Slashdot Asks: What Happened To Intel? 120
Intel's board of directors ousted CEO Pat Gelsinger after losing confidence in his ambitious turnaround strategy. The move comes as Intel posted significant losses, including $16.6 billion in Q3 2024, its worst quarterly result ever. Under Gelsinger's leadership, Intel struggled to compete in the AI chip market dominated by Nvidia, while facing manufacturing challenges and declining data center revenue.
Analysts suggest the board may be considering splitting off Intel's foundry business, though such a move could face scrutiny from the U.S. Commerce Department due to $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding. The Verge adds: But Moorhead and Creative Strategies analyst Ben Bajarin both believe Gelsinger's departure was so sudden, it can't simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back. "There must have been a decision the board made that he was not going to stick around for," Moorhead tells me.
His hunch: Intel's board may want to split off its foundry business entirely, above and beyond the spinoff that Gelsinger already announced, turning Intel into a company that simply designs chips like its direct rivals.
Analysts suggest the board may be considering splitting off Intel's foundry business, though such a move could face scrutiny from the U.S. Commerce Department due to $8 billion in CHIPS Act funding. The Verge adds: But Moorhead and Creative Strategies analyst Ben Bajarin both believe Gelsinger's departure was so sudden, it can't simply have been the straw that broke the camel's back. "There must have been a decision the board made that he was not going to stick around for," Moorhead tells me.
His hunch: Intel's board may want to split off its foundry business entirely, above and beyond the spinoff that Gelsinger already announced, turning Intel into a company that simply designs chips like its direct rivals.
American Business practices (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
classism breeds corruption which produces incompetency
Lifecycle of Human Institutions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, you're right, but there are many counter examples, such as Nintendo which since 1889 it has reinvented itself many times.
It is possible to get out of such a rut, Apple did it at least once too.
It's a leadership problem. Someone has to push the change and see it through.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, you're right, but there are many counter examples, such as Nintendo
I would argue that those are not so much counter examples so much as evidence that some institutes are more resilient against these two dangers and so last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That nicely sums it up. Also refer to Boeing or (still in an earlier stage of this), Google or Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
next,
And all of the other companies that are prospering using these practices are prospering because... why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:American Business practices (Score:5, Informative)
Counter points:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/a... [nvidia.com]
https://www.tsmc.com/static/en... [tsmc.com]
https://www.amd.com/en/corpora... [amd.com]
https://www.asml.com/en/compan... [asml.com]
need I continue?
Re: (Score:2)
need I continue?
No need. You're replying to an uninformed troll who isn't even willing to put a pseudonym on their bullshit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nice post, comrade.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Go woke, go broke" never happens and people who retort that exist in a bubble of morons. You are confusing content that people don't consume because it's too gay, with a major american companies that don't act like assholes to their staff because someone won't stay in the closet.
Apple is the most successful company in the US, why is that? Steve Jobs? Tim Cook? Both of these people are pretty clearly "DEI" hires, yet you'd rather get a shitty person like Trump to run the company in to the ground because tha
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is very close to bankruptcy with woke Trudeau as another example [...]
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
They put that up just like every other large company in the US because they needed to curry favor with the folks in power, enforced by the brownshirts who disrupt companies from within and without.
The real question is whether they actually did anything differently to comport with their avowed DEI devotion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a classist comment, it's a paid-for troll from the enemies of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a classist comment, it's a paid-for troll from the enemies of the US.
greedy selfish rich people are our real enemy and greed will be our downfall
look at all the pseudo-conservatives deep in denial about how evil they are
Re: (Score:2)
your abusive attitude speaks volumes about you, btw, your self-justifications aren't fooling anyone but you
When They Were 2nd, Karma Bit Their A$$es (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When They Were 2nd, Karma Bit Their A$$es (Score:5, Informative)
Intels grip on them, probably with sweetheart deals to increase desktop profit of large prebuilts, had been propping them up in that market. Which maybe lead to their shitty 13/14 gen CPUs being shitty failure rate chips and them trying to hide it for up to 2 years.
This on top of the CEO that talked about how sweet their deal was with a chip manufacturer, causing the chip manufacturer to basically stop the deal and charge full price to Intel.
