I know, it's hard to pick one, and this list could get a lot longer.
Smart engineers make great products
Great products make great times
Great times make lazy engineers and managers
Lazy engineers and managers make ready for layoffs
Intel's virtual monopoly led people within each other to focus on competing with each other vs. either caring about and anticipating customer needs or beating the competition. Intel is culturally broken and no shortage of the bad decisions and arrogance detailed in this thread arose from it.
As Andy Grove famously stated:
"Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive."
It is ironic isn't it....
At a high level, it was its dominance. Because of the monopoly status it had acquired through the real and historic leaders in the company (Moore, Grove...) , the subsequent 'leadership' pipeline did not intrinsically have nor had to develop the skills needed to run a technology company with the stature and scale of Intel. I used to say that literally, you could put a monkey at the helm of Intel and it would still pump out loads of cash and dominate. As the true historic leaders retired and the competitive landscape got tougher and more capable with new key segments that our monopoly did not cover (i.e. mobile/iPhone), the cracks showed and because we had leaders that did not have the skills/capabilities to help Intel compete, we were not only not able to compete in the new market, but the key players in the new market (i.e. TSMC via Apple business) started building a pipeline of leading edge semiconductor technologies that enabled all of Intel's historic competitors (AMD, NVIDIA, Apple...) and now new competitors (Amazon, Google, Microsoft through their in house data center chips). They are all eating Intel's luck and the sad news is that there is a lot of lunch to still be had..... As someone who worked at Intel for nearly 30yrs and retired from it, it is very sad to see what has and will come of the once greatest technology company on the planet.
I blame the whiny investors such as the hedge fund managers, who think they are gods.... still here and still working from home!
What makes a company successful? Even AMD, Nvidia, Apple, or Intel?
You can have the best architects,, design and EDA blah blah blah.
In the end you need great PDK, accurate spice models, great design rules etc. and lastly all of that based on a competitive process that can be delivered at high yield. Look at 14nm got out with just a quarter delay and 10nm FUBAR that destroyed the company!
The pivot point has been passed! Even if Intel recovers at Intel18 the whole business model and competitive advantage has forever swung to the Foundry-Fabless model. That is why you saw Apple, AMD, Nvidia, AMAT, ASML, TEL, KLA and everyone else show up in Az with the POTUS, notable missing was one charlatan!
In the end failure lies within TMG and BoD down in letting that organization deceive and miss execute. Actually the seeds of destruction started a decade early after Sunlin and Yousef left. Everything after sowed the seeds. BoD and senior executives job was to call B$ but they couldn’t due to the poisonous and toxic culture built over decades in PTD and TMG.
If Intel would have kept technology leadership like they had in the 90s all the indiscretions and FUBAR adventures wouldn’t have caused their collapse. But sadly LTD finally collapsed and with it all of Intel.
Humpty Dumpty has fallen and all the western world tax subsidies and all the vendors men help can’t ever put Pat Humpty Dumpty back together again
@3zdi+1k3KKypY. Murthy was a failure at Q. He used to be the co-president of the CDMA unit, but he was ousted out. The other guy became the president. He was never in line for the next CEO there. How BK would hire a Q failure was beyond me at that time (Nov 2015), I was hoping he would learn from his mistakes at Q. Turned out that I was wrong.
Looking at the bulleted list of things for the downfall of Intel, it seems like the composite of all that has contributed to the decline. Pet projects at the whims of whoever is in charge and how they came to be monitored closely from, say a Lab project to a product - especially in a rapidly changing condition is an important metric as to the competitiveness of the company. Clearly, Intel has had the talent once and the tools needed in the past. But despite that, the continuing failure of the process technology is an embarrassment. Intel has not regained in this area despite with the power of PhDs in device physics. Over the years, the toxic environment in the technology area, the mindless leadership changes brought on by the Board plays a great role.
Intel is not a company responsive to the challenges and it has operated with arrogance and people in organizations have emulated and thus cultivated new corrupt leaders. Intel is not the nimble engineering. Its arrogance and lack of accountability at all levels has contributed to the downfall.
“There were two reasons we did not go with them. One was that they are just really slow. They are like a steamship, not very flexible. We are used to going pretty fast. Second is that we just did not want to teach them everything, which they could go and sell to our competitors,”
Has anything changed?
Now that you completely changed the topic from your argument about pat being responsible for phone decisions to some issues out of the labs, I probably will stop following you at this point. You are all over the map.
Pat was very much part of Intel Labs. Labs is full of people and projects. They have an air about them, cultivating a sense of elitism for a long time generating Fellows, Senior Fellows. The spectacular failure of TPM (Trusted Platform Module) is an example of how kiddish Intel is in coming up with technologies from the Labs. The TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chip in your computer is perhaps a forgotten device. It often sits there not doing much, and never quite achieving its full potential. Intel does not have good security record. TPMs do not have a strong record. But years were spent on this with people walking around with powerpoints, proof of concept and what not. That is typical Intel Lab. Pat was very much part of it and so are many others. Apple did better! Bravado, arrogance and promotion chain on weak results and delays in bringing out technologies resulting in buggy products.
