Intel's CEO Blames Predecessors for Current State of the Company, Wants Apple Business Back with Better Processors

[c2DDragon]

Ah, fair enough. Well, as I said, different background from the regulars here.
I also have a bit of a hard time not poking a bit at Intel, since they keep coming up with these daft statements, instead of focusing on sorting things out internally.
I'm sure Pat isn't a terrible person, but at the same time, his interviews are quite cringeworthy and I have written up a couple of them prior to this one that are all in the same style.
As many have pointed out here, he ought be a bit more humble and put his head down and get things done, then he can come and talk. Even more so when the first 3-4 new CPU designs to come out of Intel from when he joined the company, will have next to nothing to do with his leadership.

I didn't read those previous ones I guess.
Now I'm prepared
It's not a bad idea to have different news styles on TPU after all.

Only time will tell if this CEO deserves his job x)

 

[LemmingOverlord]

"It's funny how new company CEO's always seem to blame their predecessors for whatever went wrong and it seems like Pat Gelsinger is no different"

Who else would they blame? The janitor?

Also "CEO's" is not correct. It's "CEOs"

 

[TheLostSwede]

Also "CEO's" is not correct. It's "CEOs"

My bad, fixed.

Who else would they blame? The janitor?

Well, maybe they should just stay quiet and do the job they're paid to do?
What's the point in blaming other people for things that you had no control over when they've already left the company? In this case it seems like some of them left a long time ago.

 

[LemmingOverlord]

My bad, fixed.


Well, maybe they should just stay quiet and do the job they're paid to do?
What's the point in blaming other people for things that you had no control over when they've already left the company? In this case it seems like some of them left a long time ago.

Yeah, it's not typical of CEOs to drop the blame on their predecessors, but he's making a point that there's a new sheriff in town.

Have you heard of any attempts to bring back IDF to life? He is the de facto founder of IDF. I'd love to see it rebooted.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Have you heard of any attempts to bring back IDF to life? He is the de facto founder of IDF. I'd love to see it rebooted.

Sadly no. I've only attended the small one in Taiwan, but it used to be a decent event and they used to have interesting people presenting at Computex too. Then they got rid of the interesting people...

 

[maxfly]

He's just doing his marketing best to keep Intel in the headlines. Gotta pre sell those high end chips while he can.

 

[Tartaros]

edit ever time I see his picture it looks more like bill gates every time?!?

It's like an unholy fusion of Carl Sagan and Bill Gates.

 

[catulitechup]

Poor pat

 

[RandallFlagg]

Product comes before money. No impressive product? No money. That's like capitalism 101 dude.

Eh em.... Betamax.

 

[glsn]

Product comes before money. No impressive product? No money. That's like capitalism 101 dude.

that's valid only when you do have already enough money

 

[R-T-B]

Eh em.... Betamax.

What about it? Betamax was slightly superior (technically SVHS beat it but no one used it) but VHS was the better product due to the deals made in hollywood. The stuff people wanted was on VHS which made it more enticing. It's really more of the same rule.

that's valid only when you do have already enough money

It's always valid if you want to stay in the top place. Of course money does make it easier to make a technologically inferior product superior in the eyes of the consumer via other means.

 

[Totally]

All those words to say "DoNt CrItIcIzE mY bElOvEd AmD!!!111!", yet you seem to miss the fact that when it comes to perf/$ AMD has totally stagnated since 2016. The RX 480 was a $200 remember, the 6600 non XT is barely any faster for $330. Nvidia stangated too, the entire 2000 series was a wash unless you had $1100+. Now we have the 3080ti MSRP back over $1000, with no end of shortages and price hikes in sight, and I guarantee you this will cause the next gen of cards to be even more expensive. The only time AMD or nvidia acutally try is when they are losing, and by a significant margin. (see AMD rebranding the 5000 series and the 6000 series, then rebrandign the 7000s into the 200s then the 300s).

Also, "all the progress since rDNA2"? You do know that rDNA 2 is their current line, right? There is 0 progress since then, its the newest they have.

