because bringing back Andy Grove himself is just a bit too 'Weekend at Bernie's'
Worst mistake he ever made was with his direct reports, starting with Dave, who should be fired for incompetence and/or malfeasance.
A competent CFO would have not let Headcount and Cost get so out of control.
Why are people so obsessed with PG. You can’t go back to the past. Bringing him back in 2021 was a mistake. A turnaround will require new ideas. X86 is rapidly losing market share. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is insanity.
It was about how we made products.
Unhinged sock puppet actually thinks Pat was good for Intel.
Ok buddy…
You are insane. Do you really think randoms come to this site just to troll us? They could troll us on much more visible and public forums and sites. See you are part of the problem. You are very smug to think this. That randos would come find a random site to bad mouth us. Very aloof of you. When truth is so much simpler. It’s your intel colleagues and employees. You need to wake up. Your mindset of “no nothings wrong “ is what got us deeper into the state we currently are. Stop living in denial
It feels more like that those who post to hire Pat back as CEO are the ones shorting INTC right now.
@1nkz Most of the posters on this site are just trolling.
They think that to own TSMC they have to bash Intel, as if it makes a difference to the stock or anyone else.
Glad to see that everyone agrees that Pat has the only solution that investors crave.
@1nkz You are guessing all are trolls except you. Keep worshiping Pat. Pat's talk is just talk. So many times we saw the saddle and then mountain peak pretty close. Non founder CEOs can tell all the magical words for your ear, but result shows that his tenure was not productive.
@1mae If you think Pat was still on plan to split the company and save the Foundry and product to make Intel survive, that has not happened. This delay is draining the cash and taking the company into death trap.
I am saying that bullsh-t plan of IDM 2.0 in evolution will fix Intel is not going to work. The reason is the IDM 2.0 velocity is draining cash very fast with those expansions. Which investor can give plenty of money without expecting any return till 2030 ? This is impossible. Hence IDM 2.0 plan is just to siphon money into their own pocket and not at all towards Intel benefit.
@1skt It is a bit simplistic to think that Pat was stuck on keeping Foundry and Products together.
The initial IDM 2.0 strategy was to have two independent reporting orgs (within the same company), but the feedback from customers caused that to evolve.
For the past year or so the plan was to spin off Foundry. Breaking out the reporting created the option to spin off Foundry or Products, once it became clear that was needed.
As if Pat personally made any of those decisions and did not directly manage those who failed to execute. That's on the ELT at best and moreso the next level managers.
It’s the CEO’s job to understand his company’s performance and quickly correct underperformance.
Did he fire CS for making d-mb PC demand projections? What about MJ for overseeing the PC related fiascos? He should have set expectations that if your org sc--ws up, you will be accountable. I can’t believe I have to explain this, but accountability starts at the top. If your reports failures means YOU get fired, you can bet that the manager is incentivized to not fvck it up, which puts pressure down the reporting chain.
I read all the posts on this thread so far. Looks like many people who are supporting the idea of keeping one Intel (product + foundry) would love to see Pat back as CEO. This path will be end of life for Intel. Something like Motorola repeat will happen.
If instead of activists, Intel proactively separates the product and foundry as 1 companies, there is way better chance as Intel's survival. This is end of the story.
Now there may be many CEOs, consultancies, BoD can churn out strategy for Intel's survival to su-k more money out of Intel into their pocket, but that's not in best interest of the company.
Only if he accepts a salary of 0.00. He claims he loves Intel. Well prove it. Work for free. Fix the mistakes you made. Then after they are fixed maybe we can say he earned having a salary. But if he truly loves Intel and its employees as much as he claims with his prayers and fasting then he would jump at offer to work for nothing to save the company. If he doesn’t then you know he is a liar and charlatan
@1gwk As if Pat personally made any of those decisions and did not directly manage those who failed to execute. That's on the ELT at best and moreso the next level managers.
He was (poorly) managed by the Board, which should have been paying attention to headcount and cost.
Intel has issues but pushing the CEO out doesn't change any of them.
All I am saying, is give Pat a chance
Pat did not fail. He was just too aggressive in the fab buildout, plus should have had a faster timeline for spinning off Foundry.
Umm, did you see free cash flow and the stock crash? His plan, which he clearly laid out to employees and investors, was to woo big customers in order to recoup the costs. That never happened and will not happen in the foreseeable future.
He also made outlandish forecasts for Gaudi which never materialized and has no credible AI revenue stream.
He oversaw the horrendous execution of
ARC GPUs
Desktop CPUs failure fiasco
Botched meteor lake launch and low performance
Botched arrow lake launch
Finally, he totally missed the true PC demand situation after COVID which was very obviously a demand pull forward situation where people over bought in the pandemic and under-bought afterwards. He hired more people believing, like a mo--n, that pandemic demand was sustainable.
There are no bad workers, just bad managers.
Who is responsible for bad managers?
Isn’t the CEO supposed to set culture and expectations of excellence? Bad managers should have been replaced by Pat. That’s part of the job!