I would say that gluttony and hubris caused Intels fall in this area, as they basically didnt pay attention to it, didnt care, and thought they had enough dominance to openly gloat and thumb their noses.
Or in other words, INtel told desktop users "let them eat cake"
Re:When They Were 2nd, Karma Bit Their A$$es (Score:5, Interesting)
The shift in desktop(from slightly over 10% AMD in first half of 2017 to slightly over 20% in second half of 2024) and mobile(from 10% to 20% between 2018 and 2024) is certainly noticeable; but it's server CPUs where the shift is most dramatic(~1%in 2017-2018; 24% in 2024) and where the shift in margins is downright brutal: Q2 2024 results for Intel were $3 billion for 76% of datacenter CPUs; AMD saw $2.8 billion on 24%.
That's an absolute bloodbath on the datacenter side(probably made worse by the number of AI hypebeasts who are spending less on CPUs in order to hit GPUs and 'AI' networking requirements harder): AMD went from basically not existing to making almost half the money between the 7001s and the 9005s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 7001 series was "Epyc Rome", based on the zen microarchitecture; started releasing mid-2017. It was followed by the 7002 series (Rome) based on Zen2, in mid 2019, then the 7003 (Milan) Zen3 parts. 4th and 5th gen got a little more complicated; with 4th gen including Genoa, Bergamo, and Siena; with both Zen4 and Zen4c higher core count parts and Sienna's smaller socket and reduced memory controller for smaller systems. 5th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When They Were 2nd, Karma Bit Their A$$es (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel had dominance because AMD was flailing. They had all the technology, but they were slower and such. Only Sony and Microsoft kept them from going under during the era with the PS4 and Xbox One. And likely Intel as well probably bought a bunch of AMD CPUs to throw away to keep AMD from going under.
That changed with Ryzen and suddenly AMD was the hotness again with fast chips and good pricing. AMD has had the lead several times - from the K5 era to Athlon series dominating both in price and performance to that weird time with the Pentium 4 Rambus. Then Intel started to dominate again and such.
It's the cycle of life, and Intel may be fumbling about, but they fumbled about in the past as well. Eventually they'll figure something - likely realizing they need to work on pricing to match the (lack of) performance.
Competition is good - AMD needs Intel to come around or it'll eventually sit on their ass and release a dud of a Ryzen that's too expensive and too poor performing.
Re: (Score:3)
Intel has been shit for so long that they are having trouble figuring out how not to be.
Their chips have been mini furnaces since the Pentium 4 era. They have been having hardware defects since the 90s, with the most recent being Spectre/Meltdown and the 13th and 14th gen chips self destructing. They also like to change socket and make everything incompatible every couple of years, so there is rarely any kind of upgrade path like you get with AMD.
Their manufacturing process is weak too, and AMD is taking fu
Re: (Score:3)
Intel had dominance initially cos they were better then AMD.
AMD was better in terms of technology / cost / performance during the Athlon days. Thats when Intel almost killed AMD by basically bribing / threatening OEMs to use Intel exclusively.
They probably can't do that again since presumably EU and others are watching them (after all Intel got fined a billion bucks if I recall correctly for that bs) and unfortunately they have been stagnant for so long (and having CFO promoted to CEO and intead of doing R
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, yes. Also note that Intel is essentially a convicted criminal because of massive illegal anti-competitive practices. These a) do not work forever and b) rot your ability to actually compete on merit. Also see Boeing and yet to fall (but it will happen for pretty much the same reasons) Google and Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel has held dominance only because of its desktop deals.
That is insanely shortsighted. Intel held dominance because it had products people wanted at the price people wanted. At a time when AMD was shipping no iGPU, Intel offered businesses what AMD couldn't. At the time AMD was promising more cores, Intel offered gamers what AMD couldn't (better IPC). Just after the move to 64bit Intel also trumped AMD on efficiency per clock (after behing behind in the P4 days).
It wasn't until recently (and I mean post pandemic recently) that AMD really had a product offering t
Re: (Score:2)
AMD destroyed intel multiple times over the past 20 years, starting with 64 bit processing.
on the desktop side, it was only twice in 2 decades: athlon 64, and the current 3d cache chips (specifically for gaming).
intel's conroe/core 2 duo annihilated amd and sent them into therapy.
bulldozer was a joke and eventually amd came back with the zen architecture... but it was only competitive, not top-of-the-line.
not as familiar with server/enterprise CPUs, but everything ive seen points to epyc/threadripper being well regarded, but not destroying intel's offerings.
Re:When They Were 2nd, Karma Bit Their A$$es (Score:4, Interesting)
> had to buy whatever marginally improved chip intel swept from the edge of the desk--for gouged prices.
Worse, post Bulldozer in the HEDT era the perfect example, IMHO, of Intel price gouging customers was the 50% price drop of the i9 10980XE compared to the previous i9 9980XE! How do you price drop a high-end CPU by 50% over 1 generation if the previous version wasn't price gouging???
Intel literally held quad-core computers back almost a decade before AMD made "cores for cheap" with a fantastic bang/buck especially with Ryzen and the AM4 platform.
If Intel isn't careful AMD might end up buying them.
Why would anyone buy Intel right now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would anyone buy an Intel CPU over an AMD CPU when team red is so much better?
Re: (Score:2)
That, along with low to midrange desktops, is also where Intel's offerings are at their most credible. The persistent attempts by some vendors to depict a
Re: (Score:3)
Laptop OEMs are still enjoying deep discounts on 10nm parts from Intel. AMD is charging.a lot for new products like Strix Point (not so much for previous gen Hawk Point).
Take supply complaints from OEMs with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Stability on mobile. My Ryzen based Thinkpads have all been shitshows due to a combination of UEFI/EC FW bugs and bad drivers. Things like Windows refusing to reliably wake from standby/hibernate right down to random shutdowns/reboots... this behaviour persisted until enough firmware updates had been released, meaning for the year or two that I used the devices I got about 3-6 months of stability out of each.
I've never ever had that kind of instability on an Intel based T/X/W/P series Thinkpad.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. It may be a Lenovo problem, not an AMD problem. Because my HP laptops with Ryzen have been extremely stable and reliable in the past 3 years. Not one single problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that it's a Lenovo problem, but I'm assuming there are underlying reasons, such as (speculation) more mature reference designs, better example code and better support from Intel for UEFI FW and EC FW dev. - I find it unlikely that the AMD platform FW dev teams at Lenovo just dropped the ball while the Intel platform teams are simply much more competent...
My experience has been (and continues to be) ~5 modern Intel Thinkpads with no issues and 3 modern AMD Thinkpads (Ryzen 6xxx gen and up) that al
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this with both Intel and AMD based Thinkpad E14's - Gens 2 up until 4 (manage a fleet of about 100) - issues with Windows and standby; problems with the sound, etc - the latest BIOS updates have fixed these problems in both cases. I wonder if Lenovo's QA is a bit sloppy when these newer Thinkpads are released
Re: (Score:3)
Your one data-point is interesting. I raise you one "I have never had this problem on my AMD thinkpads (E14 and a new Idea Pad slim).
Re: (Score:3)
Not a problem unless the software is very niche...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupidity, subserviency to the "biggest" player, mental inflexibility. Intel has had the worse offer for half a decade now or longer and across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
I would buy even a VIA CPU for the right price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, I would get myself a 32-core VIA Kaisheng/Yongfeng x86-64 CPU.
Re: (Score:2)
No more Cyrix CPUs since 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about *so much* better, but marginally more like it.
Both have good and bad. I prefer AMD right now, and I don't see myself buying Intel for any reason in the next five years. AMD is in the lead, but I in the next five years, could a RISC chip be equally in the lead? Maybe.
Ryzen seem pretty good in the laptops these days, just as much in the desktops. Why are so many laptops Intel? Don't those sales topple desktops right now?
Maybe people just need to be more familiar with red stickers on the lap
Server-Wise, AMD is Cheaper (Score:3)
If you think that RAM isn't a big deal, then please make arrangements to send me a MB/RAM/CPU combo, to my sig. I need, absolutely need 256GB of RAM, want 512GB or better for doing OpenFoam Computation Fluid Dynamics tests on a home-spun car body. If I had 1-2 TB of RAM, that would get the unbiased mesh down about 1mm, which is at the point of diminishing returns.
