Intel was at rock bottom when AG took over and turned it around by taking a bold step to move away from memory business and focus on microprocessor. Similarly, PG is going all in on foundry. Is it the change intel needed? Will intel be able to take over Samsung and TSMV? Will PG prove to be the savior for intel?
11 replies (most recent on top)
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger 'c*cky' and a ‘very discourteous fellow,’ TSMC founder says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8UWxXJHHbE&ab_channel=%E6%B0%91%E8%A6%96%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9EFormosaTVEnglishNews
Well simply put if the stock market believed Pat Gelsinger was going to succeed then INTEL stock price would be a lot higher now. And just practically and historically INTEL executives just a spin a story that isn’t really based entirely in reality because they can’t see into the mini-kingdoms who tend to hide their weaknesses and only present their strengths in vague at-a-boy power point slides that can’t be disputed.
I think this new IDM strategy has a low probability of success without addressing Intel’s corporate disfunction (internal waste) (a) multiple teams/directors working on the same project and not talking to each other (b) internal communication issues and arguing between silos - creates more data silos and makes it harder to really know what’s going on because each silo has their own proprietary product coding scheme and vocabulary (c) required trainings that generally do nothing for our customer need to be cut - like we don’t need a training on how to work in a hybrid way after two years of actually doing it (d) managers and directors who really don’t help driving earnings or customer satisfaction need to be put on performance improvement plans and shown the door when they can’t prove they making an impact (e) wasteful OKRs that do nothing for INTEL customers need to be eliminated (f) wasteful glamour projects needs to just stop and the company needs to focus on transparency, and protecting the brave souls who have the courage to speak up against corporate waste. (g) all roles at INTEL needs well defined responsibilities because there are many who say I’m responsible for X but you’ll find out by digging that many times they’re fooling themselves or worse, someone else (h) internal organization needs to be reconciled- we have data and docs stored in too many unconnected systems so you have projects that start believing nobody’s done it before only to find out later the project has been done in the past by a customer or senior employee.
Agree. Intel's position today is dire. The core business share and gross margin are so bad now that Intel cannot even afford to bring the next fabs/process nodes online. The cost is prohibitive and the volume given current businesses is too low.
It really is quite bleak. The problem is so big, Intel doesn't have enough cash to keep funding new businesses to fill the fabs (they fail at all the new businesses anyway). So, all that leaves is trying to fill the fab by opening to third-parties. TSMC has decades lead, ecosystem, skills at managing many customer SKUS as well as lower cost and more legacy nodes. Each one of these problems is so tough that Intel IDM 2.0 could fail due to any one of them.
In some sense, Pat is right calling this his, 'moonshot'. In another sense, one could argue it would be easier to get to the moon then to succeed with IDM 2.0 before running out of money.
In the meantime, it's going to be quite a show. You know for sure the bombastic interviews and arrogant future claims will not let up. As TSMC founder said about Pat, he is 'co--y' and 'quite discourteous'.
The history on AG is a bit wrong. During 1980ish Intel was in memories, drams, srams, and eproms.. they also had a business in cpu's and peripherals. The logic part was growing where the memory part was struggling. People were moving from memories to logic. AG just admitted it. Intel was tops in processing, design, and manufacturing. Today, Intel has given up its engineering excellence in all areas and have no product lines that are growing quickly from a solid base. PG has a much bigger job than AG had.
No, no, no, and no.
Forget the lifestyle company AMD and Nvidia as well as TSMC are giving Intel a can of whoop a$$
he must be looking at the 'lifestyle' company with those little processors that he says are just 'o.k.', fabricated by that 'risky' Taiwanese fab (that now has a beachhead in the US).
PG is acting like a religious fanatic. He is getting paid next to nothing as vast majority of his compensation is related to stock prices hitting $60+ which is not going to happen, and anyone with a bit of common sense realizes his IDM strategy is doomed, but he is still as arrogant as ever, pushing the throttle as we are driving towards the cliff...
AG rescued the company. Intel was doing memory and getting its a$$ kicked by bigger scale companies and the pivot to x86 a new areas with huge moat was easy on some ways
Pat claims to have learned from the masters. The reality be has learned NOTHING.
There was no real direct competitors except a weak AMD in those days. Others like Motorola didn’t have IBM PC volumes to find the virtuous cycle that led Intel to dominance.
The tables have completely been turned and today Intel with IDM and IFS a little dog with a bite that scares no one . Totally arrogance im trying to attack in HPC and leadership manufacturing which Intel now has no competitive advantage. AMD, Apple, Nvidia and others are their peer to superior in design. The x86 moat has all it evaporated. In manufacturing and technology they are such laggards it is laughable.
FUBAR
Each new generation of process equipment cost is gargantuan. Intel cannot fill the fabs with current products. Intel gross margin $$ are not enough to pay for all of the fabs and new equipment. Intel is at a cross roads and it look bleak. This leaves only three options: a) Intel has to design more innovative products and fill the own fabs, b) Intel has to divest fabs, or c) Intel has to keep vertical integration and fill fab with other companies designs (IDM 2.0).
Option a) is a non-option as Intel has failed over and over to grow new silicon businesses (e.g. repeated failure after failure in discrete graphics). option b) is blasphemy to Intel and it will NEVER consider it. Option c) is Pat's 'moonshot' as he calls it. The odds of success are as close to zero as you can measure. Intel is decades behind TSMC on ecosystem and tools. Intel is a bloated and has much higher cost then TSMC. Intel is way behind on process nodes. Intel culture is not suitable for high SKU count and pleasing third party customers. Intel would also have to support many older process nodes. Again, not possible with Intel cost structure.
Entering fab business is Pat's 'moonshot' and as outlined above, he really doesn't have much of a choice. I hope it works out. The risk reward profile doesn't look good to me so, I am not long $INTC.
It was a lean and nimble company back in 1985, not that anymore.
Current CEO seems delusional.