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

An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

morethanmoore.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#61

Post by ksec »

osnium123 wrote: post #40
m132 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it Pat or Brian? If I recall correctly, it was under Brian when Intel had one of its worst periods of stagnation, when the 10 nm process all the bets were on turned out to be a non-starter, and when Meltdown and Spectre erupted. It's easy to overlook this because Intel had fairly no competition around then, but that doesn't mean the company was in a good shape. I've always felt like Pat was a scapegoat who was ch…

BK really destroyed the company and Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision. Pat was the visionary who saw the value of the fabs but it took a long time to turn things around.

>Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision

Let's be fair to Bob, he has the vision, but dont know how to execute it because he lacks the technical knowledge.

He was also the one who finally settled the argument I had for 5 years, if Intel were to made 250M Modem for Apple, where is the additional Capex for capacity expansion on their Fabs. The answer, only to be told by Bob in a 2020 interview was they never really planned for it.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#62

Post by ksec »

melling wrote: post #18
scrlk wrote: post #12

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. Panther Lake is quite a good CPU and 14A looks like it'll be a competitive process. IMO, it vindicates the decisions that Pat made a few years ago and wasn't able to see through to completion. "Designing microprocessors is like playing Russian roulette. You put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, and find out four years later if you blew your brains out." (Robert…

Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. I thought he would eventually turn the company around but Intel was priced for bankruptcy. Stock price has tripled since last August. Hopefully, Intel is really back. They do need a couple of Fab customers.

>Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet.

Let's face it. Everything he cut, and products / department he sold were what he wanted to do on day one. He had to force his hand, make the stock price worst and ultimately force the board to allow him to do it.

You could argue he laid all the foundation for today's Intel to thrive.

Yes, I am pointing the fingers at the board. Although words on the street was the board also have their hands tied as they were also beholden to large institutional investors. It is all a Game of Cards.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#63

Post by ksec »

aurareturn wrote: post #30
Zigurd wrote: post #26

I got to meet several of Intel senior management when Andy Grove was CEO, Gelsinger was CTO, and Avram Miller was CFO and a pioneer in corporate VC. Even somebody universally acclaimed as smart and hard-working as Lip-Bu Tan will find it impossible to capture the magic of a team like that. Intel's current CEO was hired to explicitly not try to recapture that magic. The board thought Gelsinger's approach of do all the…

You probably met Intel management when they were booming in the old days. LBT was hired to replace Pat because the board needed someone who didn't have the rose colored glasses that old Intel management had and actually see Intel what it is today: losing in everything. When LBT took over, Intel was on a path to bankruptcy. Although Pat wasn't solely responsible, he was financially reckless and failed to win any major…

> he was financially reckless and failed to win any major customers for Intel's new IFS strategy.

So currently the IFS has a few potential customers was because of LBT and not Pat?

>* Now they're missing the fab boom by cancelling fabs a few years ago

Reckless in finance but also missing the Fab boom?

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#64

Post by osnium123 »

ksec wrote: post #61
osnium123 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BK really destroyed the company and Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision. Pat was the visionary who saw the value of the fabs but it took a long time to turn things around.

>Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision Let's be fair to Bob, he has the vision, but dont know how to execute it because he lacks the technical knowledge. He was also the one who finally settled the argument I had for 5 years, if Intel were to made 250M Modem for Apple, where is the additional Capex for capacity expansion on their Fabs. The answer, only to be told by Bob in a 2020 interview was they n…

I think the 5G modems were intended to be manufactured by TSMC even before they sold the division to Apple.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#65

Post by lukan »

huijzer wrote: post #41
fooker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read Asimov ;)

I’ve seen the TV show but don’t know what you mean. If you want to say something then say it

Asimov's 3 laws of robotics I assumed to be general knowledge around here, but here you go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#66

Post by Marsymars »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #48
zozbot234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issuing a dividend is a terrible sign for the market. It's telling investors "we have so much money that we have no idea what to do with, please take some of it yourself and invest it somewhere other than Intel."

Have always felt stock buy-backs are equally terrible. “We have all this money but we have no long term vision for how to grow the company. We’ll just keep doing what we’ve been doing prop up our share price instead”.

That's better than companies that have poor visions for growing the company where the money gets spent on projects that and don't generate an ROI for investors.

On a broader societal basis, it's often better for companies to stay in their lane, return profits to shareholders, and let shareholders invest in new companies with more growth potential.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#67

Post by tw04 »

melling wrote: post #18
scrlk wrote: post #12

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. Panther Lake is quite a good CPU and 14A looks like it'll be a competitive process. IMO, it vindicates the decisions that Pat made a few years ago and wasn't able to see through to completion. "Designing microprocessors is like playing Russian roulette. You put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, and find out four years later if you blew your brains out." (Robert…

Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. I thought he would eventually turn the company around but Intel was priced for bankruptcy. Stock price has tripled since last August. Hopefully, Intel is really back. They do need a couple of Fab customers.

Much like a president, most of their decisions take years to really be felt. The major changes Pat made weren’t going to change the balance sheet for years.

What exactly has Intel done that’s dramatically different than Pat’s vision that you feel is increasing share price?

Or is it just that they sold their soul to Trump combined with Pat’s choices finally bearing fruit?

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#68

Post by moogly »

Zigurd wrote: post #28
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because religion should not mix with business. CEO's should be sufficiently self aware to understand that they should not be foisting their beliefs on the company and their employees and customers. Being unable to recognize that is a very bad tell about a persons judgement.

Of all the openly religious people, Gelsinger did the least to mix business and religion. Whereas an irreligious person like Peter Thiel says some really wacky religious stuff.

I mean, Gloo is the counter to your point.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#69

Post by fooker »

sifar wrote: post #57
huijzer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen the TV show but don’t know what you mean. If you want to say something then say it

Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of man. Oh wait that is Dune :). I think what OP meant is Asimov's stories revolve around issues arising from loopholes or some interpretation of the three laws of robotics.

Correct, I meant it in a more general way.

Asimov’s favorite overarching theme is that whenever you try to constraint robot/AI ethics with rules, creative misinterpretations or misunderstandings tend to have outsized impact.

Re: An Interview with Pat Gelsinger

#70

Post by etempleton »

scrlk wrote: post #12

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. Panther Lake is quite a good CPU and 14A looks like it'll be a competitive process. IMO, it vindicates the decisions that Pat made a few years ago and wasn't able to see through to completion. "Designing microprocessors is like playing Russian roulette. You put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, and find out four years later if you blew your brains out." (Robert…

I said it at the time and I reiterate it now. Pat had the right strategy and was the right person for the job. His decision are justified. He could have played the politics better with the board and externally and that is why I think he got fired, but he laid the ground work for where they are now.
Post reply on HN