Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel%E2%80%99s-problems-are-even-worse-than-you%E2%80%99ve-heard.21793/
        )

    [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’s Problems Are Even Worse Than You’ve Heard

BruceA

Well-known member
Not for the educated readers here, but the optics of this couldn’t come at a worse time.

There is fresh evidence the once-mighty innovator is losing market share in more areas​

You may think you know how much Intel is struggling, but the reality is worse.

The once-mighty American innovation powerhouse is losing market share in multiple areas that are critical to its profitability. Its many competitors include not just the AI juggernaut Nvidia but smaller rivals and even previously stalwart allies like Microsoft.

One flashing warning sign: In the latest quarter reported by both companies, Intel’s perennial also-ran, AMD, actually eclipsed Intel’s revenue for chips that go into data centers. This is a stunning reversal: In 2022, Intel’s data-center revenue was three times that of AMD.

AMD and others are making huge inroads into Intel’s bread-and-butter business of making the world’s most cutting-edge and powerful general-purpose chips, known as CPUs, short for central processing units.

Even worse, more and more of the chips that go into data centers are GPUs, short for graphics processing units, and Intel has minuscule market share of these high-end chips. GPUs are used for training and delivering AI.

By focusing on the all-important metric of performance per unit of energy pumped into their chips, AMD went from almost no market share in servers to its current ascendant position, says AMD Chief Technology Officer Mark Papermaster. As data centers become ever more rapacious for energy, this emphasis on efficiency has become a key advantage for AMD.

Notably, Intel still has about 75% of the market for CPUs that go into data centers. The disconnect between that figure and the company’s share of revenue from selling a wider array of chips for data centers only serves to illustrate the core problem driving its reversal of fortunes.

This situation looks likely to get worse, and quickly. Many of the companies spending the most on building out new data centers are switching to chips that have nothing to do with Intel’s proprietary architecture, known as x86, and are instead using a combination of a competing architecture from ARM and their own custom chip designs.

Pat Gelsinger was pushed out as CEO in December.

Pat Gelsinger was pushed out as CEO in December. Photo: ritchie b tongo/Shutterstock

A spokeswoman for Intel says the company is focused on simplifying and strengthening its product portfolio, and advancing its manufacturing and foundry capabilities while optimizing costs. Intel interim Co-Chief Executive Michelle Johnston Holthaus recently said that 2025 will be a “year of stabilization” for the company. Intel is currently seeking a permanent leader after its CEO Pat Gelsinger was pushed out last month.

The decades that developers spent writing software for Intel’s chips mean that Intel remains a giant, even as its market share has shrunk, and that legacy will limit how quickly Intel’s revenues can decline in the future. Analysts estimate Intel’s 2024 revenue was about $55 billion, just behind Nvidia’s approximately $60 billion. Intel still has the lion’s share of the market for desktop and notebook CPUs—around 76%, overall, according to Mercury Research.

AMD recently formed an alliance with Intel to collaborate on support and development of the x86 ecosystem that both companies make chips for. Papermaster says that his own company continues to invest in this ecosystem even as AMD also develops ARM-based chips for some applications, such as networking and embedded devices.

For a concrete example of Intel’s challenges, look at Amazon, the world’s biggest provider of cloud computing. More than half of the CPUs Amazon has installed in its data centers over the past two years were its own custom chips based on ARM’s architecture, Dave Brown, Amazon vice president of compute and networking services, said recently.

This displacement of Intel is being repeated all across the big providers and users of cloud computing services. Microsoft and Google have also built their own custom, ARM-based CPUs for their respective clouds. In every case, companies are moving in this direction because of the kind of customization, speed and efficiency that custom silicon allows.

All those companies are also making their own custom, ARM-based chips for AI workloads, an area where Intel has missed the boat almost entirely. Then there’s the 800-pound gorilla in AI, Nvidia. Many of Nvidia’s current-generation AI systems have Intel CPUs in them, but ARM-based chips are increasingly taking center stage in the company’s bleeding-edge hardware.

Intel’s repeated flubs in entering markets for new kinds of computing and new applications for chips are a textbook example of a big, profitable incumbent becoming a victim of the innovator’s dilemma, says Doug O’Laughlin, an industry analyst at SemiAnalysis, which recently published a blistering report on Intel. The innovator’s dilemma holds that powerful companies that are unwilling to cannibalize their biggest sources of revenue can be overtaken by upstarts that build competing products that start out small, but which can ultimately take over the market which the incumbent dominates—like the mobile chips which ARM started off with.

In 1988, former Intel CEO Andy Grove published a book called Only the Paranoid Survive, which highlighted the ways that companies have to be vigilant about what’s coming next, and be willing to disrupt themselves and pursue new technologies. What he intended as a warning to all companies has since become a prophecy foretelling Intel’s current difficulties.

“The book is literally about the importance of not missing strategic inflections, and then Intel proceeds to miss every single strategic inflection since,” says O’Laughlin.

Then there are laptops. After decades of trying to make it happen, 2024 was finally the year of credible, ARM-based laptops running Windows, thanks to efforts by Microsoft to make Windows on ARM work. The company convinced other companies to port their own software, and created tools that allow most existing programs to run on the new laptops, in emulation. Chips in these devices are made by Qualcomm, and benchmarks show that they can finally compete with Apple’s M-class mobile processors, which are also based on a combination of ARM technology and a great deal of custom chip design by Apple’s formidable in-house team.

Another bastion of market share and profits for Intel, the PC gaming market, is also showing early signs of erosion. Portable gaming systems like Valve’s Steam Deck and the Lenovo Legion Go, which can run even very demanding games, use processors from AMD. Future devices that will be part of the company’s plan to license its custom OS to other manufacturers may also use ARM-based ones.

Inherent in Intel’s woes is the way its vertically integrated structure, long an asset, now weighs on the company’s bottom line and ability to innovate. Unlike other companies that either design chips or manufacture them, Intel has stuck to a seemingly antiquated model of doing both.

Intel reported a $16 billion loss in its most recent quarter as it spent big to transform into a contract manufacturer—that is, a company that also manufactures chips for other companies, even competitors—and catch up to rival TSMC, which now produces the world’s most cutting-edge chips.

Analysts expect Intel to return to profitability in 2025, but it won’t be clear for years whether the company’s big manufacturing bets will ultimately pay off.

One of the big bets of Intel’s recently departed CEO Gelsinger, was Intel’s attempt to leapfrog TSMC in terms of chip technology. What it calls its “18A” tech could in theory allow its own chips, and those it makes for outsiders, to once again be the most cutting-edge, and the fastest, on the planet. The company has said it could regain that title by 2026. Intel recently announced it had signed a deal with Amazon to make custom chips for the company, using its 18A technology.

Even if Intel can once again lead the industry with its technology, the best case scenario for Intel’s own products is that it regains dominance in a market that continues to shrink—the x86 CPU one, says O’Laughlin. The removal of Gelsinger, who was betting on an all-in strategy for Intel to regain dominance both in the market for its own chips and in serving outside companies, suggests that Intel’s board agrees that the company can’t continue to count on being the best in the world at everything.

All of these challenges and conflicting priorities may push Intel to someday split in two, severing its product side from manufacturing. Intel INTC 1.68% increase; green up pointing triangle Co-CEO David Zinsner recently said that spinning off the company’s manufacturing side is an “open question.”

It’s also possible, in the worst case, that a fate even worse than being dismembered could be in store for Intel.

Rene Haas, CEO of ARM, recently observed that Intel has long been an innovation powerhouse, but that in chipmaking and design, there are countless companies that don’t innovate fast enough—and no longer exist.

 
A complete nothing burger. It is hard to predict what is in store for Intel without knowing who the next CEO will be. I still think Intel can pivot and be a semiconductor leader again.

Unfortunately, it will take some serious cuts and changes that are going to be hard for Wall Street to digest. Hopefully Intel can find a CEO with vision and strength to make hard decisions and not pander to the financials.
 
There is nothing new in this article.

If Intel does not face constraints related to manufacturing, it should be more valuable than AMD, even with the decline in revenue.

In the client segment, Lunar Lake strikes the right balance. For ARM, there isn’t much to gain here, considering the historical challenges with software compatibility (e.g., DirectX, previously purchased software, VPNs, CAD tools, Linux distributions, etc.).
 