Re:Server-Wise, AMD is Cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
Intel:
- Sandy Bridge then Ivy Bridge [LGA2011]
- Haswell then Broadwell [LGA2011-3]
- Sky Lake then Cascade Lake [LGA3647]
- Cooper Lake then Ice Lake [LDA4189]
- Sapphire Rapids then Emerald Rapids [LGA4677]
AMD:
- Opteron/Bulldozer [G34 - ZIF1944]
- Zen, Rome, Milan [SP3 - ZIF4094]
- Genoa, Bergamo, Turin [SP5 - ZIF6096]
If you're talking about support for O(1TB) of memory, I assume you're referring to server parts because until pretty recently even most server motherboards didn't implement enough physical memory address lines to support 1TB.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody really bought Cooper Lake though.
Re: (Score:2)
My work has a shared development server from about 2020, with dual xeon cpu's and 1TB of RAM
It's just an average multi-socket HP server I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel typically released a platform, then released a refresh of it the next year, and then it was dead and you needed a new motherboard to upgrade.
It was artificial obsolescence, and some Chinese manufacturers found ways around it that let them recycle chipsets and CPUs from Intel e-waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AM4 was quite long lived, and I expect AM5 will be too.
Same thing as Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Once the competent people retired, the leeches took over the place and didn't know how to keep it running. They fired a bunch of their smart technical people, cutting the wheels out from under their bus.
Really, the amazing thing is that Intel managed to keep going for two decades after that happened. They had some strong inertia.
Re: Same thing as Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Happened when McDonnell Douglas execs took over Boeing.
It's mind boggling how someone thought it was a good idea to not fire the management of the failing McDonnell, and keep the Boeing execs.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the fact that the original management is tired and wants to exit the company often compounds the problem. But the main problem is the leeches coming in. As one small example I give Ada [crunchbase.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The corporate ladder climbers are only in it for themselves, to the detriment of the company and those around them.
Eventually they make it to the top and everything collapses
Re: (Score:2)
Simple (Score:4, Interesting)
Competition happened.
Intel's had plenty of blunders over the years. Remember when 2+2 didn't have to equal 4 [wikipedia.org]? Good times, good times.
But through all their mistakes, there was never anyone who was really poised any threat to overtake them. AMD was the only real competition in the early aughts, but even they discovered how hard it was to really dethrone Intel. Like, impossibly hard.
But no dynasty lives forever, and eventually their winning streak came to an end. They spent way too long trying to figure out how to shrink their fab below 10nm, and others caught up then surpassed them. Now it's rebuilding time...if they can afford to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
The FDIV bug, thoroughly reported, would not have affected 2+2. It didn't even affect most division calculations. The wikipedia entry you linked to includes this tidbit:
Doesn't mean they didn't screw up. (As with most things, the way they handled the mi
Re: (Score:2)
My memory is extremely hazy on this but I remember people saying that it was a rare occurrence and not worth worrying about, but then people started to notice this "rare" thing wasn't that rare in practice. FP calculations aren't composed of wide ranging random numbers, you tend to have a whole lot of calculations within a narrow range of values and if that's the problem range, then you'll get a whole lot of imprecision. And that was ultimately why Intel had to issue the belated recall, when it became demon
Three and half years and no turnaround (Score:4, Informative)
Intel actually isn't doomed... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are being compared to Nvidia and the massive AI bubble they are riding. They are in the middle of some bad PR and bad execution for sure, but it's really a lot of short pressure from investors that want "all the money now" versus long term growth and investment in fabs and more reasonable investments in AI acceleration. Frankly, when the AI bubble pops, NVidia will be way more exposed to downward market pressure than Intel and AMD.
They have a very good story on the newest Xeons and has a really good roadmap overall. And AMD is putting good pressure on them to get on top of things.
Intel would do well to spin the foundry side back in and shore it up and frankly, they should get more government support to do so. Having TSMC be the only source of high end fabrication is not a good thing. Yea, it's protectionist, but in this case, I think that's a good thing.
