Intel Employees "Very Optimistic"

[benb]

I think they know WFH is more efficient, but certain companies wanted to increase natural attrition so they took it away. WFH is thus a sign of corporate health.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Internal memos, keynotes, and meetings for upper management are all "nice", but wrt to the 100,000+ employees he and KOB are largely MIA and it is not clear where the ship is being steered. Are employees optimistic? Those I know...not so much.

Should he have one-on-ones with 100k people? He is getting ready to cut thousands of people. That is where the ship is being steered, to accountability. Lip-BU has been clear on his messaging. The employees who feel management are MIA will probably be KIA.

 

[Y.H]

Should he have one-on-ones with 100k people? He is getting ready to cut thousands of people. That is where the ship is being steered, to accountability. Lip-BU has been clear on his messaging. The employees who feel management are MIA will probably be KIA.

I wonder does lip bu likes to do town hall. Personally, I find most town halls are a waste of time and effort

 

[Daniel Nenni]

I wonder does lip bu likes to do town hall. Personally, I find most town halls are a waste of time and effort

Ditto. I would rather have Lip-Bu out meeting with customers. Intel executives have their marching orders. If employees feel in the dark the managers need to be fired.

 

[Artificer60]

The employees who feel management are MIA will probably be KIA.

Have to disagree with this sentiment, since that is the vast majority of the people I know who actually move the wafers and touch the tools. The only people left would be the managers and they don't know how to run the factory. Technical skills are one thing, hands on day-to-day performance of tasks is something completely different.

I guess my issue is that I have yet to see any concrete, measurable indicators from Mr. Tan regarding his plans. Gelsinger made promises he couldn't keep, but he did give you something to measure his performance against. So far all I have heard from Lip-Bu Tan are vague, squishy generalizations. That is one way to ensure you don't promise what you can't deliver, but I don't think it works long term. In fairness, he has only been in the position 10 weeks and should probably be given some time to get things moving but the silence is distracting. I suspect that this feeling is probably fed by the previous 2 CEO's (Swan and Gelsinger) who had some sort of message for employees practically every week.

I will say everyone I talk to has indicated that Naga (not going to wrestle with his last name. ) has been very open and clear about the direction he wants to go in, but specifics of how to get there are still pretty sparse. Perhaps this is the approach that Lip-Bu Tan prefers? To let his direct reports handle the messaging to their orgs?

 

[user nl]

Have to disagree with this sentiment, since that is the vast majority of the people I know who actually move the wafers and touch the tools. The only people left would be the managers and they don't know how to run the factory. Technical skills are one thing, hands on day-to-day performance of tasks is something completely different.

I guess my issue is that I have yet to see any concrete, measurable indicators from Mr. Tan regarding his plans. Gelsinger made promises he couldn't keep, but he did give you something to measure his performance against. So far all I have heard from Lip-Bu Tan are vague, squishy generalizations. That is one way to ensure you don't promise what you can't deliver, but I don't think it works long term. In fairness, he has only been in the position 10 weeks and should probably be given some time to get things moving but the silence is distracting. I suspect that this feeling is probably fed by the previous 2 CEO's (Swan and Gelsinger) who had some sort of message for employees practically every week.

I will say everyone I talk to has indicated that Naga (not going to wrestle with his last name. ) has been very open and clear about the direction he wants to go in, but specifics of how to get there are still pretty sparse. Perhaps this is the approach that Lip-Bu Tan prefers? To let his direct reports handle the messaging to their orgs?

I understand. People who have been fired or have fired people in face-to-face announcements understand the enormous effects these processes can have on the people involved. And perhaps even worse is handling the uncertainty during the time preceding the announcement in expected mass layoffs. The longer this uncertainty lasts the more damage is done to the people involved, the fired ones and the non-fired ones.

