Maybe Intel just needs a Taiwanese CEO? ; )

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Honestly the article is bullshit. It’s right, but for all the wrong reasons. Intel isn’t failing because it failed to buy OpenAI or partner with Apple. Intel is failing because they’ve made shit design decisions on their chips, sat on their laurels when they were riding high and just raised prices (giving up the engineering lead to AMD and TSMC), and then utterly fumbled the responses to multiple public failures when things started to go down hill.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      Half the article is about how it takes 4 bad CEOs to wreck a company and Intel is far down that path.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        CEOs have very little to do with the failure or success of most large companies. If they work very hard they can pull a company out of a death spiral, or start it down one, but failure or success takes years if not decades of steady improvement or decline. All the examples of “failures” given in the article are terrible and don’t demonstrate at all that those CEOs were bad.

        One of the worst problems with businesses in the US currently is this culture of fetishizing CEOs. They’re paid far too much for what they actually bring to companies, and people grossly exaggerate how much of an impact CEOs have on companies. If you want proof of his just take a look at literally any company Elon Musk is a CEO of. The fact that none of those companies (particularly Twitter) have filed for bankruptcy yet shows exactly how little a truly terrible CEO actually impacts things.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Not true. All they need to do is bring in “their own” people and put them on a few key positions. These Nepo babies bring with them the wrong culture and manage a company to death.

          The best people see these assholes coming a mile away and jump ship. They do not get replaced (cost savings on these expensive people is huge) or get replaced by new management with sub standard hires that meet their “yes man” corporate lingo buzzword bullshit standard.

          This causes the next wave of talent to leave, the death spiral is in full swing.

          All this can happen in a few months. The effects might take a while to show, but I guarantee, it is hard to recover from.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yep. All they do is meetings and hand shaking. The real work occurs several steps below them.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’ve also taken the technology basically as far as it can go.

      • Eximius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        A sentence made out of fluff. What technology? AMD took x86 and gave it wings, better efficiency, neither is only negligible iterative improvements. Intel failed to use lower nm nodes as a first fail.

  • cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    generative AI, which OpenAI released to the world in 2022

    What‽ We’ve only been dealing with this shit for 2 years‽ Fuck it feels like 5 LMAO

    • UnityDevice@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      4 months ago

      With 30% ownership it could have been at the forefront of generative AI, which OpenAI released to the world in 2022.

      Do they think openai invented the concept of generative ai, because that’s what their statement implies?

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        Just like musk built the first Tesla in a cave with some scraps. 🙄

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Building an electric motor and powerful battery was the easy bit. To this day, it remains a mystery how he sourced the 10,000 plastic clips that hold a Tesla together.

      • DramaLama@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even if they do think that Open AI invented generative AI, that sentence makes no sense. GPT-1 was released in 2018.

    • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      hopefully the bubble bursts soon enough so we’ll never have to learn how does it feel to deal with it for five years.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Put the newest intern in charge for a year. They couldn’t do much worse than the last 4 CEOs, and would be much cheaper.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I already felt this way about intel when they hired fucking Will.I.Am to be spokesperson. He made more money in a month than most of their engineers in a year. That was a decade ago. It’s only been downhill since. I hope they go fully bankrupt at this point and someone worthy can take over the patents.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    If Intel said yes to Apple, it would have just made Apple a failure. They’ve done a shit job at mobile chips for years, and never would have given Apple the control that has led to Apple being at the forefront of the mobile market. (And don’t have the advanced nodes Apple is taking the lions share of either).

  • masterspace
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Four bad CEOs is like a grade school level of analysis. You can spend half an hour on Wikipedia and come up with like 18 other patterns that connect the companies.

    Do you really think Warren Buffett (or any other serious investor or business analyst), is sitting there counting out the number of bad CEOs on their fingers when making an investment decision?

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I just know I don’t like Pat Gelsinger’s over confident bragging style, it seems dishonest. His claim of winning back Apple was ridiculous, Intel was so far behind what Apple was doing with the M1 it wasn’t even funny. And they are even further behind now, than they were then!
    Whether he succeeds remains to be seen, but it’s not looking good.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe you’re right about Gelsinger. I’ve seen him spew BS but figured he does it because he has to, that Intel has been fundamentally broken for decades, and that he was as a good a CEO choice as they could have made.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        he was as a good a CEO choice as they could have made.

        I’m not so sure, with the scandals of crashing Intel CPU’s we have now, both their CPU line and their production is getting extremely poor PR.
        I suspect Gelsinger pushed unfinished products, because he is desperate for results, and now Intel seems worse off than when he took over reputation wise. Gelsinger is losing both money and PR value on 2 fronts for Intel now.

        Intel used to have a pretty stellar reputation for reliability, especially in the server market. It seems to me they have little left to build on now.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Something something history repeats itself as farce or something

    For context: Intel was founded by people who thought Fairchild Semiconductors wasn’t receiving the necessary funding or respect from the owning company.