Exclusive: Three Intel senior executives to retire amid manufacturing shake up
Posted by Helpdesk_Guy@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 105 comments
Posted by Helpdesk_Guy@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 105 comments
dfv157@reddit
Share buybacks has killed many companies, and really should just be illegal.
I’m also not convinced agent Tan is doing anything beneficial for Intel on a long term basis.
Pelembem@reddit
Share buybacks should not be illegal, it's basically the same thing as dividends. If they were illegal companies would just so dividends instead. And you can't ban dividends because they are literally the only reason you'd ever invest in a company.
bestsandwichever@reddit
there are plenty of companies doing extremely well and innovating fine despite doing massive buybacks. it is completely fine, tax efficient way to bring return to investors.
the problem is poor management, lack of vision from the leadership, and bloated bureaucracy, not just the fact that they did the buyback. Intel did pour billions and billions of dollars into a lot of random stuff, acquired companies. Intel failed to get anything out of it while their core business faltered, because they thought that they already owned the CPU market and became super complacent.
DYMAXIONman@reddit
I think dividends should be used instead of buybacks.
Tuna-Fish2@reddit
What difference do you imagine there to be.
Because there isn't any. They are just both ways of returning money to the shareholders, which is something all healthy businesses should do.
DYMAXIONman@reddit
Buybacks reward short term shareholders.
masterfultechgeek@reddit
As someone with stocks who does buy+hold...
How are total returns significantly different in a buy back vs a dividend scenario?
If there's 100 shares outstanding at $1000 each (so 100k market cap) and the company buys 1 share for $1000, then the remaining shares are expected to be up by about $10 each. How is that different from every share getting a $10 dividend?
The main difference seems to be tax treatment.
DYMAXIONman@reddit
Because a buyback requires selling the stock to make money from the increase in value.
masterfultechgeek@reddit
Why does that even matter?
For laughs, ignoring tax treatment and the impact of short dated options, how is my financial position different after 1 month for these 3 scenarios (assume none of them are announced in advance):
DYMAXIONman@reddit
Because it encourages companies to engage in behavior that benefits short term investors over the long-term health of the business.
masterfultechgeek@reddit
Companies can use long dated options...
Also there's an argument that MANY employees will stay at a place for 10+ years and they influence decisions as well.
In my own personal life, the BEST thing for me is for my RSUs to do like SHIT for the next year or 3 and then to explode in value later on since I'm taxed at vest date and the income isn't "realized" until I sell the stock.
Tuna-Fish2@reddit
If anything, buybacks reward long-term shareholders because it allows re-investing in the company (in the sense of increasing ownership share of the company) without creating a taxable event.
Ignoring tax consequences, buybacks and dividends are equivalent. Neither rewards short- or long-term shareholders any more than the other does.
meshreplacer@reddit
It is harder to cheat with dividends because you would see it on the dividend payout ratio etc. Also dividends reward longterm shareholders better because instead of having to sell stock you can hold on to the shares and use the dividends to pay bills etc. you know like when owning a business and you get a cut of the profits from earnings and thats how you pay bills etc.
In the past dividends were king and you even had a class of stock called Widows and Orphans stocks because it could be passed down and the survivors could collect payment while the share certificates were in a safety deposit box.
Anyhow here is the result from those share buybacks (which are usually used to counter equity dilution from c-suite stock options)
28.35 (-59.41%)past 5 years Aug 1, 11:54 AM EDT • Disclaimer
masterfultechgeek@reddit
If you're thinking of shares in terms of percentage ownership...
if you go from 1000 shares outstanding with one person owning 10 shares to... the company buying 100 shares and the person then selling 1 share... the person's percentage ownership in the company stays the same.
If you like the idea of having more shares.... then the company could do a 1million:1 stock split before and each person would have a stupid number of shares (but the same ownership % in the company).
No-Relationship8261@reddit
Dividends do that as well.
meshreplacer@reddit
No dividends reward long term shareholders since they do not have to sell shares where you can collect dividends and live off the proceeds or pay bills or reinvest etc.. where buybacks do not guarantee appreciation of stocks a well run company paying a safe dividend ratio can provide a stable cashflow.
No-Relationship8261@reddit
Buybacks mean that since the amount of shares on the market gets lower. Your share ends up being more of the company.
It's literally reinvesting dividend into a company but better, since you pay less tax.
mduell@reddit
I think that's misguided, there's no good reason investment should be a one way ratchet. If a company doesn't have promising ideas to invest in, returning capital to willing shareholders to invest elsewhere is quite reasonable.
dontknow_anything@reddit
There is a thing called dividend. But, if you don't have any good investment idea for next few years, that is never a good outlook for a leadership.
