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

Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#611

Post by hintymad »

paxys wrote: post #489
hintymad wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO of a public company is a glorified cheerleader. I find this view limited. If we look at the most successful tech CEOs, they all personally drove the direction of products. Steve Jobs is an obvious example. Elon pushes the products of his companies so much that he even became a fellow of the National Academy of Engineering. Jeff Bezos was widely credited as the uber product manager in Amazon. Andrew Grove pu…

All the CEOs in your example did some great work, yes, but also created a cult following around themselves. They were all shareholder darlings. Most of them are featured in business school textbooks as examples of how to run a company. All this kind of proves the point I'm trying to make. Just being involved in products isn't enough, not by a long shot. You need to make investors go "Steve Jobs is in charge, so the c…

Makes sense. I was saying that cheerleading is not a sufficient condition, while your point is that cheerleading is a necessary condition.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#613

Post by zoofrak »

MPSFounder wrote: post #499

I worked for 3 months for Intel. I can genuinely say that there is no saving that company. Recently, they are hiring many PhDs from various US universities (particularly Indians) to try to compensate (they offer generous stocks and are hiring like crazy right now). There are two major problems I saw: lack of genuine interest in fabs (most people are there for the Intel name and then leave or in the case of Indians, t…

[flagged]

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#614

Post by alliao »

etempleton wrote: post #64

I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. Intel's stock is jumping at this announcement, but I look at it as a bad signal for Intel 18a. If 18a was looking to be a smash hit then I don't think Pat gets retired. If 18a is a success then it is an even more short-sighted decision by the board. What this likely means is two-fold: 1. Intel 18a is being delayed further and/or t…

agree with most except merging usually costs more than less, it usually happens to stack up because you get to axe a lot of employees in the name of synergy I mean duplicated departments

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#615

Post by lobochrome »

etempleton wrote: post #64

I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. Intel's stock is jumping at this announcement, but I look at it as a bad signal for Intel 18a. If 18a was looking to be a smash hit then I don't think Pat gets retired. If 18a is a success then it is an even more short-sighted decision by the board. What this likely means is two-fold: 1. Intel 18a is being delayed further and/or t…

Both of those things might be true, but to me, it looks more like the board is acting out of fear of shareholder lawsuits. Pat's strategy has significantly destroyed value because the market lacks visibility.

Dropping Pat will alleviate their feeling of having to do "something."

As for M&A, it wouldn't just have to be approved at the DoJ. And the Chinese will never ever approve of it (but would have to). If they do a transaction without approval from the CMA, it would be like a nuclear financial war.

I think it's high time to gut intel into parts, a la GE. Sell the Fabless to QCOM or BCOM. Sell the Fabs of one by one to GF, Tower, UMC or even tsmc. Find a PE firm for the leading edge and reconstrue it with significant rnd credits as a kind of Bell labs 2.0.

Or something like that.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#616

Post by XenophileJKO »

etempleton wrote: post #64

I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. Intel's stock is jumping at this announcement, but I look at it as a bad signal for Intel 18a. If 18a was looking to be a smash hit then I don't think Pat gets retired. If 18a is a success then it is an even more short-sighted decision by the board. What this likely means is two-fold: 1. Intel 18a is being delayed further and/or t…

It's so much worse. They put a CFO and a Marketing/Sales professional in charge.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#617

Post by lobochrome »

LittleTimothy wrote: post #11

Difficult to see how this is anything other than a failure. I had high hopes when Gelsinger returned, but it seems that BK had done too much damage and Gelsinger didn't really get a grip on things. One of the things I heard that really highlighted the failure of this recovery was that BK had let Intel balloon in all sorts of ways that needed to be pared back and refocused, but head count under Gelsinger didn't just s…

Agreed.

He should have cut 25% of the workforce to get started (and killed the dividend).

Also - the European expansion and Ohio projects, while good short-term strategies, were too early.

Cut the ship down to size and force existing sites to refocus or be closed. Get alarmist. Make sure you cut out all the bad apples. Prune the tree. Be ruthless and determined.

They should hire Reed Hastings now. He's the OG turnaround king.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#618

Post by ragnot »

zoofrak wrote: post #613
MPSFounder wrote: post #499

I worked for 3 months for Intel. I can genuinely say that there is no saving that company. Recently, they are hiring many PhDs from various US universities (particularly Indians) to try to compensate (they offer generous stocks and are hiring like crazy right now). There are two major problems I saw: lack of genuine interest in fabs (most people are there for the Intel name and then leave or in the case of Indians, t…

[flagged]

Got a link?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#619

Post by lend000 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #602
MPSFounder wrote: post #499

I worked for 3 months for Intel. I can genuinely say that there is no saving that company. Recently, they are hiring many PhDs from various US universities (particularly Indians) to try to compensate (they offer generous stocks and are hiring like crazy right now). There are two major problems I saw: lack of genuine interest in fabs (most people are there for the Intel name and then leave or in the case of Indians, t…

> Most of the talent I know is either at Apple or Facebook/Google That's a damn shame. Big tech monopolies are screwing up the talent market. Nobody can match their comp and it's bullshit

The problem is that Intel is poorly run. Intel should be printing money, and did for a long time until a string of bad leadership. If they had brought in Gelsinger after Otellini, which they were reported to have considered, the company might be in a much better position.

But alas, Intel is a mega bureaucratic company with a few tiny siloed teams responsible for innovating and everyone else being test and process jockeys. I think Gelsinger wasn't given enough time, personally, and agree with the OP that even someone like Elon would struggle to keep this sinking ship afloat at this point.

BK wanted wearables and Bob Swan wanted to cut costs; neither of them were visionaries nor did they really understand that Intel was a hard tech company. Intel had achieved such dominance in such a in-demand, growing market, that all they had to do was make the technology better (smaller, faster, lower power) and the money would continue to flow. The mandate was straightforward and they failed.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#620

Post by mindwok »

Echoing the sentiment this is a huge mistake.

Something I was thinking about the other day: All the mega successful chip companies at the moment: TSMC, Nvidia, Samsung - are all lead by founders or family of founders. It got me wondering that if you really want to innovate in the most innovative industry in the world, you need more skin in the game than stock options. Gelsinger was the closest thing Intel had to a founder-leader, someone who deeply cared about the company and its legacy beyond what they paid him, and was willing to make tough decisions rather than maintain the status quo until his options vest.

I wonder if this is the nail in the coffin.

Post reply on HN