I clearly remember Nvidia being the one to hike prices EVERY. SINGLE. REFRESH. even before the crypto boom. AMD releasing their cards after, just priced accordingly.

 

[RandallFlagg]

... VHS was the better product due to the deals made in hollywood...

Mmmmkay. I mean I agree with you from a consumer standpoint, and it's actually something I don't care about and never did, but from a technical standpoint that's pretty iffy. It's not much different from saying Intel has a superior product due to better OEM / firmware / software support.

 

[R-T-B]

Mmmmkay. I mean I agree with you from a consumer standpoint, and it's actually something I don't care about and never did, but from a technical standpoint that's pretty iffy. It's not much different from saying Intel has a superior product due to better OEM / firmware / software support.

I mean yeah, they can be viewed that way. I was taking issue with the statement on a general foundation, not agreeing with any brand based sentiments.

 

[ratirt]

Yeah, it's not typical of CEOs to drop the blame on their predecessors, but he's making a point that there's a new sheriff in town.

Have you heard of any attempts to bring back IDF to life? He is the de facto founder of IDF. I'd love to see it rebooted.

That is a lousy point to make in my opinion. It's not a wild west no more and the news about CEO change are known to the public the same day. no point to bring that one up when everyone knows about it. Blaming previous CEOs is a bad move. Bragging about what Intel will become and how good it will be with its products is even worse. He should inform public of his plans not justify failures admitting Intel is crap at this point which he did. Bragging about his vision is unprofessional. You show your vision, you state what the next steps will be next and you brag when it worked but most of all, you don't blame anyone because it is not one person's fault.

 

[LemmingOverlord]

That is a lousy point to make in my opinion. It's not a wild west no more and the news about CEO change are known to the public the same day. no point to bring that one up when everyone knows about it. Blaming previous CEOs is a bad move. Bragging about what Intel will become and how good it will be with its products is even worse. He should inform public of his plans not justify failures admitting Intel is crap at this point which he did. Bragging about his vision is unprofessional. You show your vision, you state what the next steps will be next and you brag when it worked but most of all, you don't blame anyone because it is not one person's fault.

"It is not one person's fault"? What's the point of having a CEO then, instead of just running a company from the boardroom (presuming you know the difference)? No accountability? Why is Lisa Su hailed as the Messiah and makes consecutive keynotes at CES, on the coattails of the Ryzen success and AMD's rebirth, then?

That's bs, sorry. Lack of accountability to employees and customers is what got the PC industry in the miserly state it now is.

And really? It's *not* the Wild West?!

You forget that "in the old days" CEOs were a tame bunch. They were real innovators but their demeanour looks dated to us now. Now compare that to the tech 'mavericks' we see now what with their God complexes and huge effing egos.

Gelsinger, who was probably the last CTO of Intel's to do something reasonable (dropping Pentium 4, moving to the Core architecture much thanks to Dadi Perlmutter and the Haifa labs), is just joining the bandwagon of attention-seeking CEO whores we see in tech nowadays.

It's really much worse now than it ever was, CEO-wise.

• Companies and their product marketing are floating products in slideware and making paper launches left right and centre.
• Leaks happen daily.
• Corporate PR people are subservient to the "tabloid youtubers" (I make an exception of the Steves - GN/HU, Igor's Lab and Der8auer).
• Games are P2W. Also, you hardly own them, these days.
• One company controls almost 50% of all semiconductor production. That company hiccups, and it's chaos through and through.
• Component prices have sky rocketed in just about every component of the PC business (despite some news we might get a bit of respite from DRAM, but then again that's a predictable cycle when transitioning from one DRAM tech to another, DDR4 prices will skyrocket too as soon as production shifts and stocked-up inventory is spent).
• Reputable brands are using lower grade (cheaper) components, just to boost the bottom line, with no real consequence: "It's still good enough" says the consumer (vide: SSDs, PSUs and HDDs)
• Miners are soaking up GPU inventory like a mofo, and oddly enough, the only country to take action against them is ... CHINA?! WTF?