Lately, Intel ARC GPU drivers are so buggy. Intel does not execute well. They have cultivated arrogance and a promotion chain based on spotty record all the way from the top to the bottom.
@3wqw+1k3KKypY Pat had nothing to do with that decision. At the time, pat was running an entirely different decision. If you want to blame him simply because he was a VP at the company at the time, knock yourself out. It would be far more productive to actually discuss decisions an individually actually took, or was responsible for. Not just some tangency point.
@2ump+1k3KKypY PAT was part of Exec mgmt, when we pass on iPhone opportunity. The entire mgmt at that time should take the blame, most by CEO. And, BS, Murthy was useless, but had nothing to ACT. ACT and was decided way before Murthy joined. BK at least had the stock up! Now we have nothing.
@3lap+1k3KKypY Intel x86 obsession, culture of CE!, arrogance was why Intel rejected Apple and why iFS will a failure. Too late to change now as they have lost war
Intel Labs? The entire thing should get deep six'ed. It doesn't generate anything that remotely generates revenue. It has always been a stupid playground. The labs are a dinosaur of bygone years. AT&T Bell Labs, Xerox Labs, HP Labs... All dead. If you aren't working on something that is going to end up in a revenue product within 18 months, you should be very afraid of your job.
@3zdi+1k3KKypY
so when Murthy was on-board he should not have let go people. He must have hired more to establish teams to deliver on mobile. instead he envisioned to phase out existing technology & implemented layoffs. this is pathetic. if he was hired for mobile then why he was given TMG to lead? Murthy is in no way to lead Sohail Ahm(a/e)d and the other guys who lead Intel Labs.
IFS clubbed with TD and Fab which is part of LTD/PTD whatever you name it is very much capable of delivering for apple and its own chips.
I do believe in that.
I reiterate the root cause of missing the mobile phone revolution.
If Intel had a good mobile silicon business, we wouldn’t have hired Murthy who was next in line for CEO at Qualcomm - a mobile silicon company.
Could LTD have delivered for Apple, Qualcomm, Nvidia and it’s own x86?
Why anyone thinks they can do IDM and IFS now?
But pretty good boasting at IEDM!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/09/tsmc-revenue-jumps-50percent-in-november-helped-by-apple-iphone-orders.html?
@3hjb+1k3KKypY “Because that’s who corporate America wants, people who seem like bold risk takers, but never actually do anything. Actually doing things, gets you fired.”
IEDM continued LTD boasting at its best, let’s see in three years where LTD is, LOL
Intel has mastered the art and created a culture where those who can bloviate and spin failure are promoted. Simple look at this executive team and tell me it isn't so. It's the strangest thing to explain to an outsider, but you inside the Borg know it is true.
What is LTD?
@3trp+1k3KKypY Murthy was given hefty sign on bonus ACT 2016 happened after his on coming so he was indeed the culprit of the situation at intel. moreover when BS was CEO who was technically leading Intel? It was Murthy. Who had TMG under his belt, it was Murthy. TMG is not something to be lead by someone who had non fab background. Then he brought AMAT guy which was leading IFS and is now recently let go.
Murthy knew nothing about fab and his so called guy who is leading PESG know nothing about Intel and effing think they know how to lead the company.
Raja has done nothing in gaming as far his tenure at intel goes. @2dyr+1k3KKypY has rightly concluded that everyone at top positions just simply collect paycheck and issue directionless directions to just waste other peoples career.
The ACT of 2015-2016 hurt a lot of people. The insane compensation conferred on hiring Murthy and others in the executive rung should have hurt. With all the focal criteria laid to weed out people, if Intel had the best of the cream working for them, should they be in the position where they are in now? The toxicity of the culture, the yes-we-can people, the arrogant lot, those who pat their own back, clap in an echo chamber, the board selection of the leadership, the long list of VPs, Fellows and what not, the prowess of those who used to maintain Moore’s law - are in the abyss. Acquisitions, Artificial Intelligence, software services, the cool projects from the Labs -build your list here. Intel, the semiconductor monolith faltered under their own bravado for a number of years.
A company that has padded with PowerPointers, specs, standards, architects, Principal Engineers, Fellows and serpentine-like VIce Presidents have set the metrics for the merry-go-round for long. The music is puttering. Instead of being the simple engineering company, market slogans/campaigns have been propagated. We still hear that we know what we are doing and no admission for failure and no accountability.
The company was sliding and declining for a number of years. Stop the bleed and treat the wound, treat those who are hurt for the wrong reasons. Hopefully you will see an upward climb on an uphill battle,
Who, when, how... Eul + (someone working for Renee')
Murthy was an absolute disaster on many levels, but Intel’s problems began way earlier. Intel was already fairly rotten, as evidenced by them hiring and giving immense responsibilities to a charlatan like Murthy.
