He was from TMG and more towards backend of the mfg, a yield & cost guy, there is nothing visionary in him at all, I always wonder why the BOD appointed him as CEO after Paul O. Because of him, intel stopped advancing and ended at where it is today.
7 replies (most recent on top)
This line of thought is getting sooo OLD.
Yes, BK was an awful manager, but so are most Intel leaders.
If you are in any way objective, you would see that Intel fell behind because the PC+server market was and still is stagnant and Intel failed to grow outside of those mature markets. He DID try to diversify (in a d-mb way) but he tried. It’s not easy when your whole culture is built around x86 chips.
You need growth to keep up with the Jonses in the leading edge semiconductor fab game as we are becoming painfully aware with our existentially bad negative cash flows.
Who cares now. BK has been gone for over 5 years now. The current problem is PG.
Have you heard of Capitalism before? Cut costs to produce more profit at the expense of customers and workers.
BK is a thing of the past and the board should not push PO out in the first place. The thing of importance now is PG.
Intel needs a leader who's not afraid to put it on the table and give it a thorough & cleansing en--a. This company needs a hard reboot. Maybe even unplug it and plug it back in. Pat & current ELT is obviously not the leadership for the job.
Intel likes people with bravado. Anyone worked long enough will recall from the board on down to the employees sang in chorus in praise of every CEO. So was Pat G as many lamented he was overlooked from the pool of candidates. Here we are talking about BK. The story play book is the same for a long time. Go back to Craig Barrett and Otellini. Same story.
All this projection is getting old, Pat.