Nvidia invested in CUDA when it was much smaller. Intel had a beginning of an external foundry, ARM processors, Optane etc, all things that proved to be far more important, but Intel's leadership and shareholder's prioritized buybacks and money to shareholders rather than invest in future technologies. Building intellectual moat is far harder than financial, IBM, GE, Boeing should be examples.
PainterRude1394@reddit
Share buyback is similar to dividends. Both are a way to return extra cash to customer s
A company having dividends does not mean it has no good investment ideas, it means it doesn't thing it can use that cash to generate a justifiable rate of return.
I find the folks who know the least about how this stuff works often have the strongest opinions that "buybacks bad"
oursland@reddit
Buybacks are a way for executives to boost share prices, the same metric which is tied to their bonuses. The share price goes up, they get personally rewarded, company suffers.
PainterRude1394@reddit
That's why there's a fiduciary obligation for the board and CEO. Share buybacks are not some infinite share price cheat code. They are a tool to return excess profits to investors.
When Intel was doing its biggest buybacks, it had more employees than AMD, Nvidia, and tsmc combined while spending more on r&d than all of them combined.
dontknow_anything@reddit
Yeah, both are bad. Why don't companies do higher dividend rather than stock buybacks? Because that would mean more pressure to maintain dividend to keep stock up. Buybacks are just short term. At the end, if you are giving 50% of your companies value to shareholders in 5 years, then you are telling you have no idea how to grow the company.
PainterRude1394@reddit
No, that pressure exists with buybacks too. The big reason iz because buybacks don't incur an immediate tax penalty whereas dividends do.
SmokingPuffin@reddit
Say you're Chevron and your projections for oil prices are unfavorable. It is a bad look to make dubious investments in such conditions, and a good look to tell your investors that you don't see good opportunities in your core competency.
dontknow_anything@reddit
Then, you need to look at other energy segments. If you want to limit yourself to oil, then it is on you. Energy as a segment will always grow, no one is stopping you from creating new competencies.
mduell@reddit
Sure, but dividends have different tax and ownership consequences. Also with a buyback a shareholder doesn't have to take the money now, vs with a dividend they do.
RetdThx2AMD@reddit
The problem is not the buybacks/dividends so much as the fact they were borrowing more and more money via bonds while returning cash to shareholders. A very dangerous game. Now they are in a weakened state with $50B of debt on the books.
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Yeah, didn't they issued like +$10Bn in bonds a while ago with like +40 years maturity period?
Like as if Intel would be existing by then, given the horrendous financials with half of its market-cap in debts.
I also think all financial collaborations like the $15Bn from that BAM-deal, they'll have a hard time to harvest that broke field, when Intel pledged away their very revenue in Ohio. Same story on Apollo in Ireland, they'll get nothing and just as much as Silverlake (a empty shell company with a tainted name, which was looted before sale).
I'm certain that Intel Legal shafted all of 'em; They'll have to make huge write-down over non-collectables.
mduell@reddit
If there's too much debt, people won't want to own the company, and selling pressure will bring the stock price down.
There's also governance from the board regarding capital structure.
RetdThx2AMD@reddit
... and so it is no surprise that INTC is trading at the same price it was in 1997. But all the people in charge during that time got rich doing it.
mduell@reddit
The price isn't really comparable when there have been multiple stock splits since.
RetdThx2AMD@reddit
The price comparison accounts for any stock splits. But if you want to adjust for the dividends then it has doubled in that time.
_new_roy_@reddit
my only issue is that the execs get shares as part of their compensation, so they have an incentive to increase the price even at the expense of the companys health
mduell@reddit
If you have shares, then any other method of returning cash to shareholders (e.g. dividends) also enriches those same execs.
oursland@reddit
This is incorrect. The execs bonuses are typically tied to share price increases. A buyback increases share price without increasing actual company value. Dividends do not increase share price and directly return money to shareholders.
The result is that there is an incentive for executives to perform a share buyback, even if it is strategically inadvisable for the company.
mduell@reddit
Announcements of consistent expected dividends should increase share price; a one off dividend wouldn't unless people expected it to repeat.
WarEagleGo@reddit
Dividends were historically used and should be used more. Of course the USA changed the tax laws in the early 80s to favor stock buy-back... but no one saw the utterly huge stock buy-backs it would lead to
mduell@reddit
Sure, dividends are another tool for returning cash to shareholders, with different tax and ownership consequences. I don't think companies should be limited to only dividends rather than having a choice.