"That being said, Card urged organziations to still focus on certain capabilities if they are worried about a large-scale outage. Being able to re-image a fleet of devices or using out of band technologies like Intel vPro are useful techniques to use, he said. Businesses should also ensure they can recover, Card added"

 
I can't see Intel profitable in 2025. Not sure where the analyst are getting this from.

Intel needs a major restructure. The only question I see is if it does so by itself, or is purchased or bailed out and forced.
 
Me neither if it will be profitable it will be at barely any margin TSMC is dragging their margin down for products they can't do financial engineering with TSMC
 
I can't see Intel profitable in 2025. Not sure where the analyst are getting this from.

Intel needs a major restructure. The only question I see is if it does so by itself, or is purchased or bailed out and forced.
I don't think it needs any more restructuring. It needs to stabilise its finance. It also does not need a bail-out.

If it can't figure out the strategy, then liquidate and return capital to shareholders. In that scenario, the valuation is significantly more than the current value.

Pursuing a strategy that sounds right for the country does not necessarily mean it would be right for the company. In this case, it is a company that is owned by individual shareholders.
 
I don't think it needs any more restructuring. It needs to stabilise its finance. It also does not need a bail-out.

If it can't figure out the strategy, then liquidate and return capital to shareholders. In that scenario, the valuation is significantly more than the current value.

Pursuing a strategy that sounds right for the country does not necessarily mean it would be right for the company. In this case, it is a company that is owned by individual shareholders.
It is quite easy with foundry and design being in the same reporting structure, for one to be picked as the winner and the other as the loser which only results in the company overall being the loser.

Additionally, Intel likely has no clue on how to run a foundry company for profit as it has decades of experience running it like a cost center .... which is IMO how they got in this mess in the first place. Too much emphasis on squeezing out profit from existing capital investment without regard to the long term strategy.

I am not certain that the US government would allow Intel to fold. It seems unlikely in the current global environment. I could be wrong though. Trying to predict logical moves from the US government is an exercise in futility ;).
 
A complete nothing burger. It is hard to predict what is in store for Intel without knowing who the next CEO will be. I still think Intel can pivot and be a semiconductor leader again.

Unfortunately, it will take some serious cuts and changes that are going to be hard for Wall Street to digest. Hopefully Intel can find a CEO with vision and strength to make hard decisions and not pander to the financials.
Well I’d say it starts with the Board, they bought into Pat’s strategy without much think nor much review, they fired him for things that still haven’t come to full light.

The first thing is the board all of them need to go. Even if their are some their with a clue their failure over the past two to four CEOs is inescapable and inexcusable. All of them are an embarrassment to what a Board should be
 
It is quite easy with foundry and design being in the same reporting structure, for one to be picked as the winner and the other as the loser which only results in the company overall being the loser.

Additionally, Intel likely has no clue on how to run a foundry company for profit as it has decades of experience running it like a cost center .... which is IMO how they got in this mess in the first place. Too much emphasis on squeezing out profit from existing capital investment without regard to the long term strategy.

I am not certain that the US government would allow Intel to fold. It seems unlikely in the current global environment. I could be wrong though. Trying to predict logical moves from the US government is an exercise in futility ;).
An Intel on Government life support for strategic need will be a sad end for intel

There is simply nobody in the leadership chain that understand the Intel long term leadership and culture as well as the real gaps and needs for reinvention and pivot for either the product, silicon RD and manufacturing. They’d need to bring a fabless leader and a TSMC executive at the top and I can’t see why the names thrown around as possible ones would leave their jobs to join the cluster FUBAR that is Intel now.

The Board is really at the core of this failure starting with Andy more than a decade ago
 
An Intel on Government life support for strategic need will be a sad end for intel

There is simply nobody in the leadership chain that understand the Intel long term leadership and culture as well as the real gaps and needs for reinvention and pivot for either the product, silicon RD and manufacturing. They’d need to bring a fabless leader and a TSMC executive at the top and I can’t see why the names thrown around as possible ones would leave their jobs to join the cluster FUBAR that is Intel now.

The Board is really at the core of this failure starting with Andy more than a decade ago
Andy was retired from Chairmanship in 2004 imo the cultural change started with otellini BK made it worse he was licking shareholders feet and probable spent everything on them instead of balancing capital.
Ann said in interview the funding for TD were a lot less Pre Pat.They are still facing crisis due to BK gutting fundings.
Swan can't be blamed much cause he was a temp and they didn't have any other candidate saying Yes
The only common denominator up until now is the Board.
If it ever gets mentioned in History BK and the board will be mentioned in Golden Letters how Bean counters screwed over the most innovative company of the last 50 years.
 
