Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel lost its culture and as a result "getting back on track" involves way more than a new product or a new CEO.

Pat should have replaced the top leaders across the board. He kept most them and wasted one year. On top of it, he allowed those leaders to promote and hire others. How can he tell employees it is about results now, when most if not all those leaders created zero results for intel. RK - not a single GPU in 6 years…RT - total BS, SY - bob’s parting gift and so far zero accomplishment, other than getting McKinsey and Boston Consulting as vendors in addition to Bain. DCG, IOTG, HR, IT, Finance, software - tell me what they all have accomplished…same people.

Promotions are yearly reminders of how intel works and what matters. Talk is cheap. I don’t buy any of it.

Recently purchased TSMC capacity at least partially answers this question.

Intel -ve strategy seems to stir up the chip constraint and try to delay it as long so that desperate companies will knock IFS door

I think Intel strategy is not targeting making it great at all cost at immediate future.
What it does with $$ is to throw into TSMC to slow down its competitors by eating into their capacity. Then using $$ to attract and hires a lot technical ppl (whether good or not does not matter) by making the talent pool so limited for others to hire and limit expansion by competitors (in term of workers size). means less working ppl and hope time to market is impacted by lack of resources
in the area I'm working, Intel hires hundreds if not thousands from market pool and unsettled many local experienced workers by raising the base pay & C&B

Answer is YES, sad the BoD has no clue at all

Pat will realize over the next 6 months that it's hopeless to return Intel to any glory. He will quietly resign for health reasons and be gone.

Yes, it’s too late. It’s a sinking ship, abandon or stay put and continue rearranging the deck chairs.

And why is the stock so cheap, nobody will put their own money there, it’s the tax payers that are funding the FUBAR adventure.

This is worth a thought why the CEOs of late at Intel have been failures without any accountability while TSMC is a complete different story. You really have id--ts in the BoD in accountability to the misadventures and failures at Intel the past decade plus.

Intel and TSMC each has ten directors in their governing board. After reading through the bios of those directors from Intel and TSMC, I have to say they represent two different thinking and backgrounds:

1. Intel's board is heavy in finance, M&A, marketing, and gender diversity while TSMC's board is heavy in semiconductor engineering, large corporation leadership and strategy, manufacturing, and industry connections.

2. On the Intel board, Pat Gelsinger is the only board member who has top leadership experience (CTO of Intel, 2001) at a large semiconductor company.

But it is a very different situation at Intel

Pat is not Steve Job and never and he cant turn around Intel. He was the only one claiming he can

Once a tech company loses its lead, it is extremely difficult to get it back. Look at Motorola and Nokia.

Earlier Intel had only one weak competitor AMD. Now it has many. AMD, Nvidia, Apple, Ampere, Amazon, Google, Qualcomm etc... Plus on Fab side TSMC, Samsung and Global foundries.

Pat hasn't fired any single non working and BSing king or queen. Instead he brought back lot of kings/queens fired earlier. In next 5 years, intel revenue will be half. There are so many directors, Sr directors and VPs which doesn't make sense.

I don't see Intel getting back on track until right leader comes who analyzes org structure and ask each person above grade 9 and ask why he/she should be at Intel and what are her/his contribution in last 5 years.