Here the announcement by PG on the 15000 people Intel fired on 1 Aug 2024:
https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/actions-accelerate-our-progress#gs.cgq6eg

There can be quite some long-term effects on the companies also after mass layoffs:
https://hbr.org/2024/10/research-the-long-term-costs-of-layoffs

It is simply brutal, and the sooner bad news is shared the better it is generally.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Have to disagree with this sentiment, since that is the vast majority of the people I know who actually move the wafers and touch the tools. The only people left would be the managers and they don't know how to run the factory. Technical skills are one thing, hands on day-to-day performance of tasks is something completely different.

I guess my issue is that I have yet to see any concrete, measurable indicators from Mr. Tan regarding his plans. Gelsinger made promises he couldn't keep, but he did give you something to measure his performance against. So far all I have heard from Lip-Bu Tan are vague, squishy generalizations. That is one way to ensure you don't promise what you can't deliver, but I don't think it works long term. In fairness, he has only been in the position 10 weeks and should probably be given some time to get things moving but the silence is distracting. I suspect that this feeling is probably fed by the previous 2 CEO's (Swan and Gelsinger) who had some sort of message for employees practically every week.

I will say everyone I talk to has indicated that Naga (not going to wrestle with his last name. ) has been very open and clear about the direction he wants to go in, but specifics of how to get there are still pretty sparse. Perhaps this is the approach that Lip-Bu Tan prefers? To let his direct reports handle the messaging to their orgs?

Do you know people who worked at Cadence as well? How do you measure Lip-Bu’s performance there? Vague and squishy? Lip-Bu, the vague and squishy billionaire.

 

[hist78]

I've seen no evidence that your statement is correct. The primary reasons Samsung's foundry business is more likely to be struggling are inability to deliver leading edge process chips with reasonable yields, and inability to convince potential customers Samsung can achieve roadmap parity with TSMC. You can't be a second source foundry without comparable technology and pricing.

Do you have any evidence that potential Intel Foundry customers have competition from Intel products as their fundamental concern? Executive quotes will do.

The chips these three customers designed for internal use aren't good opportunities for Intel's product divisions. Merchant chip product companies, including AMD and Ampere, are too high cost for the specialized requirements of these cloud computing vendors to be competitive at all.

Positioning your personal opinions as assertions of fact without evidence isn't persuasive.

siliconbruh999 said:
"isn't Samsung is a competitor to everyone than(Display/Memory/Camera/Exynos(this is lacking due to Samsung foundry) and other misc stuff)?"

My response:
"You pointed out one of the reasons why Samsung foundry is struggling. TSMC doesn't need to address such conflict of interest issues because it doesn't exist."

Apple started using TSMC around 2011 and fully switched from Samsung to TSMC around 2014. It was largely due to the conflicts of interest posed by Samsung.

Apple’s huge volumes, aggressive product roadmap, and vast financial resources, combined with TSMC’s capabilities and pure-play foundry model, enabled both companies to achieve remarkable success. Many of Samsung Foundry's manufacturing and yield problems emerged several years later. They were partially a consequence of Apple’s departure.

For those unfamiliar with the Apple–Samsung conflict and the reasons behind Apple’s move from Samsung Foundry to TSMC, there are plenty of articles and interviews available with a quick Google search.

 

[siliconbruh999]

siliconbruh999 said:
"isn't Samsung is a competitor to everyone than(Display/Memory/Camera/Exynos(this is lacking due to Samsung foundry) and other misc stuff)?"

My response:
"You pointed out one of the reasons why Samsung foundry is struggling. TSMC doesn't need to address such conflict of interest issues because it doesn't exist."

Apple started using TSMC around 2011 and fully switched from Samsung to TSMC around 2014. It was largely due to the conflicts of interest posed by Samsung.

Apple’s huge volumes, aggressive product roadmap, and vast financial resources, combined with TSMC’s capabilities and pure-play foundry model, enabled both companies to achieve remarkable success. Many of Samsung Foundry's manufacturing and yield problems emerged several years later. They were partially a consequence of Apple’s departure.

For those unfamiliar with the Apple–Samsung conflict and the reasons behind Apple’s move from Samsung Foundry to TSMC, there are plenty of articles and interviews available with a quick Google search.