Re: Intel actually isn't doomed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Too many stock buybacks (Score:5, Insightful)
It also meant they couldn't take any useful risks like outbidding AMD for the PS4 contract. To be fair consoles tend to be low profit margin because as the console life cycle continues there's pressure to make cheaper CPUs and GPUs but still that didn't happen this time around with console prices staying pretty high allowing AMD to consistently make money off the hardware.
They also dragged their feet getting into the GPU market so they're too far behind to really take advantage of the Bitcoin and AI bubbles. Again they didn't have a lot of money lying around to take risks with because so much money was tied up in stock buybacks.
There's a good reason stock buybacks used to be illegal and why they should be now. But our economy is going to be such a mess for the next 4 years it hardly matters
Intel never managed to make a decent GPU (Score:3)
That has been the core problem for the past 25 years or so.
Intel was always pushing second class GPUs with a lot of buzzwords.
But when it came down to performance, they never managed to build something that came close to nVidia or AMD.
Their CPU strategy lost (Score:4, Interesting)
(Purely technical perspective, don't really know much about the business side.)
I may have some good insight here- worked for a major computer manufacturer in networking. For at least 20+ years (30?), their strategy has been to pull as much computing back in to the CPU as possible. There are some good reasons- high bandwidth, low latency. (and problems, heat and analog performance). They kinda did a "pshaw" with all the video stuff, and maybe a half-hearted attempt, but when the algorithms broke out into the GPU, they were in trouble.
Overall, I expected that the concentration on the CPU itself was the downfall. Yes, Intel is active in many other technology areas, but their focus on all these areas is that they are peripherals of the CPU, connected as close as possible to the CPU. When the peripheral does not push its work to the CPU, it wasn't prioritized.
Some basic stuff got forgotten about at Intel (Score:2)
Like everything, there are multiple ways to look at the problems. But, there is a fundamental design side, and then there is the fabrication side, and Intel really got lost when it comes to design going back 15 years now. If you think about it, you can take a design, and put it on almost any fab process. There will be a lot of differences when it comes to the fab process, clock speeds, how much power things can handle before things break down, power draw, and more, but at the heart, you have to think
Andy Grove (Score:2)
No Andy Grove, no Intel. This is repeated innumerous times.
Only one guy can save them now (Score:3)
Re:Did he use the word "woman"? (Score:5, Insightful)
That has zero to do with problems that stem back to when chipzilla saw Andy Grove retire. They fought every competitor like dogs to retain their throne. Innovation was about acquisitions, not innovation. They stagnated, bought endless number of seeming cash cows only to watch them die. They bought great software, only to kill it. They bought lots of stuff, but at the center, the chip innovations made didn't work. Mitre/Sceptre ate their lunch, as cache prediction and instruction pre-fetch designs were suddenly found to be deeply flawed.
They couldn't build low power chips. They missed the ARM revolution and every phone has ARM in it because they missed that boat. Every serious GPU is built by NVIDIA because they didn't pay attention to building GPU software ecosystems and GPU libs.
At every conceivable turn, Intel scratched its balls instead of being at the forefront of various revolutions-- and it was theirs to lose, and they did. They sacked any number of CEOs like bad football coaches. Their core revenues ran out of fuel, the cash cows starved, dead, or murdered on acquisition.
They blew it for two decades, but the core patents and antique fabs kept going and going. Gelsinger was the wrong guy to hire. He should've slashed, burned, regrouped vastly, and try to re-invigorate what was once a pioneering spirit of very capable engineers and thinkers. Didn't happen. Hope someone has butter and jam, because they are toast.
Re:Did he use the word "woman"? (Score:4, Informative)
"Grove popularized the concept of the "strategic inflection point," a crucial time that demands a major change in strategy due to shifts in the business environment. A company's growth depends on recognizing and effectively navigating these points."
Re:Did he use the word "woman"? (Score:5, Informative)
They also spent $100 billion in stock buybacks. https://www.calcalistech.com/c... [calcalistech.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I get that it makes the price of stock go up by artificially reducing the number of available shares, but $100 billion? Couldn't they just buy their entire stock back and go private? Or wouldn't they want that? What's the point of buying $100 billion of your own stock?
