Former Intel CEO has a radical solution for the company: Fire the board and rehire Pat Gelsinger

zohaibahd

Posts: 978   +19
Staff
A hot potato: Craig Barrett is firing shots at Intel's board over its proposal to break the company up into multiple smaller pieces and sell parts of the business to TSMC. The former Intel CEO called it the "dumbest idea around" that would squander the "accomplishments" made under Pat Gelsinger's leadership.

Barrett, who ran Intel from 1998 to 2005, didn't mince words in his opinion piece published on Fortune, where he expressed a starkly different take. He says the only viable path forward for the company is to stay unified and double down on its latest 18A process node and imaging technologies like high NA EUV lithography.

Perhaps even more radically, Barrett contends that Gelsinger should be brought back. That's because under the ousted CEO, Intel finally regained technical parity with TSMC at the 2nm node after years of stagnation, according to Barrett.

"Pat Gelsinger did a great job at resuscitating the technology development team," Barrett wrote, highlighting Intel's lead in novel areas like backside power delivery in addition to the 18A process itself. He added that a better move over simply breaking the company down might be to fire the board and rehire Gelsinger to "finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years."

The critique pulls no punches against the "well-meaning but off target" current Intel board members. He compared them in a seemingly sarcastic way to "two academics and two former government bureaucrats – just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry."

Barrett went so far as to place the blame for Intel's poor performance squarely on the shoulders of the board members, saying "they bear ultimate responsibility for what has happened to Intel over the last decade."

Where Intel faltered in the past, per Barrett, was its outdated fabrication technologies. But now, with 18A bringing Intel's foundry ops up to speed, a split would only "introduce complications" rather than solve anything. Instead, he advises Intel to focus on "good customer service, fair pricing, guaranteed capacity, and a clear separation of chip designers from their foundry customers."

While he opposes breaking Intel up entirely, Barrett does support splitting the company into a design firm and a separate foundry, as long as the foundry is not sold.

Barrett signs off by noting that his criticism of Intel being split up stems from understanding "the intricacies of the semiconductor industry." He derides the plan as a "simplistic solution" that ignores just how difficult and time-consuming it is to develop and ramp leading-edge manufacturing tech.

"It takes years to develop a new semiconductor manufacturing technology and ramp it into volume production. Intel is about to regain its leadership in this area, and the dumbest idea around is to stall that from happening by slicing the company into pieces," he declared.

Permalink to story:

 
Barrett's also a failure. What Intel needs to do is let their talent increase yields instead of spending time and money marketing themselves. 1% here, 2% there, half a percent there. All that stuff adds up. They need to focus on increasing yields. **** the old executives, get rid of most of the current executives and let the engineers do their thing. Intel doesn't need multiple, Multi-million dollar bonuses for their executives right now, they need to hire a few hundred engineers.

It should be illegal for executives to get bonuses when a company is on the brink of failure. This guy needs to go drink his own piss.
 
Imo he's right. If Intel keeps going as it had been going it's just fading into irrelevance. The fab sector is a cutthroat one - Either you dominate and stay at the front like Intel had for a long time and TSMC is now and make bank... or you're like Global Foundries and many others and stuck on old processes for low margins.
The only in-between seems to be Samsung that's always been slightly behind but I bet the South Korean government is intent on not letting them fall far behind. Not to mention Samsung sells so many devices they can be a pretty big customer to themselves even if they're not the best option.

Intel isn't far behind on TSMC and got promising technologies that might get them to catch up again. If they can be competitive then there's so much money to be made. But yeah it's do or die, put everything behind it. The current board does seem like a bunch of no-risk takers that just want to slowly milk everything. If you're gonna try and push then Pat is your man, he is an engineer and will push for the engineers. They're in a situation where they have to gamble the company imo, either a shot at redemption or a slow decline until someone else takes the helm.
 
The board should have been fired when Gelsinger took over in the first place. Along with hundreds of fats cats that have been albatrosses around Intel's neck for more than a decade.
 
I don't see why Rainier Wolfcastle should be the star. I think we should bring back Dirk Richter. Kids will want to see the original Radioactive Man.
 
Back