Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

'Fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger,' argues former Intel CEO Craig Barrett

http://tomshardware.com/tech-industry/fire-the-intel-board-and-rehire-pat-gelsinger-argues-former-intel-ceo-craig-barrett

by
| 1821 views | | 12 replies (last March 3, 2025) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1jnc38yzp

12 replies (most recent on top)

@c0 How…ahem, “creative” are you willing to get?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dv+1jnc38yzp

CB still alive?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dp+1jnc38yzp

How can bod be removed

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c0+1jnc38yzp

@be for CEO. Best synopsis yet.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bj+1jnc38yzp

CB is out of touch - much like he was during his tenure at Intel.

Foundry presents a fundamental conflict of interest. They will optimize for x86 CPUs first and everything else later. This is a huge problem especially when high volume smartphones need different kinds of transistors. Also, high volume GPUs need yet other requirements.

Second, foundry requires exceptional customer service. This means listening (not lecturing) customers. Deep partnerships need cultivation and collaboration. This is so anti-Intel. Also, product teams will directly compete with customers which will impede collaboration.

Third, foundry requires industry standard tooling, PDKs, libraries, CAD tools, methodologies and so on. The custom tool culture at Intel needs a major overhaul.

Fourth and most important. Developing a leading edge fabs is colossally expensive. You need SO MANY units to recover costs. You’re going to be in the hole for a long time (possibly forever - meaning bankruptcy) if you cannot overcome the above headwinds. No one is going to risk their core business on an unproven foundry. There’s no trust. A history of mis-steps. Conflicts of interest.

Intel has so many headwinds. It can’t just match TSMC. It needs to exceed them in every metric. All signs point to this just not happening.

Ok… now look at the valuation of fabless companies. Some are many multiples of Intel’s current value.

I think realistic scenario is to divest the fabs to do non-leading edge development and scale back all of the ridiculous capex.

Then that will unlock product team value. PCs aren’t going anywhere and has room for multiple suppliers like Intel, AMD and now Apple, Qualcomm and Nvidia on the ARM side.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @be+1jnc38yzp

Good show is coming at Intel. When do we can see live action fighting between its BOD and CEOs ?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bb+1jnc38yzp

I have a modest proposal

First, it’s both true that firing Pat made things worse AND bringing him back would make things worse still. Just because parting with him was a bad call doesn’t make bringing him back a good one

Next, fire the board. At every site do a survey who loves their department managers put the positive ones in a hat and one per site this is your new board

You’re welcome.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b1+1jnc38yzp

Maybe he is correct this time. Let fire the stupid BOD immediately

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ar+1jnc38yzp

I hope he does not involve with the operation of Intel any more. He is worse than the board that he wants to fire.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aq+1jnc38yzp

The BOD needs to have an emergency meeting to determine what they are going to do about Grandpa.

Clearly he needs to be moved to assisted living.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ag+1jnc38yzp

I completely disagree with Craig Barrett

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a9+1jnc38yzp

Says the guy who initiated the mess in the first place.

He should have enough self awareness to recognize that he initiated the value destruction of the company, then pushed to have Otelini be the next CEO.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1jnc38yzp

Post a reply

: