. The have also been told they can not sell more then 35% to one investor. So even if a large player wants to "partner" directly with Intel like that 35% is the limit. Pats plans of spinning the fab off is dead. As dead as his career.
Spirit_Retro
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 530
Meet you here in 6 months. I was right about Gelsinger. Let's see if I'm right about this.
Spirit_Retro
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 530
Yea but you're missing the grift.
Intel gets it's $8 billion from chips. Sells off a minority stake in it's fabs, gains ... what... 46 Billion in the sale. Now they have $54 billion.
They get it for nothing. Just wanted to hammer that home.
Who is investing in a company that isn't making any money? Who is getting gov money that is being used to keep another company from closing which now owns 51% of the fab company company?
I am not denying they could do that. I'm denying that there is anyone in the world stupid enough to invest billions to own a minority stake in a company loosing billions of dollars, who would at that point be running some sort of scam. lol
I mean imagine your friend owned a company and it was loosing money... accept they got Gov bail out money that made them whole. This friend says to you Hey Spirit. Why don't you buy 49% of my company that looses money... I am made whole by a gov bail out program, but I'm going to keep that money for myself.
Spirit_Retro
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 530
Did you just get to this planet?
Nanu Nanu
Your suggestion of them selling off half their fabs and not using the chips money for building fabs only... would have legal issues. Chips money is for building fab facilities >.< The gov doesn't care that it offsets Intels books they are one company. Once they make the fabs a subsidiary of Intel... that money can no longer be used by Intel proper. That is just how that works. If a company gets a grant for something, its for that thing. The gov was doing Pat a huge favor by saying wo wo wo, on that silly plan their buddy. Had Pat spun off the fabs... .Chips money would be for that entity, not Intel proper. Under Pats plan to spin the fab off Intel proper wouldn't have been legaly allowed to touch one cent of the Chips funds, the result would have been Intel getting carved up and sold off in bits and pieces.
Anyone have a subscription to semiaccurate?
Curious what they say was the final straw was.
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2024/12/03/why-did-intel-fire-ceo-pat-gelsinger/
Curious what they say was the final straw was.
https://www.semiaccurate.com/2024/12/03/why-did-intel-fire-ceo-pat-gelsinger/
Charlie isn't wrong about the core issue. Yes for years Intel employees have lied to get bonus cheques. What he gets wrong is suggesting Pat was somehow not the chief of that culture. That he was fixing it back in the day.
Charlies execution machine phase that he contributes to Pat, glosses over Pat being the guy in charge of insecure on purpose design choices. His anicdote involving apple and wireless hardware .. skips the fact that Pat was in charge of that division. You can't on one hand give him credit for leading the Wi-Fi dev teams and cell modems. Then point out that a senior in those teams later lied to Tim Apples face. Pat has always been a part of the Intel culture. Intel will win no matter what just say yes we rock.
Intel has always loved a Theordore Roosevelt quote "When you are asked if you can do a job, tell em' 'certainly I can.' Then get busy and find out how to do it." It's a great motto for a fresh employee, not so great for senior leadership. Lol
DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,763
ARM holdings has been losing money left and right and they just became a publicly traded company and people seem to be jumping all over them. AMD was losing money for years and they seem like a good investment today. The whole point of investment is to buy low and hope that company has plans to turn things around. Not saying that Intel will but at this point Intel can't afford to get a terrible CEO. Intel might as well see if Lisa Su and Jensen Huang have another relative they could use for a CEO because they seem to be doing great for their companies. Also yes, Lisa Su and Jensen Huang are second cousins.
That a popular mistake-misview.
Every year, most of the company that do the best did really well the previous years before and had turned thing around a while ago.
Buying Apple in 2007 was a perfectly fine idea (one that made people more than 50 time their money without counting dividend), even if they were firing on all cylinder that multiplied its value by 7.5x just the last 3 years before.
In trouble company and hoping for a turn around is a type of investment (specially for the non-passive one), but far to be the only one or the whole point.
Personally all my biggest success story look more like the very boring buying Apple well after they clearly had turned the corner, than company that maybe will turn things around.
That's a year of revenue. Nothing significant since they still have to recognize losses on it after that year; PE futures don't look any better (fractional losses offset by fractional revenue).
plus lots of new rules around what you can and can't do with that investment; nationalized industries are weird.
Look, bitcoin is a thing, and Elon Musk still walks this earth, so...
But you're not wrong at a non-idiot level.
There are times that makes sense (see: GM/Chrysler circa 2008/2009, others when debt cuts will leave a profitable company behind since what was needed was capital investment) - but this doesn't seem to be one. Unless they get to write off the fabs entirely.
It would have to be a very large company... who hadn't already shipped the majority of their profit off shore. That would be a massive write off investment. It wouldn't just be a Warner Bros looking to write off a 200 million dollar movie budget by canning it... it would have to be a company looking for billions in losses.
Don't forget that part of the CHIPS act was building new fabs.
Intel is building 2 new fabs, modernizing 2 others, and constructing a new packaging facility.
So 3 new buildings and 2 massive renovation projects which are costing close to $40B when done.
The $8B from the CHIPS act was a kickback for agreeing to build those facilities in the US.
Intel is building 2 new fabs, modernizing 2 others, and constructing a new packaging facility.
So 3 new buildings and 2 massive renovation projects which are costing close to $40B when done.
The $8B from the CHIPS act was a kickback for agreeing to build those facilities in the US.
Where Intel Goes from Here
The Death of Intel: When Boards Fail
Pat lost his seat because of an incompetent board.
Pat has a bit of an optimistic naivety that comes into play, and I am sure it was likely frustrating. But the reality is he’s the single best candidate for the company.
More importantly than being suited for the job, he wants to do it. It’s probably one of the most challenging jobs in the world, and he’s playing for the hometeam. The CEOs who got Intel into this mess were much longer than Pat and a worse fit.
Things are changing fast. They just appointed two new board members, the former CEO of ASML and the current interim CEO of Microchip, to the board. This is an excellent step in the right direction, but it’s like hiring a surgeon and an oncologist after the cancer has moved to stage 4. It might be too late, but it sure is the right direction.
https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-death-of-intel-when-boards-fail