Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Stratchery covers Intel (pretty good)

| 1432 views | | 4 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1eSUuzVd

4 replies (most recent on top)

Intel’s predicament is indeed dire and the choices all so bad, really a FUBAR. Kind of like Kodak, GE, Blackberry and Nokia.

It will be interesting as the various design teams have in the past competed for projects and people/money. Now you have an interesting choice who you give the external TSMC design or the internal Intel4 or 20A design. Great for competition and dividing the company, LOL

Now you have Foundry which has to use Intel process which has non standard OPC, non standard IP validation, and a completely different approach to process development and IP development will be a decade development at best.

Foundry has a second problem is all the current process available have limited and non standard IP as noted above making their timely adoption or value in the Foundry space limited. Ten years ago when Intel has process leadership their was some value, now their process is lagging, expensive and unattractive.

This strategy made sense 10 years ago but the BoD failure in leadership appointment of PSO, BK, and Bob pretty much sealed Intel’s fate. It is amazing the lack of governorship and technical insight on the BoD for the last 15 years, total failure of BoD and senior executives.

Intel also has the problem of shortage of scale and talent trying to do it all when it doesn’t barely have enough to do one thrust, to try and do three is like Germany fighting on three fronts during WWII, failure is a certainty. Had they picked to sell the fabs to TSMC and focused on x86 they would have had a chance, try to do it all is FUBAR, a very sad end to Intel which will only soon exist because of government funding if at all.

Post ID: @lsz+1eSUuzVd

I don't think Intel's manufacturing problem is purely that of incentive which will be fixed by a split. That's massive oversimplification.

The approach Intel is taking - outsource cutting edge products to TSMC while continuing to invest in their fabs making their lower end stuff and other people's stuff like automotive chips in-house is the best strategy to buy some time to advance their fabs while letting them earn money to support R&D investments.
It's a huge problem and nobody except TSMC has succeeded at it.

Besides there is years of lack of focus, incentives and interest in specialized education and manufacturing processes that'll take time for Intel to fix. Meanwhile they will be competitive in consumer markets by going TSMC 3nm and continue to improve on the side by taking on outside fab orders.

Seems reasonable to me.

Post ID: @yiu+1eSUuzVd

In short, Gelsinger and his team are configuring the company so Intel's internal manufacturing operations must earn Intel's business, in competition against every other fab-as-a-service provider in the world, including TSMC.

The risk is obvious: The company's internal manufacturing operations can survive only if they figure out how to outperform competitors. The upside is that all other parts of Intel stand a good chance of surviving and thriving -- but that remains to be seen.

Only one thing is certain: Gelsinger and his team have a lot of cojones.

Post ID: @mpn+1eSUuzVd

PG’s bloviation is the death rattle of the company.

Post ID: @lrt+1eSUuzVd

Post a reply