@2czt+1k3KKypY . BK hired Murthy in Nov 2015, this was after ACT2015. I heard that BK already planned out ACT2016 around that time (and tightened up FOCAL process in Jan 2016), so not sure Murthy had much to do with ACT2016. I agreed that ACT2016 was a complete disaster, the company never recovered from that.
by the way, this chipsact thingy...it is just to keep intel at life support... it is not going to change anything... the reason is straight forward with tsmc invited to build in arizona.
apple could hv went to intel for manufacturing their future chips with intel advertising for their IFS & IDM. the thing with tsmc is they get cheap labor which can work hours in taiwan and that is how they matured themselves in the process with working with different design (nvidia, apple, google, amd, qualcomm....) . now tsmc will dictate chip prices. apple can't back off from tsmc coz they already established that eco-system with tsmc - eco system is created with engineers and work horses.
yield loss can be offset with money..at least u get chip production from various customers and that will improve yield automatically over time.
the problem with intel is investor beat the heck out of intel a lot if there is some miss here and there coz the expectations from intel are always high. while for tsmc as they evolved, misses here and there are ignored and over time they matured.
the most funny thing that i hear from managers phasing things out was "decision came from top" when in actuality it was their own decision. such a pathetic excuse.
if the decision came from top what did you do to change that status quo for your employees future(& company's future)? that is poor leadership right there.
The problem started when Murthy was hired which resulted in ACT 2015-2016. That is where things started taking wrong turn and it is like that ever since.
ACT 2015-16 not only did layoffs but how it was done was bad and it had ripple effect on the then working employees and changed their mindset. So the cream started leaving and what is left even though good also have different mindset.
Other companies money also started taking stab at intel's talent as the talent which left went to other companies and it is ofcourse some inner info about general Intel's morale got revealed thru transitioning employees and layoff news.
With onset of Murthy, came executives from other companies (qualcomm & amd) who only knew TSMC, synopsys, cadence but not about internal tools and process. So they started phasing intel home grown things out and incorporating external (so called industry standard which i don't think is really industry standard) tools and process. That is why we see IDM 2.0 which is really integration of internal and external process die(s).
By the way everyone will talk intel is doing bad etc etc but if we look at other companies like apply, amd lot of engineers there are from intel. other companies don't like intel but they do like intel's talent. coz establishing such a huge company and leading from forefront is not single person's job but collective effort from lot.
so it is mix of many factors.
IDM 2.0 starting out like a champ. For instance building the new AZ Fab and securing Apple win as highest volume customer. Congrats! !
Oh wait, that was TSMC... never mind.
Oh the stories I could tell of Intel arrogance and the observations of first hand of how it is done by the winning side.
Intel is so full of arrogance and $hit, and now they have nothing to hide behind they are so fu€ked!
From my observation, its a culture problem(Top to bottom). Failing is expected and should be educational. Intels problem is accountability, refusing to revisit and learn from past failures which is leading to this death spiral... Will know in 3-4 years if Pat has changed the course... Intel does not have a learning culture that empowers its workers to innovate. Follow spec, CE! only works when you are on top, not a recipe for catching up.
Intel needs to modernize and benchmark against its competitors, IDM will not work unless they change, Technology won't be competitive. AMD is ki----g it with chiplets in both CPU and GPU space, TSMC is ki----g the foundry market with having efficient clean process/foundry without all the legacy or baggage choosing the best and most efficient tooling and changing processes as it becomes economically viable and worth the effort.
@2dyr+1k3KKypY I need to correct the record. Intel acquired StrongARM when Andy was still in charge. Ron Smith was supposed to win phones. PSO shut all of the phone app processor work down, not Pat. Pat ran Desktop segment and from there he went to run the Intel Architecture Labs. After that, the he championed Larabee and we know how that ended. Anyway, He never had the phones in his organization.
Intel way of working/culture that lead them to say "No" to Apple/Smartphone market (Pat was in Intel at that time). It never recovered from that mistake. The same culture continued, even today, when Pat is back, and they continue to make similar mistakes everyday. BK, BS, PG, they took fat pay checks and promised to fix Intel, but never really did. CEO walks in blamimg prev leaders, changes things, but no impact, so walks away rich while everyone else suffers and the story repeats.
So many FUPAs... I'm gonna go with double down and bet on x86 right into the mobile revolution (phone, notebook, IOT ...) where ARM mips/watt is a better solution.
Really embarrassing for Apple loss and then TSMC on US soil to manufacture for them. You can only imagine Apple must have taken a good look at Intel as a second source on manufacturing. You can only imagine Intel would have gone into that proposal, basically willing to sell at cost (maybe even a loss given the previous history of d-mb ideas like the $10 atom chip fiasco).
Arrogance & Hubris
Anybody remembers the ubiquitous PC mantra from Craig Barrette and Paul Otellini? The mantra was repeated all the way down. Intel did not encourage the counter investment strategy. Even if it did, it was late, half baked, half-hearted. Intel was chest thumping Moore’s law. Does the law still hold good with all the delays? People have moved on. Others have taken over. The x86 at all costs, failed projects/initiatives, acquisitions that were thrown away without much integration and the list goes on. The funny thing is there are PhDs all over in TD. They know ins and outs. Many were overworked in a toxic environment. Intel “could afford” albeit stupidly. Now they can’t. It is failure at all levels.