This guy is a failure and should not lead high technology companies.
Intel needs to clean house. The headcount is out of control. They have too many mangers. It's like back in the early 2000's except they dropped the "2 in a box". There's so much automation now and not much tools running that they really can't justify all the positions they have. Floor techs, EQ techs, Eng techs, bottle changers, ROC. They could get rid of the lazy people who are taking up space, collecting a check and keep the hardworking people who deserve to stay and earn the next ERP. If they just have IT check Teams, they'll see who is working.
Pat did not fail. He was just too aggressive in the fab buildout, plus should have had a faster timeline for spinning off Foundry. The Board and ELT could have helped with both of these issues.
There are no bad workers, just bad managers.
He tried to accelerate Foundry by purchasing Tower, and the company could potentially merge with GF for similar reasons.
Talking about the previous foundry effort is not meaningful, because that effort was trying to shoehorn external customers into a fab network highly customized for Product groups.
Plenty of articles out there about Foundry becoming part of an alliance of other US fabs and key customers, so Foundry could end up not being Intel at all. Especially if the Government forces a partnership.
If an individual contributor misses a deadline they are reprimanded. This dude lost the company $150b - please stop with the “back to the future”. He’s not qualified. Period. Not qualified.
In case Intel spins off IFS, can Pat be a successful CEO of the rest of Intel?
Intel tried foundry in 2011-2013 time, called ICF - Intel Custome Foundry. It failed.
In 2021-2024, Intel has the second try on Foundry: IFS. But IFS orgs are less efficient,
more clueless headcounts, less knowledgeable. People in IFS donot know foundry business, do not know how internal manufacturing works. Only thousands of headcounts assembled without prior knowledge. It is 100% a failure.
Look, there are only 3 or 4 whales that can make IFS viable.
Apple
Qualcomm
Nvidia
Broadcom and maybe AMD.
Without any wins from these customers, IFS is a loser.
Pat was fired with cause because he built a bunch of empty fabs. I don’t see any one of these whales on Intel. That’s on Pat. He very clearly failed.
The market wants to see Foundry as an independent company
No, the market wants transistors at a certain performance, power, area and cost. Part of the cost equation is “time to market” and that is where customer service, design tools, support, etc are factors in addition to the technology factors.
Given those constraints, most customers pick TSMC first and then Samsung second. I don’t see anyone lining up for Intel 18A. The market is quite clear on that. IEDM conference showed us that TSMC is ahead of 18A already on technology and of course on cost.
IDM 2.0 is bisggest scam !!! There will be no Intel foundry if that is not a separate company. Keeping one intel is going to end the Intel foundry very quickly.
To be clear, I believe that leading edge Foundrys must be state supported at this point.
This is because of how mercantilist countries such as Taiwan, S Korea, China and Japan have made leading edge semiconductors a strategic priority.
Tariffs may help level this wildly uneven playing field, but nothing says checkmate like the US government backing the most viable leading edge US-based foundry.
Intel has clearly added to its woes through remarkably poor leadership, but would have struggled under the Founders when competing on such a skewed playing field.
Pat was likely the most qualified CEO Intel could get at this point.
Clearly, he needed a stronger CFO and ELT, to prevent the excesses in Headcount, Spending and excess capacity that occurred, because he failed to course correct when his intention to keep IDM 2.0 integrated was proven by the market to be way suboptimal.
The market wants to see Foundry as an independent company, and the longer Intel takes to make that happen will only serve to crush the stock (because of the intense capital requirements associated with Foundry). Arguably Foundry should be the kind of public-private partnership mentioned in some recent articles.
The government need to step up and provide the leadership and printed money needed to enable Foundry to compete with TSMC and frankly SMIC. Some opinion about this is being floated around, suggesting an entity in which various customers pony up an ownership stake in Foundry, of which Intel is ultimately a small owner.
I don't think any line worker needs to worry about Foundry. It is just a matter of how it is capitalized. The incompetent managers..should dust off their resumes. That easy ride is just about done.
IDM 2.0 needs Pat 3.0
Where he belongs - so back to VMWare?
Good grief, no.
We endured the Pat long enough.
The only place less thoughtful in hiring than vmware (when he didn't HAVE a track record, but created one) is Intel, which hired him despite the awful track record he created for himself at vmware.
The obsession with Pat... He failed. Period. His main idea was, maybe, ok (we'll know in the future). The implementation was terrible. And he became a caricature and an ego driven grandpa disconnected from reality.
Pat still thinks it’s 1999.
Intel isn’t the same.
It doesn’t have the capacity to be great again.
No capital = no good people.
The competition for top talent is fierce and Intel is way way way behind.
Look around at your team and honestly assess if they are the best in the industry.
Really?
Time for a reality check .
Are you shorting Intc?
Bringing Pat back would be more like Five Nights at Freddy's, a complete horror show.
Pat is certainly trying to make a comeback at this site.
Pat to the Future..of Intel
it's coming..
Where he belongs - so back to VMWare?