Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/lip-bu-tan-our-path-forward.22684/
        )

    [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
)

Lip-Bu Tan: Our Path Forward

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
A message from Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to all company employees.

The following note from Lip-Bu Tan was emailed to all Intel Corporation employees on April 24, 2025:

Team,

Today we reported our Q1 2025 results. It was a step in the right direction as we delivered revenue, gross margin and EPS (earnings per share) above our guidance, driven by Dave and Michelle’s leadership. I want to thank them both, and all of you, for the good execution.

We need to build on this progress — and it won’t be easy. We are navigating an increasingly volatile and uncertain macroeconomic environment, which is reflected in our Q2 outlook. On top of that, there are many areas where we must improve. We need to confront our challenges head-on and take swift actions to get back on track.

As I have said, this starts by revamping our culture. The feedback I have received from our customers and many of you has been consistent. We are seen as too slow, too complex and too set in our ways — and we need to change.

Our flatter Executive Team (ET) structure that I shared last week was a first step. The next step is to drive greater simplicity, speed and collaboration across the entire company. To achieve these objectives, today I am announcing some important changes.

Becoming an Engineering-Focused Company

We need to get back to our roots and empower our engineers. That’s why I elevated our core engineering functions to the ET. And many of the changes we will be driving are designed to make engineers more productive by removing burdensome workflows and processes that slow down the pace of innovation.

To make necessary investments in our engineering talent and technology roadmaps, we need to find new ways to reduce our costs. While we have taken significant actions in the last year, our current cost structure is still well above competitive benchmarks. With that in mind, we have reduced our operating expense and capital spending targets going forward, which I will discuss during our investor call this afternoon.

Flattening the Organization

As we refocus on engineering, we will also remove organizational complexity. Many teams are eight or more layers deep, which creates unnecessary bureaucracy that slows us down. I have asked the ET to take a fresh look at their respective orgs, with a focus on removing layers, increasing spans of control and empowering top performers. Our competitors are lean, fast and agile — and that’s what we must become to improve our execution.

I’ve been surprised to learn that, in recent years, the most important KPI for many managers at Intel has been the size of their teams. Going forward, this will not be the case. I’m a big believer in the philosophy that the best leaders get the most done with the fewest people. We will embrace this mindset across the company, which will include empowering our top talent to make decisions and take greater ownership of key priorities.

There is no way around the fact that these critical changes will reduce the size of our workforce. As I said when I joined, we need to make some very hard decisions to put our company on a solid footing for the future. This will begin in Q2 and we will move as quickly as possible over the next several months.

We are going to be very intentional about where we focus these efforts and how we stack up against the best in the industry. We have learned some valuable lessons from past actions. We must balance our reductions with the need to retain and recruit key talent. I will empower each of my leaders to make the best possible decisions aligned with our top priorities. These decisions will not be made lightly, and we will keep you regularly informed.

Streamlining Our Processes

It has been eye-opening for me to see how much time and energy is spent on internal administrative work that does not move our business forward. We need to radically simplify this to maximize the time spent focusing on our customers.

I am instructing our leaders to eliminate unnecessary meetings and significantly reduce the number of meeting attendees. Too much valuable time is being wasted. We will also modernize processes with a focus on live dashboards and better data to ensure we have the real-time insights we need to make better and faster decisions.

In addition, I have decided to make our formal Insights and OKR requirements optional. While it’s crucial for us to stay accountable for our results and receive feedback on our performance, I believe we can achieve this in a simpler and more flexible way. Along the same lines, we will cut back on time-consuming corporate administrative tasks such as non-essential training and documentation.

Returning to the Office

Our existing policy is that our hybrid employees should spend approximately three days per week on site. Adherence to this policy has been uneven at best. I strongly believe that our sites need to be vibrant hubs of collaboration that reflect our culture in action.

When we spend time together in person, it fosters more engaging and productive discussion and debate. It drives better and faster decision-making. And it strengthens our connection with colleagues.