We can also look at the broader tech landscape:

• Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't a disruptive technology. If Bitcoin pays off (literally) it'll put way more money into the billionaire investors' pocket than it will into the average joes'. Do we want to talk about the climate cost?
• Starlink. Biggest joke on (off) Earth! The promise of delivering broadband to far-away places is really laughable - unless you want broadband in Siberia, not to mention the cancer of space debris and visual pollution that astronomers have to put up with.
• Electric vehicles whose carbon footprint far exceeds gas/petrol and diesel vehicles.

Are you comparing this to "back when a basic IBM PC cost upwards of $3000" but gave businesses a competitive edge that was quantifiable, and therefore justified the investment?

 

[ratirt]

"It is not one person's fault"? What's the point of having a CEO then, instead of just running a company from the boardroom (presuming you know the difference)? No accountability? Why is Lisa Su hailed as the Messiah and makes consecutive keynotes at CES, on the coattails of the Ryzen success and AMD's rebirth, then?

That's bs, sorry. Lack of accountability to employees and customers is what got the PC industry in the miserly state it now is.

And really? It's *not* the Wild West?!

You forget that "in the old days" CEOs were a tame bunch. They were real innovators but their demeanour looks dated to us now. Now compare that to the tech 'mavericks' we see now what with their God complexes and huge effing egos.

Gelsinger, who was probably the last CTO of Intel's to do something reasonable (dropping Pentium 4, moving to the Core architecture much thanks to Dadi Perlmutter and the Haifa labs), is just joining the bandwagon of attention-seeking CEO whores we see in tech nowadays.

It's really much worse now than it ever was, CEO-wise.

• Companies and their product marketing are floating products in slideware and making paper launches left right and centre.
• Leaks happen daily.
• Corporate PR people are subservient to the "tabloid youtubers" (I make an exception of the Steves - GN/HU, Igor's Lab and Der8auer).
• Games are P2W. Also, you hardly own them, these days.
• One company controls almost 50% of all semiconductor production. That company hiccups, and it's chaos through and through.
• Component prices have sky rocketed in just about every component of the PC business (despite some news we might get a bit of respite from DRAM, but then again that's a predictable cycle when transitioning from one DRAM tech to another, DDR4 prices will skyrocket too as soon as production shifts and stocked-up inventory is spent).
• Reputable brands are using lower grade (cheaper) components, just to boost the bottom line, with no real consequence: "It's still good enough" says the consumer (vide: SSDs, PSUs and HDDs)
• Miners are soaking up GPU inventory like a mofo, and oddly enough, the only country to take action against them is ... CHINA?! WTF?

We can also look at the broader tech landscape:

• Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't a disruptive technology. If Bitcoin pays off (literally) it'll put way more money into the billionaire investors' pocket than it will into the average joes'. Do we want to talk about the climate cost?
• Starlink. Biggest joke on (off) Earth! The promise of delivering broadband to far-away places is really laughable - unless you want broadband in Siberia, not to mention the cancer of space debris and visual pollution that astronomers have to put up with.
• Electric vehicles whose carbon footprint far exceeds gas/petrol and diesel vehicles.

Are you comparing this to "back when a basic IBM PC cost upwards of $3000" but gave businesses a competitive edge that was quantifiable, and therefore justified the investment?

I will summary this in one sentence with a bit of my view on the subject.
Is a poor situation in a country that country president's fault? You don't blame one person for a failure because it is not just that person contributing to that failure. There are board of members also which have more to say than a CEO. In an organization there is always someone above you. Always. CEO is the face of the company but board members are the ruling organ.
So, blaming a CEO for all bad that happened and a failure of the company is like blaming a president of a country for the failure despite the decision was not his but the government and parties voting. Pat's unprofessional behavior scolding previous CEO and blaming them shows incompetence and a lack of understanding or simply ignorance.

