Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

An ideal strategy might be one that spins off all but TD to a new company and starts developing on ARM

Pure speculation on my part but I've felt that the original sins were:

  1. Selling ARM-based Xscale in favor of trying to push x86 into phones.
  2. Combining TD with HVM.

The ARM part is maybe a more obvious choice, as we are long past the point where the company should have started attempting to disrupt itself, using ARM.

Now the company has countless competitors using ARM and there are NO customers who will stick with x86 going forward. The platform is burning.

TD produces most of the Foundry loss, because it is capital intensive and always will be. The rest of the fabs, formerly known as HVM, can get to profitability with minimal new external customers, and would attract customers as a standalone business.

Product groups need access to leading nodes but without giving so much margin to TSMC. x86 has lost its competitive moat and will never again be a price maker. It will have to now compete on price, so needs the fab margins to make it work.

The TD capital cycle needs those first-year (high ASP) profits to invest in the next node, and can sell technology transfers to an independent Foundry.

Product groups need to urgently stand up ARM development and start offering that as an alternative to the existing x86 product, or risk having revenues go into a steeper secular decline than it already happening.

Once customers leave x86, they don't come back, and x86 can at best try to slow that inexorable shift, but it can not be stopped.

The other thing is to replace the (miserable, incompetent) Board. They are a bunch of lifers, driving the company into the ditch.

If I see these things happen, it will be a sign that Intel may be ready for something more sustainable than is currently the case.

Might need the stock to get below $10 for a while to force the Board out and do the radical restructuring which is needed for the company to avoid drifting into obscurity.

by
| 1185 views | | 4 replies (last January 12, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jhbebjg3

4 replies (most recent on top)

There have been a series of bad CEOs and other leaders in Intel's ELT over the last 10 years, with Pat being the latest. The company earns money, but he dumped way too much into building new fabs when he should have invested in the design aspect of the company, laid off the fab workers, and used TSMC like all the other semi-conductor companies to manufacture our products. That would have saved the stock price for sure. We also could have partnered with TSMC to manufacture their orders in the US, but that didn't happen either because Pat's plan was to steal their business. In today's market you either design products or build them for others, not both. I still believe Intel as a company can be successful, but it is unfortunately led by folks that do not have their finger on the pulse of what end consumers actually want and cling to crippling philosophy that Intel should not manufacture end user devices because then it would be in competition with its customers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b3+1jhbebjg3

You are conflating ARM with successful companies. There are plenty of ARM companies that have failed.
Success comes from good engineering.
Where does good engineering come from?
Duh…
Good engineers!

I’ll leave the reasons for Intel’s failures as an exercise to the reader.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ac+1jhbebjg3

@a9+1 Never is a long time.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ab+1jhbebjg3

Management will never produce ARM based products. It would be admitting defeat of x86. Intel can't let go of the past. There are plenty of successful companies producing ARM based products go work there.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a9+1jhbebjg3

Post a reply

: