Intel CEO Gelsinger Exits as Chip Pioneer's Turnaround Falters (reuters.com) 77
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger has stepped down amid the company's continued struggles against rivals, with shares losing over half their value this year. The chipmaker announced Monday that Chief Financial Officer David Zinsner and Executive Vice President Michelle Johnston Holthaus will serve as interim co-CEOs while the board searches for a permanent replacement.
Gelsinger, 63, was hired in 2021 to lead an ambitious turnaround aimed at reclaiming Intel's technological edge from competitors like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. His strategy included expanding Intel's factory network with new facilities in Ohio and transforming the company into a contract manufacturer for other firms. The plan faced significant headwinds as Nvidia dominated the AI chip market, with cloud computing companies increasingly favoring Nvidia's processors for AI development over Intel's Gaudi line.
Intel's challenges culminated in an August earnings report showing a surprise loss, leading to dividend suspension and plans to cut over 15% of its 110,000-person workforce. Board Chairman Frank Yeary, now serving as interim executive chair, emphasized the need to prioritize Intel's product group to meet customer demands. The leadership change also impacts the Biden administration's semiconductor industry initiatives, as Intel was set to receive the largest grant under the $39 billion Chips Act program.
Multiple news outlets including Bloomberg and Reuters report that Gelsinger was forced out by the board because "directors felt Gelsinger's costly and ambitious plan to turn Intel around was not working and the progress of change was not fast enough."
Gelsinger, 63, was hired in 2021 to lead an ambitious turnaround aimed at reclaiming Intel's technological edge from competitors like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. His strategy included expanding Intel's factory network with new facilities in Ohio and transforming the company into a contract manufacturer for other firms. The plan faced significant headwinds as Nvidia dominated the AI chip market, with cloud computing companies increasingly favoring Nvidia's processors for AI development over Intel's Gaudi line.
Intel's challenges culminated in an August earnings report showing a surprise loss, leading to dividend suspension and plans to cut over 15% of its 110,000-person workforce. Board Chairman Frank Yeary, now serving as interim executive chair, emphasized the need to prioritize Intel's product group to meet customer demands. The leadership change also impacts the Biden administration's semiconductor industry initiatives, as Intel was set to receive the largest grant under the $39 billion Chips Act program.
Multiple news outlets including Bloomberg and Reuters report that Gelsinger was forced out by the board because "directors felt Gelsinger's costly and ambitious plan to turn Intel around was not working and the progress of change was not fast enough."
Another one bites the dust (Score:3)
The news just reported that the CEO of Stellantis also resigned due to large operating losses. Different industries, same problem.
I wonder who else is going to throw in the towel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't fret about these CEOs. They'll do just fine
The concern isn't for CEOs - it's for the rest of us. These developments are warning signs that those of us without huge nest-eggs and golden parachutes are in for a very rough ride when the economy tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
For the very wealthy, yes.
Life was better w/ competition + national security (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't fret about these CEOs. They'll do just fine
The concern isn't for CEOs - it's for the rest of us. These developments are warning signs that those of us without huge nest-eggs and golden parachutes are in for a very rough ride when the economy tanks.
The economy is showing a lot of concerning signs, but not in this case. Intel is not struggling due to the economy, but due to losing Apple and competing poorly against AMD...they're just not very competitive right now and that's a very bad thing. I've always actively disliked Intel...even when I bought one of their CPUs, by choice, 15 years ago when AMD was sucking. However, chip manufacturers don't innovate without competition.
Throughout most of its history Intel has been top dog and when they're not competing against a strong AMD, they don't put much work into their CPUs...same clockspeed, smaller transistors, typically. Once Cyrix and later on AMD came out with credible threats that were popular with enthusiasts, Intel stepped up their game.
Today, we have ARM and AMD competing, but ARM is very much siloed. They're not a threat in the gaming space and they're still too adventurous for most in the enterprise space. So really, without Intel, AMD just will become Intel...lazily releasing mediocre chips and sandbagging innovation because there's no sense in releasing their latest developments if they're securely making good profits off old tech.