If you do stuff like that anyone wouldn't work with you and Apple is in the same boat as Samsung as well over the years they do the same stuff.

 

[user nl]

From TSMC’s point of view, the GigaFab model is the preferred approach. However, for the Arizona project, TSMC chose not to follow that model. Instead, it opted for the MegaFab approach. This decision likely gives TSMC more flexibility to handle various issues, uncertainties, and demands that may not arise in Taiwan or other parts of Asia.

View attachment 3243
Source: https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/manufacturing/gigafab

Thanks for your detailed analysis/info on TSMC's fab-size strategy. Perhaps the Arizona-fab is the new US-version of a connected-GigaFab coming into existence? See also your earlier thread about this, I was not aware of it, my apologies:
https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/tsmc-phoenix-arizona-fab-site-plan.16066/

Very impressive to scroll through a couple of recent 2025-photos where you can see the shell of Phase 2 done; the groundwork of building Phase-3 started end of April-2025:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/t6U4F29pQezG7fR8A

Here again the link on the story about "super-Arizona-CEO" Ying-Lang Wang:
https://cwnewsroom.substack.com/p/key-figure-behind-tsmc-us-expansion-yinglang-wang
Ying-Lang Wang has long overseen TSMC’s fabs in Southern Taiwan Science Park, the center for 5nm and 3nm production—a critical growth driver that helped TSMC pull ahead of Intel and Samsung in recent years.

In April 2023, he was urgently sent to the U.S. to take over the troubled Arizona fab, successfully leading the team to begin mass production of 4nm chips earlier this year.

A formidable leader in fab construction and mass production, Wang is also a research powerhouse, having published over 300 papers and holding nearly 300 patents, rivaling even dedicated R&D professionals.

Indeed a formidable activity by TSMC in Arizona, in combination with the new packaging plant and "R&D"-center in the future at that site.

 

[XYang2023]

Have to disagree with this sentiment, since that is the vast majority of the people I know who actually move the wafers and touch the tools. The only people left would be the managers and they don't know how to run the factory. Technical skills are one thing, hands on day-to-day performance of tasks is something completely different.

I guess my issue is that I have yet to see any concrete, measurable indicators from Mr. Tan regarding his plans. Gelsinger made promises he couldn't keep, but he did give you something to measure his performance against. So far all I have heard from Lip-Bu Tan are vague, squishy generalizations. That is one way to ensure you don't promise what you can't deliver, but I don't think it works long term. In fairness, he has only been in the position 10 weeks and should probably be given some time to get things moving but the silence is distracting. I suspect that this feeling is probably fed by the previous 2 CEO's (Swan and Gelsinger) who had some sort of message for employees practically every week.

I will say everyone I talk to has indicated that Naga (not going to wrestle with his last name. ) has been very open and clear about the direction he wants to go in, but specifics of how to get there are still pretty sparse. Perhaps this is the approach that Lip-Bu Tan prefers? To let his direct reports handle the messaging to their orgs?

I think Lip-Bu has been clear enough about the strategy.

Regarding organizational structure, he has openly stated multiple times that Intel needs to be flattened and focus on its core strengths. I would interpret that as some managers being fired or demoted, and some teams being reassigned or let go. There's also a return-to-office policy in place, which means those unable to comply may also be let go.

As for what PG promised previously—it was meaningless. To build trust, actions and results speak louder than words.

 

[siliconbruh999]

RTO is a bad Policy it can sometimes make good employees leave you.

 

[XYang2023]

RTO is a bad Policy it can sometimes make good employees leave you.

I think there is a trade off. For Intel to get rid of the slack culture, some changes should be made. I guess RTO also helps with training younger employees.

 

[DanX]

I think it makes more sense to use AI to manage a hardware company. The output is more controllable and the key metrics are clearer.
I would do this if I am the CEO of Intel.

 

[DanX]

If there are no KPI, your competitors is the KPI.