Pat isn’t without blame! It was a terrible decisions to build Ohio as well as the 62 and the promises in Germany. They were all distractions and wasted precious capital. Too much was made of highNA.

Intel under Pat continued lots of arrogant talking versus just focus on executing and let the results speak for themselves. There was little need to divulge their roadmap so publicly and poke the bear. They should have bee public simply on returning to process leadership and let the products and technology market their leadership and lure in the customers.

Ann is gone… a longtime manufacturing person always suspicious if she was qualified to run manufacturing. She is most certainly not of the level of the TSMC senior manufacturing leaders
 
Pat isn’t without blame! It was a terrible decisions to build Ohio as well as the 62 and the promises in Germany. They were all distractions and wasted precious capital. Too much was made of highNA.

Intel under Pat continued lots of arrogant talking versus just focus on executing and let the results speak for themselves. There was little need to divulge their roadmap so publicly and poke the bear. They should have bee public simply on returning to process leadership and let the products and technology market their leadership and lure in the customers.

Ann is gone… a longtime manufacturing person always suspicious if she was qualified to run manufacturing. She is most certainly not of the level of the TSMC senior manufacturing leaders
What do you think about Naga, the new manufacturing head?
 
Cloud business is still growing strong. AWS, Azure, Google and others buying zillions of GPUs for their new data centers. Yesterday, ByteDance placed a new $7 billion order with Nvidia. To make things worse, the big players are making their own chips at TSMC. None of this money is going to Intel, who gradually has become an also-run in this business. If Intel survives it will be because of government handouts (for how long?), which is the defunct French economic model. With all of this, I bet on Intel stock sliding even further in 1H 2025.
 
Cloud business is still growing strong. AWS, Azure, Google and others buying zillions of GPUs for their new data centers. Yesterday, ByteDance placed a new $7 billion order with Nvidia. To make things worse, the big players are making their own chips at TSMC. None of this money is going to Intel, who gradually has become an also-run in this business. If Intel survives it will be because of government handouts (for how long?), which is the defunct French economic model. With all of this, I bet on Intel stock sliding even further in 1H 2025.
Will the money run out before they ramp Intel 18A or at the same time? Intel has spoken about future nodes but are they wishful thinking at this point?
 
There is nothing new in this article.
Wall street media like to beat a dead horse until it is super dead. When sentiment shifts, then its all rosy and praise - look at what they said about Nvidia before ChatGPT dropped.

That statement about AMD's DC revenue higher than Intel's DC revenue needs an important context. Although AMD is gaining market share in server DC business, AMD made $1.7B in DC CPU sales and $1.5B in DC GPU sales in Q3'24. Intel made $3.3B in DC CPU sales as there is no significant revenue from Gaudi. I understand that AMD is doing well in this space, but the context of nearly 2x CPU revenue for Intel is important here with significantly worse products than competition. So I expect AMD's share grabbing in DC CPU to slow down now that Intel has core count parity in their big core lineup and closed the perf/watt gap considerably.

I can't see Intel profitable in 2025. Not sure where the analyst are getting this from.

Me neither if it will be profitable it will be at barely any margin TSMC is dragging their margin down for products they can't do financial engineering with TSMC

Profit or loss, Intel in 2025 could go either way. On one hand using TSMC for CCG leads to high cost for Products team (less margin) and low revenue to Foundry team (more fixed cost, so less margin again). Now the question is whether Intel can offset this.

I believe Intel will keep ARL products in low volume because it is in their best interest to do so. Also ARL-U is basically MTL-U ported to Intel 3. There is also expectations Xeon 6 line up will ramp more in volume - industry expectation is Intel 3 (EUV) has better cost structure than Intel 7 based products like SPR/EMR based on what I have read - Although Intel 7 equipment are probably more depreciated at this point. They will still be making & selling MTL based products and RPL (Core 200) laptops to satisfy some demand. Plus all the cost savings will hit Intel financials in 2025. Dave Zinsner mentioned $17.5B operating expenses for 2025 in the recent Barclay's conference (iirc) compared to $22.5B TTM or $21.68B in 2023. If they hit that, that is a $5B reduction in cost for operating margin. Altera and Mobileye if recovers a little is a bonus.