The other concern is Intel has fabs. If China invades Taiwan, good luck getting any Apple or AMD chips. I know Samsung has fabs, but they're no substitute for the chips TSMC makes. Sure, prices will skyrocket, but at least we'll have Intel chips until TSMC can ramp up production elsewhere. TSMC is setting up fabs off Taiwan...but the transition will be far from painless. Also, CPUs are necessary for the global economy. How badly do you want EVERYONE's CPUs dependent on a single small island? So as much as Intel grosses me out for their long history of abuse, I am rooting for them to succeed so we can have competition and not see the CPU development landscape stagnate for a decade. Having server and good device chips made outside of Taiwan is a matter of national security and our economic livelihoods. Even if Intel isn't the best, it's important to ensure they succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's a good thing that TSMC is building a semiconductor fab in the greater Phoenix area, so they can poach all the laid-off Intel fab workers from the Chandler plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot shooting themselves in the foot. You don't need Apple, ARM, or AMD to help Intel screw it's share price. While the whole speculative execution was a big nothingburger, the idea of one set of chips slowly burning themselves to death and another having substrate separation issues, and in both cases Intel playing a very shitty corporate game when it comes to warranties is really putting people off Intel products.
I've been roofied during a hard night of drinking before which is like a double dose of
Re:Life was better w/ competition + national secur (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, maybe they should have spent $100B on making their tech better, rather than stock buybacks [calcalistech.com].
Stock buybacks do nothing to keep you competitive against companies that are investing in their technological progress. Intel's stagnation and decline is nobody's fault but their own greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, we have ARM and AMD competing, but ARM is very much siloed. They're not a threat in the gaming space and they're still too adventurous for most in the enterprise space.
But that's just a small fraction of the CPU space out there. Intel has tried for a long time to get back into the small chip arenas but they never were a major player there. They relied on the huge margins from PC CPUs which was fine for awhile, but all along they tried to get into the market for small chips, cheap chips, low power chips, embedded chips, etc. Although some Intel designs, like 8051, were breathed new life as part of newer chips Intel wasn't set up to really monetize it in the way that ARM
Re: (Score:2)
Once Cyrix and later on AMD came out with credible threats that were popular with enthusiasts
Nope.
Cyrix processors were always way, way slower than the Intel parts.
AMD's K6 was at least as powerful as a P2 clock for clock when code was optimized for it. Sadly, it almost never was, thanks to Intel's C compiler being the standard for people who cared about performance — they deliberately sabotaged the performance of its output on AMD processors. When I went back and used a K6 system well after its time, but built Gentoo for it with every possible helpful optimization, it was an absolute beast f
Cheap CPUs fuel revolutions (Score:2)
Once Cyrix and later on AMD came out with credible threats that were popular with enthusiasts
Nope.
Cyrix processors were always way, way slower than the Intel parts.
AMD's K6 was at least as powerful as a P2 clock for clock when code was optimized for it. Sadly, it almost never was, thanks to Intel's C compiler being the standard for people who cared about performance — they deliberately sabotaged the performance of its output on AMD processors. When I went back and used a K6 system well after its time, but built Gentoo for it with every possible helpful optimization, it was an absolute beast for what it was. But at least you could get decent performance out of it. No such thing was possible with Cyrix chips.
I had two different Cyrix chips and three different models of K6, and Cyrix was always very very bad and never drove anything in the industry except perhaps for prices down.
Cyrix had some amazing chips for 686 that bested intel at that price range. What you might be forgetting was that no one could afford a good CPU back then. In 1995, you needed a top of the line computer to run ever program in MS office...like a $2000 difference. Cyrix comes along with a chip that matched the CPUs sold in the $3000 boxes for like what $200-400? AMD also deserves credit...I think what you might be forgetting is that today any computer can run any app...except games at high resolution. Ba
Re: (Score:3)
1995, you needed a top of the line computer to run ever program in MS office...like a $2000 difference
Nobody is on your lawn, calm down grandpa.
Here is a Computer Shopper from 1995 [archive.org], where the headline is Pentium systems under $2000. You cannot have a $2000 price difference for a computer capable of running those applications because that was the cost of the entire computer, unless you were fool enough to buy a big name, big price system. As you can see from the very first page, Zeon (which was actually pretty big name in clones itself) would sell you a complete 486DX2-50 system for under $1400, which could
Re: (Score:3)
I had a Cyrix i686 running at 150 Mhz, P166 IIRC, which I swapped with a real Pentium at the same clock speed, the computer was noticeably slower, OTOH, Netscape stopped crashing. Floating point was supposed to be much slower on the Cyrix but wasn't generally used much, at least with my work flow.
Re: (Score:2)
Floating point was supposed to be much slower on the Cyrix but wasn't generally used much, at least with my work flow.
FP didn't matter to application performance back then, and even now it's still not that relevant mostly for anything but graphics or physics simulation. Even when there's a dedicated GPU with hardware T&L (pretty much always now) you still reasonably have to do some calculations on the CPU.
I went from a Cyrix to a K6, performance improved. But then I went to a Pentium MMX and it improved again. Then another K6, this time a /2+ so I had L3 on the motherboard. Better performance. Then a P2, better perform
Re: (Score:2)
Were all those CPU's running at the same clock speed? The Pentium and Cyrix i686 were and the Pentium definitely felt slower. Forgot my first Cyrix chip, an IBM branded 486DLC/33, which I swapped with a 386/33, that also doubled my speed. Later when I used a K6-II, it was clocked quite a bit higher then whatever I replaced it with, probably a 486/100 and that naturally gave a huge speedup.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the [Super] Socket 7 chips were real close to the same clock speed, the slowest was a 133 and the fastest was a 180. It was a slow progression, and the differences were way bigger than the clock percentage differences. When we get into the P2 and Athlon those are bigger jumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fret about these CEOs. They'll do just fine
The concern isn't for CEOs - it's for the rest of us. These developments are warning signs that those of us without huge nest-eggs and golden parachutes are in for a very rough ride when the economy tanks.
The economy is showing a lot of concerning signs, but not in this case. Intel is not struggling due to the economy, but due to losing Apple and competing poorly against AMD...they're just not very competitive right now and that's a very bad thing. I've always actively disliked Intel...even when I bought one of their CPUs, by choice, 15 years ago when AMD was sucking. However, chip manufacturers don't innovate without competition.
Throughout most of its history Intel has been top dog and when they're not competing against a strong AMD, they don't put much work into their CPUs...same clockspeed, smaller transistors, typically. Once Cyrix and later on AMD came out with credible threats that were popular with enthusiasts, Intel stepped up their game.
Today, we have ARM and AMD competing, but ARM is very much siloed. They're not a threat in the gaming space and they're still too adventurous for most in the enterprise space. So really, without Intel, AMD just will become Intel...lazily releasing mediocre chips and sandbagging innovation because there's no sense in releasing their latest developments if they're securely making good profits off old tech.
Apple and gaming have very little to do with it. Both are tiny markets.
When Apple left IBM for Intel, IBM laughed all the way to the bank as they were producing PowerPC chips for all 3 consoles, they were happy to tell Apple to take a walk, got rid of a diva client. Apple are not important and at the time, Intel was alos laughing all the way to the bank..
As for gaming, always been a small market where AMD has done well, even when AMD's chips were lacklustre.
Intel's always been dominant in the noteb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This differs from the Intel CEO who seems to have architected a plausible route to long-term pr
Re: (Score:2)
Intel's board should probably look within for the problem. They authorized $110B of stock buybacks, and after spending $100B on that over the last 20 years instead of spending that $100B on research and development they wonder how they're falling behind.
Step 1 of Intel's recovery: stop looting the treasury, and start running a tech business.
Cue AOL shutdown sound: "Goodbye!" (Score:5, Insightful)
The chipmaker announced Monday that Chief Financial Officer David Zinsner and Executive Vice President Michelle Johnston Holthaus will serve as interim co-CEOs,
Bad: co-CEOs.
Worse: One of them is the CFO
You make the CFO the CEO when you are liquidating. Otherwise they always want austerity and that ruins the company. You have to spend money to make money.
Re: (Score:3)
Gelsinger clearly wasn't having success quickly enough. There's not a lot of evidence that the turnaround will be successful after ~4 years at the helm. I'm not surprised that he was ousted.
Still, it's a bit sad to see the technical guy get ousted, since we can all agree that Intel's problems were created by having business guy/CFO types and that's probably who will end up replacing him.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is hilariously shortsighted because it took Su 4(As she was the primary push behind getting contracts with Sony and MS while still COO) to see any results whatsoever and that was only because AMD was able to capture the high end console market. It then took another 3 years before AMD was truly competitive with Intel again as 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen, while comparatively good for AMD were still lagging behind. It wasn't until the Ryzen 3000 series that they were truly competitive and saw massive gains in
Re: (Score:2)
You make the CFO the CEO when you are liquidating. Otherwise they always want austerity and that ruins the company.
Not necessarily. CEOs drive a direction of a company. You employ an engineer to drive technical development. You employ a bit thinker to change directions. While CFO can be used for preparing a company for sell-off, an accountant periodically running the show does wonders for reigning in spending.
It's a question of duration as to whether the company gets fucked or just has the fat trimmed off the sides.
Re: (Score:2)
If they stop spending on stock buybacks, and start spending on R&D they can probably cut overall expense while implementing a proper solution.
Are those two guys the right "person" to do that? Unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, since one of them is the CFO.
You add the CEO in as a co-interim-CEO when you want to stop your other interim CEO from spending money, not to help them do it. The CFO can help spend money without being half-CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
You make the CFO the CEO when you are liquidating. Otherwise they always want austerity and that ruins the company. You have to spend money to make money.
I worked for a company with 5,000 employees that replaced their retiring CEO with the CFO, and they did just fine until they got a "real" CEO.
That said, the guy was smart. Didn't count pennies but started worrying about millions. And he was so smart that he knew there were plenty of people in the company who knew more than him say about software development, or about selling software, and actually asked them and followed their recommendations.
From Techspot (Score:5, Informative)
He'll be fine. he can hire professional mourners.
article [techspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As Intel was set to receive the largest grant under the $39 billion Chips Act program.
Corporate welfare queens.
Intel's challenges culminated in an August earnings report showing a surprise loss, leading to dividend suspension and plans to cut over 15% of its 110,000-person workforce.
You would think with $39 billion of free money, they could expand their workforce. Same ol' song and dance, corporations & CEO's pocket public money and screw over everyone else.
Re:From Techspot (Score:4, Informative)
It's not free money. Please learn how the Chips Act works.
Subsidies are structured as rebates for provably making defined milestones paid for with company money. If you don't make the milestone, you don't get the subsidy.
If Intel doesn't build it, they get nothing.
If they build it and the yields are garbage, they get nothing.
This is the way that government subsidy SHOULD work.
Re: (Score:2)
Please learn how the Chips Act works.
Intel announced they had received $8.5 billion from the Act to build four new highly advanced semiconductor fabs and upgrade plants.
It's not free money.
They are still getting free taxpayer money to do something. So, it's free money tied to an outcome, semantics. Did that come out of Intel's profits? Sounds like it's free to me.
Re: (Score:2)
If its so easy to figure out, maybe next time include a link to it, or quote the relevant bits.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think with $39 billion of free money, they could expand their workforce.
They've already got 110,000 people, the population of a city, doing... what? There's only so many Executive Assistant to the Vice-Chair for the Deputy Director's Permanent Under-secretary for Vice President's Office Curtain Colour-coordination you can hire before it starts to look like you're carrying a lot of dead wood. Other companies designed more exciting computers than Intel with a total staff of 34 including the janitor.
What "turnaround"? (Score:3)
Intel got big because of a historical accident, lies and a superior manufacturing process. They never were a good CPU designer. Now that the manufacturing advantage is gone, they die. As it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with ccident/luck and lies but I don't think their manufacturing has been considered superior since the early 80s and they weren't that big back then. The CPU design isn't good but they have done remarkably well at extending the x86 CISC ISA beyond what anybody thought was possible.
Re:What "turnaround"? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are aware that what we use these days is the AMD64 architecture, right? Because Intel _failed_ to provide a workable x86 64 bit architecture...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if you're going to get down in the nomenclature weeds then you also need to acknowledge that we also using the IA64 calling conventions.
Who's "we"? amd64 and IA64 do not propose the same calling conventions, and Windows and everyone else do not use the same calling conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
I am referring to the belief that Intel was going to have diminishing returns pushing the x86 CISC ISA beyond the Pentium regardless of any extensions made to it. From a mid-90's perspective, x86 was a dead-end and there were even people at Intel who thought the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still there though, the CISC instruction set. Because of mandatory backwards compliance (possibly with promises of automatic recoding of existing assembly). They just turn that CISC into micro instructions fed to a RISC/VLIW machine backend, but with a lot of CISCyness (like not caring about word alignment), with many cache layers to make it work. Yes, under the hood it was RISCy, but it was much more complex than the comparable RISC competitor.
Intel did feel this way, which is why the IA-64 wasn't
Re: (Score:2)
Intel had a decent 64 bit architecture, but the market didn't like it. The market demanded 100% backwards compliance. Intel wanted to break out of that, get something more modern, and I can't fault them for that. However the market faulted them for that.
It's a difficult task to make a break with compatibility. Apple did that with dropping PowerPC for Intel, but it took many years of having dual-binaries for this to work. Unsurprisingly I see today in 2024 angst about dropping 32-bit x86 support in some
Re: (Score:2)
Apple had practice. 680x0 => PowerPC => Intel (both x86 and then AMD/64) => ARM/Apple Silicon. The transition was always accompanied by a compatibility layer that ran the old instruction set.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are my mod points when I need them? Itanium/VLIW/Itanic was a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked google's AI, which ought to know because it's made of computers, and it says the last time Intel had clear superiority over TSMC was in 2014. I think it might have even been a little longer than that, but anyhoo it then went on to say "Intel is confident that it will regain the title of the world's most advanced semiconductor manufacturer in 2025 with its 18A process." which I find amusing, and possibly misleading in Intel's favor (Intel is a corporation, not a person, it doesn't have feelings like
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is a while ago, but the Core 2 Duos were pretty amazing at the time. I don't think it was just the process advantage that led to such an enormous leap in performance compared to AMD at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It was mostly a die-shrink and larger caches. Nothing to do with actual CPU architecture. On the architecture-side, Intel scrapped the failed Pentium 4 and based the Core CPUs on the much older Pentium pro architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah well that slot-load configuration sucked! /knows what you really meant
Re: (Score:2)
I think this all required a lot of software redesign as well to use more threading. Of course, it was also faster to get existing serialized code to run faster but the leaps and bounds really came about when software could take advantage of parallelism.
Re: (Score:2)
Most software with easily parallelizable processes which was CPU bound was already redesigned for that. All of the operating systems anyone cares about were already able to make use of multiple processors, even Windows. Did you know there was an octo-processor 486 system BITD? Anyway, what was missing was cheap glue logic. That 486 was quite expensive. Then Digital came up with a convenient multiprocessor bus for Alpha and AMD implemented it for the Athlon, and now here we are. Intel used to be the only PC
Re: (Score:2)
What you're forgetting: Intel moved to the "core" architecture after the massive failure of the Pentium 4 "NetBurst" architecture. "Core" was a retreat and pivot to scaling up the "Centrino" mobile architecture for desktop / server use.
There was a lot that was just wrong with Pentium 4, but they didn't care and shipped it anyway. And then they found out what was wrong after not listening to anyone that wanted to tell them.
Re: (Score:3)
Intel got big because of a historical accident, lies and a superior manufacturing process.
I know this is kind of covered by lies, but you didn't mention "willfully cheating at benchmarks" or "deliberately compromising multithread security" or "tying and bundling"
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. And getting punished for illegal business practices.
Too soon. (Score:5, Informative)
I understand that shares losing value is the driving factor here but it's too soon. Gelsinger was given a company that had gone off a cliff in search of profits and was actually turning it around. The problem is that it takes multiple years to get major microarchitecture changes to market which means that it is the past failures that are dragging him down. I wouldn't be surprised if the results of Gelsinger's efforts finally emerge under the next CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if the results of Gelsinger's efforts finally emerge under the next CEO.
Then I throw my hat in the ring...
Re: (Score:2)
and was actually turning it around
Citation needed. It seems under his watch Intel produced a generation of faulty products, fucked over customers with the warranties, lied repeatedly about fixes and severities, and it also looks like the foundries are being prepared for sale (which is one of the reasons why a company would isolate a division from the rest of the business they way Gelsinger has done).
Sure he was handed a live without the pin, but he seems to be the one that has let go of the striker lever.
I have an idea (Score:2, Flamebait)
But seriously, Gelsinger has managed to knowingly release defective crap. Make chips hotter and call it progress. And mostly importantly, nothing.
Just in time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If 18a were healthy, Gelsinger wouldn't have been pushed out by the board.
Re: (Score:2)
rebuilding Intel's foundry business
Is "rebuilding" a new euphemism for "preparing it for a selling off"? https://www.techradar.com/pro/... [techradar.com]
That is what he's been doing here. Step one in selling off a part of the company is to isolate it from the rest of the business. Spinning it off as a separately run subsidiary is one of the cleanest ways of doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
now that the work is mostly complete and a few quarters from paying off
That's what they said about the last process, which was a failure.
Now you're declaring victory on Intel's behalf before we find out how 18A is going to turn out.
You might be right, but I'd wait on the chicken-counting. As the article you linked says, "a lot of Intel's investments will potentially pay off next year", emphasis mine. It doesn't say what you want it to say, because they are not cheerleading for something that hasn't happened and might not happen until it does.
Intel just died (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's an idiot. They will do better with him gone. Makes me think of what Marissa Mayer did to Yahoo. Didn't anyone even think about looking into her actual history? And what google veterans actually thought about her? Same idea.
No government handouts ? (Score:3)
It looks like the CEO was brought in to bring cash that the government promised under the CHIPS act, but this did not materialize.
Quite a bit of news seem to revolve around manufacturers not getting the grants promised, and this is not just Intel.
https://www.tomshardware.com/t... [tomshardware.com]
https://www.tomshardware.com/n... [tomshardware.com]
Now he's heading out the door.
One strange thing they seem to have done is to corner the market for EUV lithography machines, absorbing all the production of ASML, but not using them for commercially offered chips.
I never liked Intel's hardware offerings, starting with the Celeron of the late 90's and culminating with Itanium's "We'll sweep our dirt under your rug" approach, but I have to admit that their software offerings are second to none.
Their C++ compiler produces number-crunching code that is many times faster than that produced by other compilers.
I hope they will stay around, at least for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The CHIPS act grants are tollgated on meeting specified timelines and production yields. Don't achieve what you said you would? Don't get the subsidy.
Taxpayers aren't interested in paying for failure while the failures continue stock buybacks and self-enrichment.
Re: (Score:3)
Hired gun CEOs with MBAs are wrecking balls (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I am not referring to Pat Gelsinger, who was an actual engineer who came back to Intel to try to save it, I am referring to his predecessor, Bob Swan.
Bob was a typical "business executive" with a business degree and an MBA on top of it (to make him seem more edumacated[smile]). Typical of his type, his career took him from company to company and industry to industry because "business is business, right?". When the board of a company signals that it is made up of morons (by choosing a generic CEO with no background in the company or the industry to lead it), it's time for shareholders to start watching their stocks closely. It was during the Bob Swan years that Intel lost out to TSMC and fell behind in spectacular fashion. Such leadership is incapable of understanding what's happening in an industry it does not understand and where its only indicator of its performance is the current balance sheet. It was during THOSE years when leadership at Intel ought to have been working furiously to get ahead and should have awakened everyday with the mindset that its products were already obsolete and it needed to be in a panic, not sitting complacently and assuming they'd always be dominant because they had the PC architecture.
Pat inherited a true mess, and if he is now replaced with another hired gun generic CEO with an MBA it will be time for investors to bail on that stock.
Re: (Score:2)
His business skills weren't all that bright. Buying all the High NA EUV lithography machines at once was just wasteful. I'm still scratching my head as to why that happened.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you know nothing, but known for sure, that his business skills were lacking. So let's speculate, how about ASML told him "either buy >n machines now or wait in line. Oh, the line means you get them in >3 years"? Or perhaps he just knew, how many lines and therefore machines they would need to produce their own chips and have at least some capacity so that someone would actually choose Intel to produce their chips, as that was the new direction they were trying to go into.
Quite honestly, I
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet too late to change ... (Score:2)
- changing the socket of the CPU every 2 years so upgrading is not an option.
- artificially limiting the functionalities to the higher tier of the offering (overclocking, hyper-threading,
I'm glad of Intel is finally filling the pressure. They alienated enthusiasts but kept going well with advertisement and high performance on the top tier which made nice benchmarks.
When they lost the top tier performance, it took a while for the brand to loose i
Who will be the next old white guy? (Score:1)
Who will be the next old white guy to take the helm at The Titanic?
To me this is no where near enough (Score:1)
To me this is no where near enough, the problem with Intel was there before Pat became CEO, and the problem still exists, the board needs to go and whoever was advising Pat needs to go.
Mr ticktock finally recognized as incompetent (Score:2)
Gelsinger only ever looked good because of wintel, According to Gelsigner, though, Gelsinger looked good because Gelsinger was good. Really good. The master of ticktock. Never mind that he went out in the wild to prove that and practically destroyed VMWare. Just an anomaly right? An anomaly on the path of greatest along which Gelsinger casually strolled from victory to victory.
Not. Gelsinger only ever had one victory, and that was on the back of illegal monopoly. When AMD finally broke that monopoly, Intel
Intel doesn't sell because they can't (Score:2)
I have almost begged Intel to show me their stuff. They promise over and over to call us... they don't. So, Huawei it is