Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel still paying for Pat's shopping spree

IDM 2.0 was never a bad idea. In fact, it was necessary to save the manufacturing side of the company. But Pat’s mistake was investing in fabs before fixing yield and before we could reliably produce competitive chips for our own products again.
Lip-Bu Tan is doing all the right things to right-size the ship and inject discipline back into the company. I expect we will soon see changes to the focal process to align with that expectation from employees. But none of it means anything if yield does not reach industry-leading levels.

The fixed costs of underutilized fabs designed for future yields and future customers are ki-ling our bottom line and shortening the runway to get us there. If not for the investments Intel received last year, it would be over already.


by
| 1381 views | | 7 replies (last January 24) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kfnqm0bj

7 replies (most recent on top)

I wonder if he still hears the Intel Bo-g/Jingle in his sleep.
Probably just wakes up to the smell of money and Jesus nowadays. 😊

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @f3+1kfnqm0bj

@at I agree that adding more excess capacity was not a solution to the issue of lack of demand. Pat and others like him from the 1990s mistook market dominance for how to develop sustainable strategy.

What he should have done is to use the Oregon fabs to create 18A, then let market demand drive even getting started on the Ohio site, while building the AZ site.

The whole notion of bulking up headcount, to get caught up on nodes, is a 1990s strategy. What was needed, and now seems to be happening, is to downsize TD in order to eliminate the useless layers of management. That speeds up velocity at much lower cost.

When LBT was on the Board, if Pat had simply taken his advice, he might still be CEO, although his choice of upper management was as slipshod as the decisions they made.

There is a reason Intel is referred to as IBM 2.0. It needs to completely wipe out the old set of managers and strategies, and that is what LBT seems determined to do.

The new structure may also fail, but the old one was destined to fail.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b1+1kfnqm0bj

Pat has a very long and ultra skinny veiny weiner. It looks like a witches index finger

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aw+1kfnqm0bj

@OP I think any effort to rebuild IDM 1.0 was doomed to fail.

I like Pat, but his best chance at being CEO was when they passed him over for Otellini.

Pat even brought back old managers, who pretty uniformly failed to get anything done. It just ended up being a bag of snakes, squandering what little resources the company still had. That's on Pat, and so he was rightfully canned.

An outsider like LBT is the right person, totally willing to get rid of old org structures, presses and capabilities.

He seems likely to leave the company with less capacity than it needs to grab all the revenue possible, but breaking from the IDM 1.0 strategy of maintaining excess capacity in people, products and manufacturing was driving the company into a ditch.

That made sense when the company dominated their markets, but no longer.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @at+1kfnqm0bj

The ancient wisdom says dont count your grain when you have capital misallocation, bolweevles, and blight problems.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ah+1kfnqm0bj

That ish was hare brained and everyone could see it

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a6+1kfnqm0bj

Post a reply

: