1) Capital misallocation
non-primary business ventures, cost cutting, stock buybacks
2) Failed management
misguided programs, general incompetence, arrogance, strategic blunders, bureaucratic processes, focus on politics
I would say cost cutting in the wrong areas is the major one. The other failures are somewhat recoverable
@Stock with no Stock....Bully Bee with no Honey...
@wy I'll say it again: Who cares how Intel got here this is history anyone with a liberal arts degree can make those conclusions. Tell us how Intel will get out of here alive.
You are right, everything from this point forward needs to be on time and meets or exceeds expectation but that isn't going to be enough. The company should already be doing this. The question is what is Intel going to do that is different that will get it out of the slump and give it forward momentum?
Engineering project management 101: There is NOTHING more expensive than being late to market.
Cost cut all the bean counters want, but if it delays products then it is the wrong choice.
@mj Totally, but it led to crazy misallocation. Like if you decided to buy 8 Rolexes and just eat peanuts and hot dogs for sustenance.
@mj bingo. They played "All you can Take" for years and now there is nothing to take
The reason Intel is here is simple.
When it made money and lots of it, everyone went in and put their hands in the jar. Took all they could take. Noone kept an eye on how fast the jar was emptying. Now that its empty we're all wondering how it happened.
Which ones red or brown?
@ek What do you mean, “get out”? There is no trap in overexpansion, so the cutbacks are straightforward.
The first step is to remove high-level positions that either have conflicting interests or a history of poor decision-making. Some of these cuts will be politically motivated, aiming to take advantage of government funding.
Next, remote and non-essential support roles for the foundry will be eliminated. Sales teams will remain active. In the end, secondary growth will come as underperforming players exit the company.
The stock price will likely go through a rollercoaster phase due to political shifts, eventually plateauing until upper management can finalize key deals. Mergers are inevitable, and some stagnation in R&D is expected.
Unfortunately, Intel currently employs many incompetent individuals in R&D—this has been noted by several users. Many high-profile and technically skilled employees left over the past two years. As a result, Intel is left with a largely young and inexperienced engineering workforce. Many of these engineers were brought into R&D during the COVID period and are overpaid relative to their contributions. However, Intel made this move to qualify for tax breaks offered at the time.
In conclusion, a brain drain is underway, and the company is now focused on logistics and prioritizing initiatives based on target markets.
Intel will survive this, but it has been set back for at least half a decade to secure its position again. In an alternative scenario, we will see potential for mergers, leveraging their footprint in IMEC.
@gv
replaced the intel folks with every cheap bound foreigner on the planet
which had an immediate cost savings
but was a long term gutting
this kept people in power that were failures
and promoted unethical mo--ns
intel died from an internal cancer, it is just thrashing about now
You missed the biggest "main" reason Intel has turned to he-l: worried less about technical qualifications of employees and more worried about diversity especially on the US campuses. This was especially the case with H1b hires.
Too many of the people I had to interact with were worthless as software engineers and if they had a degree of any sort, they did zero to earn it.
In the process of getting H1b hires, they canned a LOT of good software folks. But why the he-l not... Intel could pay half the cost to get 2 to 3 times the hours. Sadly, they missed the critical part of half the ability.
Capital misallocation. Pretty cool. Must be one of the ten or twenty things they teach in business school. One of the other ones being to shift the decimal point on a percentage and pretentiously refer to it as a basis point.
@a6
I know of some of the recent hires in the past five years (four be exact), they were running scams, recording secretly, and miscalculation the legal system by jurist activism. All Iranians, to be fair.
There is no shortcut in technology and science. You hire such low-life, which tells a lot about the mindset of the leaders, the growth of the middle management, and the oversight in hiring. Wait for the patent infringement lawsuits.
You can not always bully in tech, so you would be bought by bullies as their pennies in the name of Bill and Act.
Who cares how Intel got here this is history anyone with a liberal arts degree can make those conclusions. Tell us how Intel will get out of here alive.
You forgot to add that Intel called China’s bluff. Figured that was always the ace in the hole..but China hasn’t and won’t invade.
So much for Intel’s only strategy.
So you're telling me there might be a chance?
“…God’s will be done…”
Oh! Well there’s the reason!
@c9 Best comment on here hands on. lol
@aa Yes. Process lead, but what broader category does that fall under? Cost cutting - which falls under capital misallocation. Trying to get by without EUV for a cycle was cost cutting. Once that failed, the cost cutting spiraled out of control in other parts of the company. Meanwhile, for some reason(s), crirical budgets were cut while at the same time money was blown on The Olympic games and stock buybacks among other expenditures.
ZZZzzz Yawn Ai please tell us again what we already know !
2010 no EUV and paid for monopolies !
When is the book coming out on Amazon?
@a1 .....and they should have gone to industry standards too 😉
Def Met carrying Intel on its back. You are all worthless and lazy
Dude do you even freaking work at Intel?
Holy F#cking Airball.
Intel is going down for the same reason it always has. Nothing else matters except process lead!!!
Sure there are contributing factors, but toxic PTD culture is what ki-led Intel. If you still had process lead and leading products it would cover up all the other blemishes. They just have not been able to get rid of 30 years of bad culture.
Now Intel Design is “until death so we part” because of the Trump deal. So the whole ship going down.
@LBT you need to fire all Factory GLs at ronler acres who have been there for more than 3 years. Do it now!!!!
More reasons: Toxic culture of fear, unhealthy competition with coworkers, excess bureaucracy stifling innovation, middle managers focused on establishing and protecting their sub-kingdoms rather than helping employees, employees time diverted to CYA stuff.
Fear and hyper competitive culture is easy to create but near impossible to undo once it becomes excessive.
I generally believe it was not investing in EUV. Others have cited not getting into smartphones. But I am open to an exploration how IFS could have made Pat’s Plan successful but didn’t. Are the reasons you mention why IFS failed and IFS 2.0 is so whaleless it’s a running gag?
For foundry, should have went to industry standards a long time ago, on the first foundry go arounds.