Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel’s Success and Failure

The success Intel had in the 90's was phenomenal and largely attributed to a huge economic moat, intel benefited from a great product with any serious competition hard to come buy, ramp time to become competitive not feasible to try. So success and lots of stock splits. AMD was the only competitor, never a bad company just smaller but it did compete - imagine the price of a PC for the end consumer without AMD's presence. Through misstep after misstep, Intel failed to stay at the top of the market and now is just another mediocre competitor in the production of chips. It possible that the company can improve and move forward , but the competition is coming at it for all of the various markets. In the 3 to 4 year timeframe improvement chances seem slight.

Given the recent continued failures its much more likely that its current downward spiral will continue. There is no CEO, continued delays to 10 and 7 NM production, excuse making, the addition of 'Fellows and VP's, the moral within the company is at an all time low, all of the significant leaders have fled, others were pushed out, the only strategy is forced fear to the rank and file (perform or your marked as failure w SS4), so result is a Focal process that is entirely broken.

by
| 1822 views | | 8 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+UwYWVCM

8 replies (most recent on top)

@1rmm Yep, nepotism is endemic in hardware engineering circles, where the usual suspects dominate.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1obc+UwYWVCM

Largely very corrupt management machine. Within Intel it has had decades of quid pro quo friends being promoted from within, not because they offer any kind of mgmt talent, or expertise, or leadership. It was all dependent on asskissing friendships and commonality. They take care of each other and cover up their phony ineptitude.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rmm+UwYWVCM

@1goi - Gold post

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1vrj+UwYWVCM

Think about it, in the 90's when you thought about silicon technology or manufacturing prowess Intel wasn't the first, second or even third company that comes to mind.

Think of computer design, architecture innovation and computational efficiency, Intel wouldn't be in your top three either.

So how did this very ordinary manufacturing, below average architecture become so dominate, simple luck and right company at the right place.

Andy was a great man but he was lucky to have x86 handed to him. Without that monopoly even the best execution would have easily seen intel where MicroChip, Zilog, or Motorola went.

IBM selected them, they took it and ran with it. Think about the late 90's when a far smaller and behind AMD would out innovate Intel again and again, it was an joke that such a small company with inferior process and manufacturing could beat Intel, but they did again and again and if wasn’t for their bumbling probably would be ahead of intel now.

But given the monopoly of x86 and the upgrade and profits for the monopoly intel leveraged it to become the powerhouse that powered everything.

Sadly along the way Gordon gave way to Andy who gave way to a trio of stooges who failed to build upon that luck. You ended with the greatest stooge of all BK.

Now x86 is still a pillar of the backoffice, much like IBM mainframes were once, or SUN was in the past, but look around almost every company outdesigns intel. With the bumbling of TMG Intel has lost the process lead. Scale was lost with the failure to capture mobile. Intel has a ring of money but competitors are big and profitable now and have great leaders, not like AMD of old.

Luck has run out, tick tock tick tock your time has run out.

Who will be that poor CEO that will captain Intel into the same place as IBM or GE if lucky and if not lucky where DEC, SUN, Wang, Blackberry, Nokia or Kodak went?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1goi+UwYWVCM

Suggest that they split the CEO job between two outside Intel people. Intel has a significant number of bad managers who just happen to be east Indian. They need to go.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xgp+UwYWVCM

@tqb - Apple had several near-death moments - mostly, though, because of product and design. Intel faces major product, design AND manufacturing issues. This trifecta may not be recoverable.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dvk+UwYWVCM

Intel needs to get back to meritocracy. They need to hire a new CEO from the foundry space. The QCOM fetish must end.

Would they hire a Chinese from TSMC? I highly doubt it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @oyc+UwYWVCM

It's the law of big numbers tough as u get bigger...Google and apple have beat the odds apple has had several near death moments

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tqb+UwYWVCM

Post a reply

: