[deleted]
Intel's Fall from Grace
31–36 of 36 posts
Re: Intel's Fall from Grace
#32The metastory here is actually about Intel, Boeing, and most recently, Chrysler. How they each did it is a little different, but they all turned the dial all the way to "short-term profit."
I often wonder whether there's a correlation between the reduction in a company's profitability and quality with its decision to hire cheaper offshore workers, or insourcing cheaper workers from abroad. I wonder if the smart money did any type of internal studies regarding this type of correlation.
Any strategy or tactic option works based on its fit with circumstances. Given that, it’s usually fine details of situation and execution that produce success or failure.
And where to find enough companies reflecting Intel’s situation, without confounding factors, for a survey?
“Correlations” are not the best inputs for business decisions.
But I don’t doubt there would have been lots of consultants ready to manufacture such a survey if Intel had signaled demand…
Re: Intel's Fall from Grace
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Intel dominated because their fabs were better. At some point they got complacent and stopped investing. Pat changed that and hopefully it continues. I thought the board wanted to split the company in two, while Pat wanted to invest in the fabs. Now that he's gone, doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business?
I think it is conjecture that is what the board wants. I myself have mused on here that is what they want, but I honestly think it would be a huge mistake, especially at this point. I think they are too far invested in this strategy to abandon it now.
>I honestly think it would be a huge mistake, especially at this point. I think they are too far invested in this strategy to abandon it now.
Don't assume any great intelligence on the part of these board members. If all these company-running people were so brilliant, Intel wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
Re: Intel's Fall from Grace
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right, but > if they can deliver 18a in 2025 What on earth makes you believe this is a possibility given their last 10 years? For Intel's sake, I hope I eat crow. But fool me once, shame on you...
>What on earth makes you believe this is a possibility given their last 10 years? You mean the 10 years prior to Pat? Since his arrival he plan of 5 node in 4 years has been executing well so far. The last node in that plan is 18A.
Executing so well that they’re fabbing basically all of their current products at their biggest competitor TSMC instead of their own fabs? That doesn’t really scream successful execution to me…
As you said, 18A is the last node of that plan, so by now if they were executing well on those nodes they should be fabbing all their products on the Intel 3 and 20A processes but they’re not. In fact they don’t even have a 20A process to use because they cancelled it, so clearly that wasn’t executed well.
Re: Intel's Fall from Grace
#35Intel's board needs to go. They're not in a bad position, they were the first to take delivery of a high NA EUV lithography machine, their most recent products are really good, and they're seen as a cornerstone of the USA's semiconductor strategy should larger scale war break out (almost a certainty at this point). If they stay the course they'll be in an amazing position. Especially if China makes a move on Taiwan..…
Yes. Many exercise by pla and one is active even now (and the largest one). It is more a question of when. And would USA just sit and watch then. If so, how about the chip … the relocation of talent like physicist under nazi germany may not be done in time.
Re: Intel's Fall from Grace
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
>doesn't that mean the board will find someone who agrees with them about spinning off the fab business? I dont think that is even possible. Given the money they received from CHIP Act. They could spin off x86 business, but may be not the Fab. My guess is that The board actually want Intel to be itself back in the good old days, leading edge node and selling CPU at a premium. Hence they want to scale down their scale…
For national security reasons, the fab side might be too important to fail, and the US government will continue to subsidize them in being 2 years behind TSMC. The x86 business is in a weirder place because switching to the latest TSMC node would be an immediate improvement and its problems are more tractable, but it's less strategically important (another domestic vendor with near drop-in replacements exists), and b…
Unless tame is a us based fab and a U.S.A. company even. Then … but probably before that Taiwan war started. Hence still have to have U.S.A. base in the next few years.