 

[LemmingOverlord]

I will summary this in one sentence with a bit of my view on the subject.
Is a poor situation in a country that country president's fault? You don't blame one person for a failure because it is not just that person contributing to that failure. There are board of members also which have more to say than a CEO. In an organization there is always someone above you. Always. CEO is the face of the company but board members are the ruling organ.
So, blaming a CEO for all bad that happened and a failure of the company is like blaming a president of a country for the failure despite the decision was not his but the government and parties voting. Pat's unprofessional behavior scolding previous CEO and blaming them shows incompetence and a lack of understanding or simply ignorance.

Agreed. That is why the articles says "Predecessors", as in plural... a slew of short-sighted bean counter CEOs who were simultaneously the company's main shareholders. Rather than making decisions that guaranteed the company's relevance in the future of computing, they focused on making short-term gains. If Gelsinger can't openly look and discuss what his predecessors did wrong, in particular when they are so close to him (chronologically-speaking), and the errors being likely well-documented, then he'll repeat the errors. People can now call him out on this, any time, and that's a good thing.

As for accountability: In countries where "Presidents" have real power like the USA, they are hands-on with the decision-making. The responsibility is - ultimately - theirs. Not one president, but multiple predecessors. We can disagree on this, I don't mind. Likewise, I think the CEO has a bunch of advisors, but they are the ultimate decision-makers, and the person responsible for the company performance. Of course there are market factors at play (e.g. supply chain issues, like we're experiencing now), but that explains the last year or so (and is impacting the entire industry). No-one goes around saying

BTW: do you think he is wrong? Poor decision-making and no accountability from Intel CEOs for the company's performance in the past 20 years? It still makes money, but it's been on the path to decline for a while. I honestly think Alder Lake-S is the biggest news coming out of Intel for the past... 10 years? But I also think it's a bit smoke and mirrors, as sustained high-performance on these CPUs (like the 12900K) will likely push the CPU TDP close to 300W, and will rely on a mix of quality electrical components on the mobo, quality of the PSU and overall cooling.

Just to prove the point that he's basically selling an idea (that Intel is on a new course), he also makes a silly boast that they want Apple's business back. That's not just unlikely, but would actually put into question Apple's own R&D investments since it acquired PA Semi back in 2008. Apple has made solid progress on its ARM silicon since it's A4 SoC, and would be stupid to about-face on their switch to M1 right now or even in the next 10 years.

 

[ratirt]

As for accountability: In countries where "Presidents" have real power like the USA, they are hands-on with the decision-making. The responsibility is - ultimately - theirs. Not one president, but multiple predecessors. We can disagree on this, I don't mind. Likewise, I think the CEO has a bunch of advisors, but they are the ultimate decision-makers, and the person responsible for the company performance. Of course there are market factors at play (e.g. supply chain issues, like we're experiencing now), but that explains the last year or so (and is impacting the entire industry). No-one goes around saying

I was hoping you would understand my approach but you would rather continue on the differences in each country. previous CEO or CEOs doesnt matter here both approaches are wrong. You can't hold responsible either one CEO or whatever number. Remember, one CEO does not make the board there's always more and they may have different view.
It does not matter.

BTW: do you think he is wrong? Poor decision-making and no accountability from Intel CEOs for the company's performance in the past 20 years? It still makes money, but it's been on the path to decline for a while. I honestly think Alder Lake-S is the biggest news coming out of Intel for the past... 10 years? But I also think it's a bit smoke and mirrors, as sustained high-performance on these CPUs (like the 12900K) will likely push the CPU TDP close to 300W, and will rely on a mix of quality electrical components on the mobo, quality of the PSU and overall cooling.

I think he is telling what the audience wants to hear. More like give hope New sheriff in town like you said. Approach which is basically false. He is not deciding about anything he is merely an executive officer who will implement the ideas which may (probably wont be) not be his.
As I see it, The CEO is responsible but board is accountable. Responsibility to implement agreed views and approach for the company. How's that gonna work and what profits it will bring that's a different story and board is accountable for that.
The approach has to change but I doubt he can pull this off. What he is selling is a promise and the bragging to what is coming. We all know it may fail and I would rather refrain from statements that competition is going down, Intel is back etc. Not sure if that is a guarantee of changed approach cause in my eyes it looks exactly the same.

