Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-is-moore-than-a-company-%E2%80%94-it-is-a-mission.22773/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel is Moore than a Company — it is a Mission

Daniel Nenni

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
View Benoît VANDENBULCKE’s open to work graphic link
Benoît VANDENBULCKE cofondateur chez Smart Green Execution
Intel Corporation logo
New Platforms Business Developement Manager
Sep 2003 - Sep 2008 · 5 yrs 1 mo
SONY Account Manager
Sep 1999 - Sep 2003 · 4 yrs 1 mo
Field application Engineer
Sep 1994 - Sep 1999 · 5 yrs 1 mo

“Intel is more than a company — it is a mission.”

I spent nearly 15 unforgettable years at Intel. It shaped how I think, how I build, and what I believe technology can achieve.
But 17 years later, I look at Intel and I ask: Where did the magic go?

- The market has shifted. Intel has lost ground. And the world is not waiting.
- The question now is not how to recover share.
- It’s deeper: Is Intel’s business model still relevant?
- I believe it can be — but only through bold, structural transformation.
- It’s time for its board of directors to decide for a split of Intel into three independent, purpose-driven entities, each laser-focused, each world-class:

=========================
= 1. Intel Corp (Holding) – The Brain =
=========================
-Set long-term vision and strategy
-Invest in moonshot R&D: quantum, neuromorphic, AI accelerators
-Curate and market flagship processors (Core, Xeon, Gaudi)
-Source production dynamically: IFS, TSMC, or others

===============================
= 2. Intel Foundry Services (IFS) – The Muscle =
===============================
-Operate as a neutral, global foundry, open to all customers
-Target Apple, Qualcomm, NVIDIA with competitive nodes
-Compete directly with TSMC and Samsung
-Attract government funding as a critical infrastructure asset

==============================
= 3. Intel x86 Licensing Group – The Engine =
==============================
-License x86 architecture like ARM licenses its IP
-Enable third parties to build x86 chips tailored to their needs
-Unlock massive royalty-driven revenue
-Expand the x86 ecosystem instead of guarding it

================================
= This isn’t fragmentation. It’s strategic clarity. =
================================
- TSMC doesn’t sell chips. ARM doesn’t own fabs.
- Intel, trying to do everything under one roof, has become too slow for the AI decade.
- Let each unit compete — openly, freely — and Intel can lead again.

Because at its best, Intel doesn’t follow trends. It sets them.
Activate to view larger image,
No alternative text description for this image
 
splitting up is very wise.
I am not sure but I have heard that x86 licensing isnt really a thing. people dont really want it (I am not a ARM/x86 expert).

Making CPUs is the money maker and should be the third item.
 
MKWVentures said:
splitting up is very wise.
I am not sure but I have heard that x86 licensing isnt really a thing. people dont really want it (I am not a ARM/x86 expert).

Making CPUs is the money maker and should be the third item.
Click to expand...
Quite. The whole proposal is a complete mess. There is no need for a) a holding company (and Intel's recent record in "strategic direction and decision making" doesn't sound like a viable business opportunity) and b) an x86 licencing business unit (there's no significant proven market and unlikely to be one this late in the game). And it's missing the x86 product business, as you noted.
 
Divorces are messy, I do not see Lip-Bu doing it. We are talking about his legacy and no one wants a divorce as part of their legacy, friendly or not.
 
I think Pat also introduced the plan to let external customers design x86 parts. But I guess there hadn’t been any takers yet
 
Y.H said:
I think Pat also introduced the plan to let external customers design x86 parts. But I guess there hadn’t been any takers yet
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite the custome x86 as Lip Bu talked about its going to be a a market that will be between AMD/Intel.
Top 3 Cloud vendor has been making custom Chips for quite some time and I think it will only increase more.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Nenni said:
Divorces are messy, I do not see Lip-Bu doing it. We are talking about his legacy and no one wants a divorce as part of their legacy, friendly or not.
Click to expand...

If divorce is a bad term, Intel can call it "strategical realignment".


From Perplexity:

"Strategical Realignment: Definition and Purpose

Strategical realignment is the process of reassessing and adjusting an organization’s direction, structure, and priorities to better match its external environment and internal capabilities. This often happens when market conditions shift, new opportunities arise, or internal challenges require a change in strategy.

Key Elements
Vision and Mission Update: Developing a new or refined vision and mission to guide the organization’s future direction.

Structural Adjustments: Modifying organizational structures, roles, and processes to align with new strategic goals.

Resource Optimization: Realigning resources and processes to eliminate redundancies and focus on core competencies.

Change Management: Implementing comprehensive change management to ensure buy-in from managers and employees, with proactive communication and transparency.

Continuous Assessment: Regularly evaluating market trends, organizational strengths and weaknesses, and stakeholder needs to maintain alignment.

Benefits
Adaptability: Enables organizations to pivot quickly in response to changing market dynamics.

Competitive Positioning: Helps companies reposition themselves for sustainable growth and future viability.

Improved Performance: Ensures all departments work toward common objectives, enhancing overall efficiency and results.

Typical Process
Analyze current state and environment.

Define or refine vision, mission, and strategic objectives.

Communicate changes and engage stakeholders.

Implement new structures and processes.

Monitor progress and adjust as needed.

Strategical realignment is essential for organizations aiming to stay competitive and responsive in dynamic environments."
 
Daniel Nenni said:
Divorces are messy, I do not see Lip-Bu doing it. We are talking about his legacy and no one wants a divorce as part of their legacy, friendly or not.
Click to expand...

It's not a divorce if it was the master plan all along

Tan has known all along, that 18a was a failure, but has a fiduciary duty to put the best "forward thinking" spin on overall health, hoping for a miracle, until it's leaning to close to "fraudulent misrepresentation"

We'll be hearing from Tan very soon.
 
fansink said:
It's not a divorce if it was the master plan all along

Tan has known all along, that 18a was a failure, but has a fiduciary duty to put the best "forward thinking" spin on overall health, hoping for a miracle, until it's leaning to close to "fraudulent misrepresentation"

We'll be hearing from Tan very soon.
Click to expand...
If Tan has known 18A is a failure he wouldn't have said about keeping foundry Business.
I have heard from people with 18A is a solid node but the problem are the PDKs I have even heard there are whole libraries missing from PDKs.
🤣
 
siliconbruh999 said:
If Tan has known 18A is a failure he wouldn't have said about keeping foundry Business.
I have heard from people with 18A is a solid node but the problem are the PDKs I have even heard there are whole libraries missing from PDKs.
🤣
Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true, Tan can and must say what's best for the company, it does not need to fully comply with the whole truth, it can be a hopeful expectation

Lookup "forward thinking" statements
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top