Intel has essentially 1 product. So really all past attempts have not only been allowed to fail they've been pushed to fail (abandoned/cut, under-promoted, ignored, etc). Getting a 2nd product might be a baby-step re-boot at this point. But to create innovation many more things are needed. Firing failures is typical Intel style and one of the reasons that there are fewer people who can produce innovative work now than in the past. There are 4 types of outcomes: good planning and execution with good outcomes / good planning and execution with poor outcomes / poor planning and execution with good outcomes / poor planning and execution with poor outcomes. Judging solely on the outcome = firing good people along with bad.
9 replies (most recent on top)
To the OP,
You are absolutely right. And the real problem in my view is that whereas informed risk taking used to be one of the most revered "Intel values" risk taking is almost suicidal these days. It is precisely this risk taking, entrepreneurial attitude that Intel used to foster that in tern brought about innovation.
But these days, actually ever since Andy Grove retired, where senior management is not technically savvy enough to even understand what that was all about. They appear to be more concerned with protecting their political turf, and reducing the cost of doing business in all the wrong ways.
They have succeeded in flushing the baby down the drain with the bathwater and are left with a technical workforce that is overweight in H1-B worker bees, and arrogant RCGs who aren't yet mature enough to even recognize how little they actually know. But hey they are less expensive and aren't likely to rock the boat and ever say no to "stupid"
All that said, I'm a happy camper having put Intel in the past. I've only got one more year left of deferred comp coming from Intel and even with their rudderless ship heading for the icebergs, I'll get my money out of there before this misguided ship sinks.
Yep, it's another major technology cycle turning and this time Intel is on the wrong side of the disruption (highest cost, least flexible/configurable, least open, least efficient). In exactly the opposite position in all these factors as Intel was when they disrupted DEC and Sun.
It's all about ARM. Don't buy anything big and save your money.
Throw the bums out on the street.
Too many people for a mature product. Time to clean house.
For now Intel employs 112k people.... Then the ARM disruption picks up speed, and the Intel layoffs pick up speed (the trend of the last couple years continues) and it's not 112k anymore. The number of people Intel employs is a very short term view. Not a view you should have for a long term career anyway. Ask any former DEC or Sun employee.
A one trick pony generating enough money to employ 112k people is good enough for me.
An FPGA is just a specialized CPU (doesn't count as a 2nd product)... And you're still wrong about SSDs no matter how many "$" you type ;)
Wrong. You need to measure the costs from the entire investment. The SSDs sold today use memory from the Intel Micron joint venture, which has been a money black hole over the years. There is no way that in aggregate and it's whole history this has been a money making business. Check again in 10 years (if Samsung hasn't taken the market)