With that in mind, we will be updating our policy to require four days per week on site by Sept. 1. I wanted to tell you well in advance so that you have time to make any adjustments to your daily routines. We are going to work hard in the meantime to ensure sites are ready to operate at full capacity. Your local leadership will share site-specific details and seek your input on how to create the best possible on-site experience.

Building a New Intel

I realize this is a lot to take in, but we are playing from behind and we need to rally as a team to put ourselves in the best possible position to win.

This requires us to be laser-focused on developing the best products. We need to delight our customers and earn their trust by delivering the performance, quality and reliability they need to succeed. We must demonstrate predictable execution and ensure on-time delivery. And we need to deliver consistent returns for our shareholders.

There are two ways teams can respond at make-or-break moments like this: They can look at the gap they need to close and give up — or they can look inside themselves and fight like never before.

I made my choice last month when I decided to join you all, and there is no place I would rather be right now. I came on board knowing full well this would be the most challenging job of my career, but also the most motivating and fulfilling — because we have opportunities ahead that most people don’t get in their careers.

I’m talking about the opportunity to fundamentally reinvent an industry icon. To pull off a comeback that will be studied in business schools for generations to come. To create new technologies and deploy them at scale to change the world for the better.

Intel was once widely seen as the world’s most innovative company. There’s no reason we can’t get back there, so long as we drive the changes needed to improve.

It’s going to be hard. It will require painful decisions. But we will make them knowing it’s what we must do to serve our customers better as we build a new Intel for the future – and I have great confidence in the power of our team and our people to make it happen.

Thank you for everything you did in Q1. I look forward to talking more tomorrow during our All Company Meeting.

Lip-Bu Tan

Forward-Looking Statements

This letter includes forward-looking statements, including with respect to our future business plans, strategies, objectives and expectations. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied, including the risks and uncertainties described in Intel’s 2024 Form 10-K, Q1 2025 Form 10-Q and other filings with the SEC. All information in this statement reflects management's intentions and expectations as of the date of this statement, unless an earlier date is specified. We do not undertake, and expressly disclaim any duty, to update such statements, whether as a result of new information, new developments, or otherwise, except to the extent that disclosure may be required by law.

Released Apr 24, 2025 • 4:31 PM EDT

 
Spot on:

"As we refocus on engineering, we will also remove organizational complexity. Many teams are eight or more layers deep, which creates unnecessary bureaucracy that slows us down. I have asked the ET to take a fresh look at their respective orgs, with a focus on removing layers, increasing spans of control and empowering top performers. Our competitors are lean, fast and agile — and that’s what we must become to improve our execution.

I’ve been surprised to learn that, in recent years, the most important KPI for many managers at Intel has been the size of their teams. Going forward, this will not be the case. I’m a big believer in the philosophy that the best leaders get the most done with the fewest people. We will embrace this mindset across the company, which will include empowering our top talent to make decisions and take greater ownership of key priorities."
 
and depth is only half the issue. there are matrix managers.
When I asked a longtime PTD/LTD person who is running logic TD these days, His answer was "well.... its complex... " then we discussed and narrowed it down to two people.... one of whom was not in his reporting structure. Then I asked another person.... I got a different answer.

This is a very good step by Tan.
 
After listening to the call I would say that Michelle Johnston Holthaus stole the show! It was hard not to laugh at the voice of the person asking questions however. Do you think that is his real voice? :ROFLMAO:

The foundry talk was not encouraging however. I was hoping 18A foundry customers would be discussed. From what I understand Intel is focused on internal 18A products? And since when is Intel using Samsung Foundry? Is that a historical reference as in many years ago? Or is that a future reference?

Hopefully the Intel Foundry event next week provides more clarity.
 
After listening to the call I would say that Michelle Johnston Holthaus stole the show! It was hard not to laugh at the voice of the person asking questions however. Do you think that is his real voice? :ROFLMAO:

The foundry talk was not encouraging however. I was hoping 18A foundry customers would be discussed. From what I understand Intel is focused on internal 18A products? And since when is Intel using Samsung Foundry? Is that a historical reference as in many years ago? Or is that a future reference?

Hopefully the Intel Foundry event next week provides more clarity.
What if there are no 18A customers or they all bailed out?
 