Plus the ramp of CWF & PTL - margin accretive due to fab utilization improvement or margin dilutive due to increased cost of initial ramp? I don't know. It all depends on how the cost structure for 18A is against Intel 7, I guess. Also I am expecting these to be launched in Q3'25 same as LNL & SRF, we will see. I have plotted the Intel Products (sub segments), Intel Foundry and Overall Intel Operating Margins here for last 7 qtrs. I have adjusted the Q3'24 results for one time charges to the best of my ability. As you can see, Intel's financial health depends on foundry operations a lot. Another tidbit here is Intel Foundry was making an operating loss margin of -22.8% in 2021 when Intel was making record revenue of $79B (to be that business was not run efficiently forever probably due to Intel Products team taking them for granted with too many steppings & hot lots). All these numbers are based on Intel's segmented reporting in SEC filings, so if one believes there is financial engineering going on - then one can question these numbers too.

The new CO-CEO Dave recently in Barclay's tech conf and Pat on Q3'24 said Foundry numbers will improve in 2025 compared to 2024. IIRC, they also said advanced packaging wins will contribute revenue in 2025. So we will see.

1736026729515.png

Intel needs a major restructure. The only question I see is if it does so by itself, or is purchased or bailed out and forced.
I don't think a bail out is needed for at least for couple of years based on some napkin math I did earlier in another post in the forum (I think they will likely get $30B+ in the course of 2 years as CHIPS grant, investment tax credits and Arizona SCIP reminder rolls in). But if you consider CHIPS grant\ tax credits as bailout then they need it desperately next year.
Cloud business is still growing strong. AWS, Azure, Google and others buying zillions of GPUs for their new data centers. Yesterday, ByteDance placed a new $7 billion order with Nvidia. To make things worse, the big players are making their own chips at TSMC. None of this money is going to Intel, who gradually has become an also-run in this business. If Intel survives it will be because of government handouts (for how long?), which is the defunct French economic model. With all of this, I bet on Intel stock sliding even further in 1H 2025.
Intel Xeons are popular head nodes for AI servers. They also have inbuilt AI accelerators that could help with AI. Nvidia also offers DGX B200 platforms that use Intel Xeon CPUs instead of Grace CPUs. so "None of this money is going to Intel" is not really true. Even xAI used Intel Xeon on their recent buildout of AI clusters. It is crumbs compared to what Nvidia is making but not zero.

Also AI can lead to a need for consolidation of multiple old servers to new efficient high core CPU servers due to power constraints (if a new GPU cluster needs to be added to existing DC, I think old CPU servers can be consolidated to make some power available). Also based on what I have learned, there is plenty of workloads that don't need GPUs or can't be run on GPUs.

So, there is a slim chance Intel might surprise us all in 2025. Lets wait and see.
 
Wall street media like to beat a dead horse until it is super dead. When sentiment shifts, then its all rosy and praise - look at what they said about Nvidia before ChatGPT dropped.

That statement about AMD's DC revenue higher than Intel's DC revenue needs an important context. Although AMD is gaining market share in server DC business, AMD made $1.7B in DC CPU sales and $1.5B in DC GPU sales in Q3'24. Intel made $3.3B in DC CPU sales as there is no significant revenue from Gaudi. I understand that AMD is doing well in this space, but the context of nearly 2x CPU revenue for Intel is important here with significantly worse products than competition. So I expect AMD's share grabbing in DC CPU to slow down now that Intel has core count parity in their big core lineup and closed the perf/watt gap considerably.





Profit or loss, Intel in 2025 could go either way. On one hand using TSMC for CCG leads to high cost for Products team (less margin) and low revenue to Foundry team (more fixed cost, so less margin again). Now the question is whether Intel can offset this.

