Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#101

Post by zvr »

Alupis wrote: post #39
Galanwe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well.

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has. Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead o…

Bureaucracies are about processes.

I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy.

If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy is untouched -- it will just take longer without people and money.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#102

Post by blackhawkC17 »

missedthecue wrote: post #93
brookst wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m with you except “unfortunately”. I don’t think we really want Vanguard trying to be an activist investor in all the companies they have major positions in.

It's a huge downside of passive investing. We lose a democratic element of corporate America by surrendering our votes to a couple big custodians that really don't care either way. I agree that I don't think Vanguard trying to make opinions on 1000s of company votes is the fix.

> We lose a democratic element of corporate America by surrendering our votes to a couple big custodians that really don't care either way.

By design, though, the people who invest with Vanguard do that precisely to offload decisions to experts and focus on other things.

Passive investors have neither the time nor expertise to monitor and vote on corporate decisions, so we're stuck with the current system regardless.

I think Intel is a bureaucracy that's gradually eating itself. Maybe it's harsh, but such companies might not be worth saving. They should be left to fizzle out and another should take their place.

The beauty of capitalism is that giants can fall down to earth, and smaller startups can take their place. Rinse and repeat.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#103

Post by dash2 »

brookst wrote: post #89
missedthecue wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, index funds and mutual funds own about 68% of the Intel, with Vanguard retirement funds being the biggest. These passive custodian investor companies just vote along with the board's recommendation rather than making opinionated or activist decisions.

I’m with you except “unfortunately”. I don’t think we really want Vanguard trying to be an activist investor in all the companies they have major positions in.

I think the post above you asks a relevant question - shouldn't Vanguard, rather than always voting with the board, just not vote at all? Wouldn't that be the truly neutral position?

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#104

Post by dash2 »

htk wrote: post #55

This author has a very interesting mail list on the semiconductor industry, and kind of predicted the new CEO: https://irrationalanalysis.substack.com/p/make-intel-great-a...

I read through some posts and found this, after Gelsinger was fired:

>It’s over.

> If corporations are people, then Intel has decided to commit suicide and sell its vital organs.

Yet now the same guy seems more positive ("The best outcome has happened.... Lip-Bu Tan lacks the critical flaw that Gelsinger had… excessive kindness").

> A tsunami of decapitation (headcount reduction) is coming. However unpleasant the last several years has been… what is coming will be much worse.

> This will be a disorderly decapitation frenzy. Nobody is safe.

Did that happen? If not, did he say why he was mistaken? If not, then is this guy not overconfident and incapable of revising his own priors?

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#106

Post by ahartmetz »

ksec wrote: post #47
alecco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's what I'm trying to understand. His educational background was in Physics/Nuclear Engineering so he's obviously a smart guy, and he was CEO/Chairman of Cadence for 15 years, but other than that his 40+ year career has most been in VC and being on the boards of an incredibly large number of companies. He is no Pat. He is no Andy. He is a business guy with some hard science behind (not electronics per se). It d…

>He is a business guy with some hard science behind (not electronics per se). It doesn't feel right. I think you need to look up Cadence and look into how the fabless industry works. Picking him means Intel is possibly about to spin off or spin out the Chip division and only focus on Fabless.

My interpretation is that Intel didn't understand the customers of the fabless business and Tan does, so he's there to make Intel fabs attractive to them.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#107

Post by rowanG077 »

zvr wrote: post #101
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has. Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead o…

Bureaucracies are about processes . I do not live in the US, and I don't follow all that's happening too closely, but from what I hear it seems that most of DOGE actions are about eliminating people and cutting budgets, which may be a valid way to save money. This has nothing to do with bureaucracy. If, to complete a process, you needed approval by three people and you still need the same approvals, the bureaucracy i…

Bureaucracies are about process. Process require people, a ton of people if you have a ton of processes. If you can slim the processes, a.k.a reduce bureaucracy, then a ton of people can be let go. Also if you let go a ton of people, processes are forced to become more efficient. This becomes problematic only once your processes are reasonably optimized. The later is what I view is essentially the vision of DOGE, they say processes are not efficient. Letting people go should not meaningfully decrease the efficacy of these institutions in the long term.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#108

Post by rowanG077 »

arunabha wrote: post #95
Alupis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The current CEO was supposed to be a down to earth, technical, no bureaucracy guy as well. Turning a ship the size of Intel is a super power in it's own right. Especially one with such a large entrenched bureaucracy as Intel has. Politics aside for a moment - we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE - the main difference is the fight is in full public view instead o…

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot…

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much.

Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of the software engineers. I'm not a heavy twitter user but I haven't noticed any difference in terms of reliability.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#109

Post by cinntaile »

rowanG077 wrote: post #108
arunabha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're seeing the death bellows of many large, entrenched bureaucracies right now with DOGE That's one interpretation, sure. I hope you'll concede that another equally valid one is that we're hearing the deliberate shattering of the only institution in the country capable of standing up to the oligarchs. So far the verifiable cuts made by DOGE are less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget. However, a lot…

Isn't a tenth huge? DOGE is brand new so I'm honestly surprised they have done so much. Anyway at this point it's impossible to predict what will happen. There is no doubt a ton of inefficiency at these bureaucracies. You are making the point that cutting the budget will mean they will become less effective. But that doesn't follow if the departments are totally inefficient. Look at twitter. Musk fired like 80% of th…

There is a massive difference though. It doesn't matter to anyone if Twitter works or not, while a lot of people depend on functioning government agencies.

Re: Intel appoints Lip-Bu Tan as its CEO

#110

Post by DebtDeflation »

gpm wrote: post #74
DebtDeflation wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really simple - either Intel is shipping products on 18A (Panther Lake and Clearwater Forest) by Q1 of next year or they are not, and their entire future hinges on this.

I'm not an expert in the silicon business, but I'm pretty sure the lead time is long enough that an incoming CEO has little impact on whether or not they are shipping a new architecture in less than 12 months. Intel's valuation might hinge on it, but evaluating the CEOs success or not... that doesn't strike me as a great idea.

Totally agree. Even the 3.5 years in the role that Pat Gelsinger got was insufficient to see his strategies come to fruition. At this point it's baked and there's not much anyone can do. My point isn't to assign credit/blame, it's simply to point out that Intel will not survive in its current form if they are not shipping 18A products by this time next year.
Post reply on HN