New Intel CEO

[Artificer60]

I’m a bit confused.

Is the new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, attempting similar strategy as Pat Gelsinger, just with the approach of “I can do it better”?

I don't think it is about strategy. I believe Pat had the correct strategy and the board agreed or they wouldn't have hired him. I believe it is more about implementation of that strategy. In my opinion, Gelsinger tried to do too much too fast. He doesn't understand the foundry business and how to build a customer base and he always planned on the most optimistic possible scenario. Gelsinger also created a number of new organizations increasing administrative overhead which I believe further slowed the progress that Gelsinger needed to make.

From what I'm told Lip-bu Tan knows how to build customer relations, hates bureaucracy, and will build plans based on realistic expectations and his past experience building a customer base. So it is a case of bringing in someone that already knows how to do what needs to be done now that Gelsinger has got the TD organization back on its feet.

 

[Maximus]

Wait a second.
I just checked the calendar, and today is March 13, 2025, the third decade of the 21st century.
Are we seriously thinking that the IDM model, in leading-edge logic semiconductors, will suddenly work at Intel today, after the entire semiconductor industry has transitioned to the fabless/foundry model?
This transition has taken place over the past 40 years for good reasons. Have any of those reasons changed?

There are numerous "If we have," "If we gain," and other conditional statements required to justify how an IDM for leading-edge technology can succeed. This was evident when Pat presented his IDM 2.0 strategy. Ultimately, many of these "ifs" do not materialize as envisioned.

 

[Maximus]

in my humble opinion, adding GF to IFS is a bad idea.

GF is not a stable ship, or soon will not be. China's massively overbuilt (and continue building) mature node capacity, once satisfies its internal demand, will soon spill over and be forced to seek business from outside of China, with aggressive pricing to take market share globally everywhere they can. IFS itself will be plenty busy trying to find its first batch of customers and build trust, why do they they want to add on the burden of struggling with the incoming pricing/financial crisis that GF will be facing? Just doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, and I believe the opportunity for merging foundries has passed.

I don't see how any of these mergers could gain approval from the Chinese government.

 

[Fred Chen]

I think at this moment, it is not just trust. TSMC holds a monopoly position. Obviously fabless companies would use them.

What is required are tariffs and policies. Tariffs are economy incentives. On top of that, US policy makers need to communicate to fabless companies directly and ask them to use local manufacturing.

Tariffs and policies probably will force some Intel foundry business, but more likely the risk-averse customer will split between IFS and TSMC.

 

[osnium]

I don't think it is about strategy. I believe Pat had the correct strategy and the board agreed or they wouldn't have hired him. I believe it is more about implementation of that strategy. In my opinion, Gelsinger tried to do too much too fast. He doesn't understand the foundry business and how to build a customer base and he always planned on the most optimistic possible scenario. Gelsinger also created a number of new organizations increasing administrative overhead which I believe further slowed the progress that Gelsinger needed to make.

From what I'm told Lip-bu Tan knows how to build customer relations, hates bureaucracy, and will build plans based on realistic expectations and his past experience building a customer base. So it is a case of bringing in someone that already knows how to do what needs to be done now that Gelsinger has got the TD organization back on its feet.

Will Lip Bu’s cuts end up decimating the TD organization?

 

[Artificer60]

Everything I have read is that he wanted to cut out the bloat of middle management. We'll have to see if the rumors were right on that score. From what I've read so far he seems to value engineering talent, so I don't see deep cuts to the engineering staff in Oregon TD fabs. Though if you're in middle management it may be time to start polishing the resume.

 

[siliconbruh999]

Everything I have read is that he wanted to cut out the bloat of middle management. We'll have to see if the rumors were right on that score. From what I've read so far he seems to value engineering talent, so I don't see deep cuts to the engineering staff in Oregon TD fabs. Though if you're in middle management it may be time to start polishing the resume.

I think that was long due

 

[Xebec]

Will Lip Bu’s cuts end up decimating the TD organization?

A 10% reduction seems about right to contain costs?

 

[lefty]

This annual changing of CEO, reminds me of a team doing badly in the Premiere league and changing their manager as a last ditch gamble to avoid regulation

 

[soAsian]

This annual changing of CEO, reminds me of a team doing badly in the Premiere league and changing their manager as a last ditch gamble to avoid regulation

It's sad. AMD's Lisa Su has led the company to new heights, while Intel has been changing CEOs like Trump's flip-flopping.

 

[Xebec]

It's sad. AMD's Lisa Su has led the company to new heights, while Intel has been changing CEOs like Trump's flip-flopping.

It's not *quite* that bad --

BK "runner" was in the role for many years.

Bob Swan was put in the CEO role, but reported "told employee he was not pursuing a permanent CEO position" - and that's what he was -- a placeholder.

Pat was in the role for just under 4 years (~ 45 months).

The Co-CEOs after Pat were also clearly placeholders.

 

[MKWVentures]

Tan will be very different. Pat was trying to resurrect the past (times change) as if Intel was entitled to lead in tech. The board agreed

IMO tan will say what a new and different Intel should be and how to get there. I assume the board agrees. This will be a more radical change than any previous CEO i would guess.

Its very very good for Intel IMO

 

[Paul2]

Paul, who is Chen?

That's Chinese name of Mr. Tan, Chen Liwu. Tan Lip-Bu is Malaysian spelling

 

[siliconbruh999]

Tan will be very different. Pat was trying to resurrect the past (times change) as if Intel was entitled to lead in tech. The board agreed

IMO tan will say what a new and different Intel should be and how to get there. I assume the board agrees. This will be a more radical change than any previous CEO i would guess.

Its very very good for Intel IMO

Bluntly speaking the board is the one responsible that they are in this mess first place

 

[Xebec]

Bluntly speaking the board is the one responsible that they are in this mess first place

It's always fun how BoD's hide responsibility by flushing C-Suite people.

"We've been hacked!" - there goes the CISO

"Our company has been run into the ground for 15 years" - <keep flushing CEOs>

"Our accounting firm dumped us for irregularities" - goodbye CFO

 

[siliconbruh999]

It's always fun how BoD's hide responsibility by flushing C-Suite people.

"We've been hacked!" - there goes the CISO

"Our company has been run into the ground for 15 years" - <keep flushing CEOs>

"Our accounting firm dumped us for irregularities" - goodbye CFO

Agreed and they still are doing it

 

[sit]

I’m a bit confused.

Is the new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, attempting similar strategy as Pat Gelsinger, just with the approach of “I can do it better”?

Quite possibly, or maybe simply "I can do it." Pat, in my opinion, had the right idea, but with his ELT hires/appointments and actions demonstrated near zero idea on how to make it happen.