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.
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.
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.
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.
Half the article is about how it takes 4 bad CEOs to wreck a company and Intel is far down that path.
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.
Yep. All they do is meetings and hand shaking. The real work occurs several steps below them.
They’ve also taken the technology basically as far as it can go.
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.
The world is moving back to RISC, which is my point.