I remember a time Intel was so dominant that when no other competitor could match them, even when they supplied nearly everybody, they never had a problem producing. Times have really changed.
I remember a time Intel was so dominant that when no other competitor could match them, even when they supplied nearly everybody, they never had a problem producing. Times have really changed.
Without context I agree. I do think he probably focused to much on it rather than Intel failing to stay ahead and advancing their nodes at an industry leading rate.
Without context I agree. I do think he probably focused to much on it rather than Intel failing to stay ahead and advancing their nodes at an industry leading rate.
IMHO, they hired him too late and when Intel made a quarterly loss, the shareholders wanted blood.
From what I hear, he was offered the job earlier, but the board of directors wouldn't approve his fabs revamp plan. Then Bob Swan became Intel full-time CEO in 2019. After that, they went back to Pat and gave him the job and permission. In other words, Intel's board wasted two years with a finance man as CEO, not a tech leader. Just imagine how much better off Intel would be if Pat's plan had started a year or two earlier. Intel would have had more cash to spend (instead of giving it all away to shareholders), and its fabs would be ahead of where they are now (due to the extra time on the strategy).
The problem with Pat is that shareholders love money more than they like having an improving company. Pat had a five-year plan, and the board gave him 3. Intel's problems caught up with it before Pat's changes bore fruit. Prior Intel CEOs deserve the blame for the company's decline, Brian Krzanich mostly.