Spot on:

"As we refocus on engineering, we will also remove organizational complexity. Many teams are eight or more layers deep, which creates unnecessary bureaucracy that slows us down. I have asked the ET to take a fresh look at their respective orgs, with a focus on removing layers, increasing spans of control and empowering top performers. Our competitors are lean, fast and agile — and that’s what we must become to improve our execution.

I’ve been surprised to learn that, in recent years, the most important KPI for many managers at Intel has been the size of their teams. Going forward, this will not be the case. I’m a big believer in the philosophy that the best leaders get the most done with the fewest people. We will embrace this mindset across the company, which will include empowering our top talent to make decisions and take greater ownership of key priorities."
It was the next piece that worried me. "I will empower each of my leaders to make the best possible decisions aligned with our top priorities." Aren't these the same people that got Intel into this mess, or at the very least allowed it to persist? This sound way too much like putting the fox in charge of the hen house to me. My bet is that once again the rank and file will disproportionately pay the price.
 
The foundry talk was not encouraging however. I was hoping 18A foundry customers would be discussed. From what I understand Intel is focused on internal 18A products?
What if there are no 18A customers or they all bailed out?
Intel Foundry's website says they have 9 locked in 18A foundry customers. Only Microsoft and Amazon are publicly named. Maybe BCOM is already committed? Because they slammed down Reuters real fast when they ran that BCOM being upset that 18A wasn't HVM ready like 4 months before Intel even said it would be HVM ready and responded back that they were still working on 18A and that they weren't upset. I think at one point Intel mentioned winning 1 or 2 defense chips. So I guess that leaves 4-5 customers that nobody has any clue who they are or what they are using 18A for.
And since when is Intel using Samsung Foundry? Is that a historical reference as in many years ago? Or is that a future reference?
Intel has been running chipsets exclusively on Samsung since 2021 (aka a decision made by BK back when Intel ran out of fab space for 14nm). I wouldn't be shocked if Intel was Samsung's largest client by far since QCOM bailed on them. Intel chipsets are probably like a 40K WSPM business.
Hopefully the Intel Foundry event next week provides more clarity.
I mean, you are unlikely to get names. Nobody works like that. And I doubt folks want to advertise they are working with Intel, given how TSMC is very protective of their M word and has been far more snippy with Intel than they ever were with Samsung (indicating to me that they are far more concerned about Intel developing into a threat than they ever were with Samsung). But in general yeah I would assume more detail to come. Why steal Intel Foundry's thunder now. Let them have their moment in the sun.
The recent reports I have seen indicated that the foundry engagements were primarily on 18AP which is something like a year out. So focusing on 18A internally seems to be the right choice here.
You say that as if 18A-P isn't just 18A with rounded out corners. The Same thing with TSMC, almost nobody uses the non P versions of a node. People wait for yield and variation to get better and wafer prices to come down once TSMC slaps that P sticker onto the newest process vintage.
 
It was the next piece that worried me. "I will empower each of my leaders to make the best possible decisions aligned with our top priorities." Aren't these the same people that got Intel into this mess, or at the very least allowed it to persist? This sound way too much like putting the fox in charge of the hen house to me. My bet is that once again the rank and file will disproportionately pay the price.
In the last two years, several MAG7 companies have substantially cut management levels. For example, they have required managers to oversee more than five but less than ten reports, or they've aimed for an overall management-to-IC ratio of roughly 1:7. These strategies are quite effective for removing middle layers and reducing costs.

I can see Intel doing similar things.
 
Intel Foundry's website says they have 9 locked in 18A foundry customers. Only Microsoft and Amazon are publicly named. Maybe BCOM is already committed? Because they slammed down Reuters real fast when they ran that BCOM being upset that 18A wasn't HVM ready like 4 months before Intel even said it would be HVM ready and responded back that they were still working on 18A and that they weren't upset. I think at one point Intel mentioned winning 1 or 2 defense chips. So I guess that leaves 4-5 customers that nobody has any clue who they are or what they are using 18A for.