Just to prove the point that he's basically selling an idea (that Intel is on a new course), he also makes a silly boast that they want Apple's business back. That's not just unlikely, but would actually put into question Apple's own R&D investments since it acquired PA Semi back in 2008. Apple has made solid progress on its ARM silicon since it's A4 SoC, and would be stupid to about-face on their switch to M1 right now or even in the next 10 years.

Each CEO had the same thing to say. New approach but it does not mean it will be better. So bragging about something, like a vision of future, is a bad approach in my eyes.
I'm not saying he can't change something, I'm saying nothing has been done so far and he is already celebrating a success.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I think Gelsinger is going to give Intel a shot. So far they've been doing what they say they are going to do and more or less on time. He was also mentored by Andy Grove, and from what I gathered about him leaving Intel in 2009 was that Otellini felt threatened by him (i.e. Gelsinger was competent and influential).

As I see it, The CEO is responsible but board is accountable. Responsibility to implement agreed views and approach for the company. How's that gonna work and what profits it will bring that's a different story and board is accountable for that.

The #1 function of a BoD is to hire and retain a CEO. CEO is often a member of the board. IMO most boards are garbage, it's where CEOs go to rotate through until their next gig, and Intel's BoD is no different. Intel's board is mostly made up of college deans and some retired / failed CEOs and a couple of investment company execs.

 

[glsn]

It's always valid if you want to stay in the top place. Of course money does make it easier to make a technologically inferior product superior in the eyes of the consumer via other means.

don't mind me
I'm just annoyed on how a wipo patent does cost 10k or over

though I wonder how do some companies file thousands of patents(often stupid things too), do they print money?

 

[windwhirl]

though I wonder how do some companies file thousands of patents(often stupid things too), do they print money?

In the long run, the cost might be meaningless, and a patent is a way to protect your investment and ensuring some advantage over others.

Some companies might tell you that they don't get to patent everything they want to patent lol

 

[ratirt]

The #1 function of a BoD is to hire and retain a CEO. CEO is often a member of the board. IMO most boards are garbage, it's where CEOs go to rotate through until their next gig, and Intel's BoD is no different. Intel's board is mostly made up of college deans and some retired / failed CEOs and a couple of investment company execs.

You think the BoD is a washed up retired older man with nothing to lose? COE may be the member but this doesn't mean he has the final say.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You think the BoD is a washed up retired older man with nothing to lose? COE may be the member but this doesn't mean he has the final say.

I'm not sure where you got that from about 'old white men' (hence you are gaslighting ), I didn't say he had final say (again gaslighting) and all that leads me to suspect you don't know anything about what a BoD is and have zero experience seeing one in action.

Most of the ones I've seen meet once a quarter for a few days <- that simple fact should explain quite a bit to you. Perhaps you should go look at Intel's BoD, Gelsinger is a giant amongst that pack. Most of them haven't been there more than 5 years. Their main function has to do with picking the leadership of the company and determining their compensation. Strategy is usually something they get from prospective CEOs, not make up themselves.

 

[ratirt]

I'm not sure where you got that from about 'old white men' (hence you are gaslighting ), I didn't say he had final say (again gaslighting) and all that leads me to suspect you don't know anything about what a BoD is and have zero experience seeing one in action.

And you havent read anything I previously wrote and expressed so this conversation is pointless.

Most of the ones I've seen meet once a quarter for a few days <- that simple fact should explain quite a bit to you. Perhaps you should go look at Intel's BoD, Gelsinger is a giant amongst that pack. Most of them haven't been there more than 5 years. Their main function has to do with picking the leadership of the company and determining their compensation. Strategy is usually something they get from prospective CEOs, not make up themselves.

Maybe your company's board of directors meet once a quarter. Why you look at this from your perspective and feed false data to people? BoD meets when it is necessary and every time they do they have a scheduled plan for the meeting. There's decisions to make about strategic things in the company and approach that will be taken. The goals they want to achieve are being discussed by the BoD and CEO is the one leading to get those goals complete. The major decisions are done by the board not by the CEO alone.