&, I think, 100% correct. Addressed to the appreciative audience of Anderw Sharp. At 50:40:
Here is the interview:
https://sharptech.fm/member/episode/gelsinger-out-at-intel-20-years-of-structural-challenges-and-strategic-blindspots-the-board-and-whats-next
A closer look at Intel's fall from grace in the wake of CEO Pat Gelsinger's sudden retirement and with the company facing a fresh round of questions about its future. Topics include: Ben's overview of a 20-year run of paradigm shifts and strategic missteps, Gelsinger's strengths and weaknesses, CHIPS Act funds and a looming inflection point, and the murky path forward for American made chips…
Ben’s basic point is that Intel’s troubles starting in 2021 were the result of decisions and missteps taken in 2011, and will require a timespan of the same order to correct. To hire Gelsinger as CEO, declare that you are 100% behind him, and then can him after 3 1/2 years, blaming him for his failure to have done the impossible in a short time period—that is just malpractice. I can see a case for revisiting Gelsinger’s plans at the end of 2025, after Intel 18A is well-launched and we have something of a market verdict on it. But that is fully a year away.
You can argue—and Ben does—that the board should not have hired Gelsinger 3 1/2 years ago because the task he thought he could accomplish was in fact impossible. You can argue—and I do—that Gelsinger’s plan was (probably) bad for shareholders, good for stakeholders as a whole, a wonderful thing for the country, and the best thing that could be done with Intel for the world. But in either case—or if you think Gelsinger’s plan was probably good for shareholders as well—once in, you are in. In the (perhaps apocryphal) words of Napoléon Bonaparte: “if you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna!”
Source:
https://braddelong.substack.com/p/biweekly-briefly-noted-for-2024-12