My guess is that executive bonuses were based primarily on stock price, and buying back stock is easier than innovating to increase market share and/or margins.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that it makes the price of stock go up by artificially reducing the number of available shares, but $100 billion? Couldn't they just buy their entire stock back and go private? Or wouldn't they want that? What's the point of buying $100 billion of your own stock?
My guess is that executive bonuses were based primarily on stock price, and buying back stock is easier than innovating to increase market share and/or margins.
Companies mainly do stock buybacks to increase internal control of their direction and increase shareholder value. Execs are shareholders, of course, but their shares are small compared to the mass of investors that own the stock. Stock buybacks are not a bad thing, and lots of successful companies do them [bankrate.com]:
"Apple announced the largest stock buyback in U.S. history in May 2024, authorizing the repurchase of $110 billion of its own stock, as part of its fiscal second-quarter 2024 earnings report. With the a
Re:Did he use the word "woman"? (Score:5, Informative)
I get that it makes the price of stock go up by artificially reducing the number of available shares, but $100 billion? Couldn't they just buy their entire stock back and go private? Or wouldn't they want that? What's the point of buying $100 billion of your own stock?
It's essentially a more tax efficient way to distribute profits because capital gains taxes are less than income taxes (there are other tricks too - such as taking out loans against your unrealised share portfolio so you pay zero tax).
Traditionally, a company would distribute profits to shareholders using dividends, but these are taxed quite highly (though hilariously still typically less than the lowly wage earner). What they do now is buy back their stock, which boosts the value of remaining stock, and hence the profits appear as capital gains for stockholders. By having a continual supply of stock options to employees, and a continual buyback program, they have effectively replaced a portion of their salary scheme with the same mechanism. No payroll or income taxes.
It's why when CEOs proudly claim they will take zero salary, they're actually having a laugh, as it's much more tax efficient for them to get their income through stock buybacks than a salary.
If a company is only using profits it would have otherwise distributed to as dividends to do this, then it's not really a big deal (other than the not paying tax on it bit). But in modern times, companies have found ways to essentially load the company up with debt and distribute this debt to shareholders as well. It's essentially like taking a mortgage against the business and paying it to the shareholders and is straight out of the private equity playbook. The danger with this is that it loads up the company with debt and generally sacrifices long term growth for short term gains. TBH though, when interest rates were zero, even companies like Apple were loading up with debt, which is another reason why the fed's zero interest rate policy was so stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
They missed the ARM revolution
They didn't just miss it, they threw it away. [wikipedia.org] This was after it landed in their lap from DEC suing them.
And then they later doubled down on x86 in embedded. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel at least made the attempt to get alternatives to their ball-and-chain x86 families.
Do you mean Itanic? Yeah, that did them so much good. In the end they had to copy from AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple had no choice. Even with ARM, their users have battery anxiety. Intel is nearly a decade behind. Recovery, given flawed architecture, isn't easily possible. AMD is positioned in a way that leverages Intel IP, and smarter fab supply chain.
Whoever takes Gelsinger's spot will find little joy. As you mention, the technical debt is long and expensive to service.
Re: (Score:3)
Intel climbed very hard onto the gender ideology bandwagon, with a lot of "equal outcome" promotion. Is anyone surprised they're punting people who make any threat of melting one crystal off a snowflake?
Ahh yes, nothing says "I'm woke and DEId all expertise to women" more than an entire lead-ship staff where the only women are the head of HR and the heads of a few companies we acquired who had women leading them at the time.
On a scale of 9-10 how much of a moron are you?
Re: (Score:2)
On a scale of 9-10 how much of a moron are you?
12
Re: (Score:2)
HAHHAHA Okay I'll pretend that wasn't a typo when I wrote "leadership team". After all "lead-ship team" works just as well for the sinking ship.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was a leadership decision to hire on any basis other than competence
Then the consequences are all the leadership's fault. Period. No buts and ifs. In fact, most companies' failures are the leadership's fault. Because the job of the leadership is just that - to ensure success, not just to enrich themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
> fould to deal with national policy (which isn't really meaningfull)
Boy, you got that right.
Re: (Score:3)
Simply chip manufacturing is not profitable
Tell that to TSMC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which Chris?