I believe Intel will keep ARL products in low volume because it is in their best interest to do so. Also ARL-U is basically MTL-U ported to Intel 3. There is also expectations Xeon 6 line up will ramp more in volume - industry expectation is Intel 3 (EUV) has better cost structure than Intel 7 based products like SPR/EMR based on what I have read - Although Intel 7 equipment are probably more depreciated at this point. They will still be making & selling MTL based products and RPL (Core 200) laptops to satisfy some demand. Plus all the cost savings will hit Intel financials in 2025. Dave Zinsner mentioned $17.5B operating expenses for 2025 in the recent Barclay's conference (iirc) compared to $22.5B TTM or $21.68B in 2023. If they hit that, that is a $5B reduction in cost for operating margin. Altera and Mobileye if recovers a little is a bonus.

Plus the ramp of CWF & PTL - margin accretive due to fab utilization improvement or margin dilutive due to increased cost of initial ramp? I don't know. It all depends on how the cost structure for 18A is against Intel 7, I guess. Also I am expecting these to be launched in Q3'25 same as LNL & SRF, we will see. I have plotted the Intel Products (sub segments), Intel Foundry and Overall Intel Operating Margins here for last 7 qtrs. I have adjusted the Q3'24 results for one time charges to the best of my ability. As you can see, Intel's financial health depends on foundry operations a lot. Another tidbit here is Intel Foundry was making an operating loss margin of -22.8% in 2021 when Intel was making record revenue of $79B (to be that business was not run efficiently forever probably due to Intel Products team taking them for granted with too many steppings & hot lots). All these numbers are based on Intel's segmented reporting in SEC filings, so if one believes there is financial engineering going on - then one can question these numbers too.

The new CO-CEO Dave recently in Barclay's tech conf and Pat on Q3'24 said Foundry numbers will improve in 2025 compared to 2024. IIRC, they also said advanced packaging wins will contribute revenue in 2025. So we will see.

View attachment 2633

I don't think a bail out is needed for at least for couple of years based on some napkin math I did earlier in another post in the forum (I think they will likely get $30B+ in the course of 2 years as CHIPS grant, investment tax credits and Arizona SCIP reminder rolls in). But if you consider CHIPS grant\ tax credits as bailout then they need it desperately next year.

Intel Xeons are popular head nodes for AI servers. They also have inbuilt AI accelerators that could help with AI. Nvidia also offers DGX B200 platforms that use Intel Xeon CPUs instead of Grace CPUs. so "None of this money is going to Intel" is not really true. Even xAI used Intel Xeon on their recent buildout of AI clusters. It is crumbs compared to what Nvidia is making but not zero.

Also AI can lead to a need for consolidation of multiple old servers to new efficient high core CPU servers due to power constraints (if a new GPU cluster needs to be added to existing DC, I think old CPU servers can be consolidated to make some power available). Also based on what I have learned, there is plenty of workloads that don't need GPUs or can't be run on GPUs.

So, there is a slim chance Intel might surprise us all in 2025. Lets wait and see.
What you wrote is much better than the WSJ article and also contains quite a few unique observations. Anyone with an LLM could have written the WSJ article.
 
1. As the WSJ brought up ARM, here is the recent comment from MediaTek on ARM/AI PC:
1736034580678.png


2. Also, unlike AMD, Intel's client portfolio is transitioning to focus on power efficiency, in the same way as Apple did. Here is a recent article from PCWorld on Arrow Lake:

"In fact, you can make the argument that Intel’s decision to prioritize low power over high performance with its Arrow Lake desktop processors — which contributed to a steep drop in Intel desktop market share in 2024 — might be viewed more favorably in notebooks which can benefit from longer battery life. That argument makes more sense backing up a Core H-series part, which isn’t as desperate for performance as a Core HX chip is."


3. For low power and performance, Lunar Lake laptops will satisfy the market:

 
Pat isn’t without blame! It was a terrible decisions to build Ohio as well as the 62 and the promises in Germany. They were all distractions and wasted precious capital. Too much was made of highNA.

Intel under Pat continued lots of arrogant talking versus just focus on executing and let the results speak for themselves. There was little need to divulge their roadmap so publicly and poke the bear. They should have bee public simply on returning to process leadership and let the products and technology market their leadership and lure in the customers.

Ann is gone… a longtime manufacturing person always suspicious if she was qualified to run manufacturing. She is most certainly not of the level of the TSMC senior manufacturing leaders
Never said he doesn't deserve blame for overspending even expansion of Israel was a dumb Idea same with Madenburg.The packing plant would have been fine in Poland I don't see issues with it but they don't need that many shells without commitment
 
Back
Top