Intel has been running chipsets exclusively on Samsung since 2021 (aka a decision made by BK back when Intel ran out of fab space for 14nm). I wouldn't be shocked if Intel was Samsung's largest client by far since QCOM bailed on them. Intel chipsets are probably like a 40K WSPM business.
why did Tan say:
intel needs to earn trust of foundry customers


and he previously said intel needs 2 or 3 key customers.


so intel foundry customers dont trust them? and they do not have 2 or 3 key customers? Seems like he would know?

how many external 18a foundry wafer starts will intel have in 2026? 5k per month?
 
Last edited:
why did Tan say:
intel needs to earn trust of foundry customers
That's easy. So they continue to be Intel foundry customers in the future, and so you can win more and bigger designs going fowarwd.
and he previously said intel needs 2 or 3 key customers.
I wouldn't really call Amazon or Microsoft AI chips as key customers, nor would I call a DoD chip key. Those are all small fries. While not an 18A design win, I also wouldn't count digital TV SOCs from Mediatek to be a key customer in the traditional sense either. I would call winning an iPhone chip, a whole line of QCOM or MTK mobile APs, or an NVIDIA AI chip design win a key customer design win though.
so intel foundry customers dont trust them?
No they don't. That is the point, though. The fabless model by design cannot be trusting. Their survival as a company depends on their foundry delivering. Could you imagine what would happen if NIVIDIA finished the production run of one of their generations but their foundry was 2 years late on delivering their wafers for that next gen product? Having no product; that is bankrupt the company levels of disaster. So yeah, the default state of foundry customers is "we don't trust you". Even TSMC is not to be trusted implicitly. Customers demand to see where their wafers are at all times, every process control parameter, SPC charts, process recipes, tool selections, process flows, EVERYTHING. Why does TSMC give unfettered access to their crown jewels to their customer's? Because even with TSMC's sterling reputation, a fabless customer will not blindly entrust their future to anyone. The foundry engagement team's whole job is to look over their foundry's shoulder and make sure the decisions that are in the best interest of the customer are always being taken. Now with the esotericism out of the way. Realistically, there are levels of trust. TSMC is at that highest level. Intel is at 0. Maybe (probably) even negative due to prior fumbles. And Intel until Mediatek has had effectively 0 real foundry experience. To build a reputation even one quarter as strong as TSMC will take a decade, many dozens of varied customers, all across like 4 process nodes. And each customer interaction will need to go smoother and better than the last.

Using an except from MediaTek NA's CEO:
Sure I think I can kind of put it into three kind of buckets,
if you will. One was the experience around the engagement and enablement side.
And in that particular bucket, as I'll call it, I guess, is, the team really
looked to align with your teams to figure out, how do we optimize? How do we refine the designs?
How do we work best together to maximize power and performance in area. And I think what we found the team was very pleased with,
we got to a point where Intel Foundry really leaned in. In many cases put people on site from an engagement perspective,
working side by side to help us with those things
, to help us make sure that that we understood,
how your process worked and it was optimized with the tools and then, your team understanding what our design priorities were.
And so that design engagement was really critical. And that enablement side and there's multiple instances where
the team was really pleased with the engagement and the reaction that Intel took to support us.

