Agree with the general sentiment on doing too much.There is a challenge that Intel is operating under the IDM + Foundry business model. From software to hardware, from design to manufacturing, from desktop CPU to server CPU, from AI/ML to high performance computing, from inhouse clients to external foundry customers, Intel is running too many things and pursuing too many targets, IMO.
It is "Everything Everywhere All at Once".
Can Intel cut something out in order to be more focused?
But are they actually going the other way and doubling down on vertical integration (with increased foundry) ? Though arguably with more outsourcing to TSMC there is some movement the other way.
If we think of this as a supply chain, Intel has to complete with the fabless model where Apple and some others are arguably stronger in design/project management - let's rate those guys 95% and say that Intel is perhaps at 90% today. The same applies on the wafer fab side - TSMC is certainly ahead on a "combined foundry metric" (assume we can weight and lump into a single number performance, area, cost/yield, service level, etc). Unless there is some inherent offsetting efficiency gain from keeping everything in house (and is there ?) you end up slightly worse off. [This is probably a poor rehash of Dan's book - which I really should read].
This is all rather like the arguments for and against in-house EDA vs assembling a best in class third party EDA toolchain - which were resolved in favour of third party EDA a generation ago (with Intel late to the party here in some areas - as were IBM). That's one reason why bringing Lip-Bu Tan (from Cadence) onto the Intel board is interesting - it's getting someone in who gets the non-vertical industry model and understands how to build those partnerships and relationships. Lip-Bu is also interesting in having the much less brash and sometimes almost humble leadership style you sometimes find in Asia.