The second part of this is just the overall interaction around the fab and fab operations and manufacturing readiness.
The team really felt that Intel listens to feedback and that they were open to that feedback. That they they would take
the time to thoroughly understand the issue and then respond in a way that that addressed the issue.
And it might have taken a little bit of time to understand it. But once we figured it out and there were commitments in place,
Intel quickly executed to it. I would say that that
the comment was made that there is exceptional capability from a fab operations perspective from our team.
The one challenge we had early on was in the test chip yields, as you're well aware.
And the team was really pleased with how quickly the Intel team reacted and worked with our team.
And in less than nine months, we went from really challenging yields to very,
very competitive yields. And the team, the word that they they used was remarkable progress
on that. So the yield ramp was exceptional.
You know once we got the challenges fixed.
And then the third part that I would comment on is just the overall mindset in the culture of Intel Foundry, focused
on our success. We believe that that Intel truly understands what it's required to be a foundry partner.
What we need as a customer. We think that they've made significant adjustments along the way, both organizationally and in their process
and workflows over the last couple of years. We found them, like I said earlier, to be very open minded in their approach, very customer oriented
and making us successful.
And so overall, the team is very confident that with
the level of collaboration and teamwork we have with the Intel Foundry team and the commitment just to continuous improvement,
that the partnership is going to allow us to really effectively service our customers going forward.
In my book, that is a strong initial showing. But in future the next customer, the next next customer, and the 100 nexts customers must all have an even better experience than whomever is the customer before them. Things must get to the point where not only is the ability to respond to crisises good, but there should be fewer crises, and things should be first time right. There are no shortcuts here. Intel Foundry just needs to keep interacting and learning. Then gradually more and more customers will come and with bigger and bigger design wins will come. When TSMC and UMC started out they were doing chips for digital watches, calculators, and niche low performance ASICs on obsolete process technologies that were so low value that nobody (IDM or fabless) wanted to waste their limited leading edge wafer starts on these non haymaker products. Intel foundry is starting from the same step in their growth as 1980s TSMC.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't really call Amazon or Microsoft AI chips as key customers, nor would I call a DoD chip key. Those are all small fries. While not an 18A design win, I also wouldn't count digital TV SOCs from Mediatek to be a key customer in the traditional sense either. I would call winning an iPhone chip, a whole line of QCOM or MTL mobile APs, or an NVIDIA AI chip design win a key customer design win though.
Let's remember how TSMC made it from mainstream fab, to leading edge service. Basically, the only way you make double digit margin while not offering leading edge, or even being 2+ generation follower, is by being very, very big, and very efficient.

Taiwan used to have tons of empty land, cheap utilities, and PhD engineers cheaper than you can hire in South Asia these days. So, from their early days they just kept growing, and grabbing more clients with cost. They never went for MOQ orders, they were capturing clients from already large semis ordering hundreds of lots, and offering double digit economic advantage.

That worked while bulk processes on biggest foundries were modestly interoperable until <40nm era. Now, a foundry customer cannot just walk away with their maskset to another foundry with a slightly better offer. Moving foundries is a big expense, big risk now.

Intel will not be able to come from follower to leader the same way. Foundry choice is a life or death question for a small fabless. So only large semis with multiple product lines will even look on that because they can afford such risk, but such fabless primarily look at the cost, and mainstream, older, cost-per-cell optimised nodes, which Intel will not offer.
 
In short, they are trying to out TSMC TSMC.
IMG_3930.jpeg
 
Last edited:
That's easy. So they continue to be Intel foundry customers in the future, and so you can win more and bigger designs going fowarwd.

I wouldn't really call Amazon or Microsoft AI chips as key customers, nor would I call a DoD chip key. Those are all small fries. While not an 18A design win, I also wouldn't count digital TV SOCs from Mediatek to be a key customer in the traditional sense either. I would call winning an iPhone chip, a whole line of QCOM or MTK mobile APs, or an NVIDIA AI chip design win a key customer design win though.
100% agree with your comments....

So how many external 18a foundry wafer starts will intel have in 2026? 5k per month? Tan knows the number and he is honestly giving us what to expect
 
Reuters is at it again:

Intel shares fall as dour forecasts overshadow CEO's turnaround promises

Illustration shows Intel logo

A smartphone with a displayed Intel logo is placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration taken March 6, 2023. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

  • - Tariffs cast doubt on near-term demand for company's PC processors
  • - New CEO gives glimpses of plans to reanimate Intel's culture of innovation
  • - Company has a lot of investments to make to catch up in AI, Stifel says
April 25 (Reuters) - Intel's shares fell more than 8% on Friday as the company's weak revenue and profit forecasts overshadowed new CEO Lip-Bu Tan's strategy to revitalize the embattled chipmaker.

 
100% agree with your comments....

So how many external 18a foundry wafer starts will intel have in 2026? 5k per month? Tan knows the number and he is honestly giving us what to expect

Do you know where Intel did their WiFi, and LTE chips?
 
Back
Top