PainterRude1394@reddit
Why should it be illegal for a company to produce value to investors by raising share prices through buybacks?
dfv157@reddit
Why should it be legal to intentionally put tens of thousands of people out of a job over a few years just so you can give yourself a higher bonus and make your rich buddies a little bit richer for the quarter?
Jack-of-the-Shadows@reddit
What has that to do with anything?
Next you will tell me that Apple could use half of its yearly profit to solve world hunger...
dfv157@reddit
Seems to me a company that's losing $3b a year with only $9b cash/cash equiv left would benefit from having a bit more cash. Even if you count their $2b in receivable and $11b in short term investments, that's still only 1/10 of what they could be cushioned with.
PainterRude1394@reddit
Benefiting from more cash has nothing to do with legality. You were saying buybacks should be illegal.
PainterRude1394@reddit
You claimed that buybacks should be illegal, but you haven't said why it should be illegal.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Intel has a year and a half left as an IDM unless TSMC completely craps the bed.
5477@reddit
Share buybacks are just an alternative to dividends. Companies exist to make profit for their owners. This focus on share buybacks is IMO highly misguided.
oursland@reddit
Executives are given bonuses tied to share price. A stock buyback program boosts the price of a share, making a strong incentive for executives to do so even when it is not a good policy for the company.
Exist50@reddit
I think the main complaint is how their periods of buybacks coincided with the crumbling of their core competencies. Whether it's the reality or not, people are viewing it as a the result of zero-sum resource allocation.
Ok_Lettuce_7939@reddit
Is he a Linda Su?
HilLiedTroopsDied@reddit
looks more like the board wanted someone to downsize and get more market "beats" so they can cash out shares for profit, not necessarily long term health of Intel and how competitive it is.
imaginary_num6er@reddit
Yeah they got sick of Pat’s “leadership leadership” pitches in PowerPoint slides
gburdell@reddit
Kaizad was the head of the 10nm program. How he managed to stick around for a decade after the worst process in Intel history is all you need to know about how disciplined Intel was about pruning its ranks before
an_angry_dervish_01@reddit
His pension and golden parachute will be safe. Wonder about the rank and file though when he and others like him mismanaged the company into the ground.
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
So the failure to deliver was fired back and forth between Kaizad and Redunchintala for years, until they both decided to settle the case and call it a day, consequences be damned?
I really don't understand how a department *cannot* deliver upon the company's backbone-technology, basically bricking the company and somehow get away with it for a full-blown decade.
I can't wrap my head around that! FOR A DECADE FFS!
How is it possible that 10nm wasn't delivered by 2020 and even five full years past the process due date, it's still basically nonexistent by 2020, net no actual repercussions on personnel is getting done? HOW?!
puffz0r@reddit
Feels like people fail upwards all the time in tech, look at Xbox
Vb_33@reddit
The power of social charm and my dad is on the board
Quatro_Leches@reddit
It’s a big club and you ain’t in it
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Updoot for Carlin-quote!
Chudsaviet@reddit
Oh no, 3 billionaires get their golden parachutes and retire. What a human crisis.
Various-Berry-5977@reddit
these people are far from billionaires what are u talking about lol
meshreplacer@reddit
My suspicion is the new CEO is preparing intel for purchase by AMD. There is no saving intel. C-suite over the years with a focus on financial engineering/share buybacks to pump stock up just enough for bonuses to vest did irreparable damage. Its like when a pilot flying a 787 on take off hits the fuel cutoff switches even if you turn it back on there is just not enough altitude to correct the altitude loss and crash into terrain.
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
No-one is so darn stoop!id to do that at AMD! Or anyone else in the industry for that matter, to go and tie themselves down to such a millstone around their neck as Intel has been the last decade …
AMD couldn't care less, and if we're being honest; If anyone has sub-zero reason to help out that smooth criminal over at Santa Clara, it's AMD – AMD tried to help them time and time again, got always crippled and eventually nearly beaten to death by Intel for it and AMD barely survived Intel's constant arbitrary rage for no reason.
AMD tremendously gave Intel a leg up by instigating their ~~Corean War~~ War on Cores™ and effectively create compute-demand out of thin air for Intel to participate at, after a full decade of mandated stagnation from Intel with quad-cores for a decade straight from 2006 to 2016 until Ryzen. It saved Intel's a—, as AMD itself couldn't stem the actual volume …
The only thing which saved Intel throughout the dire situation since 2017 (well, apart from Swan acting sane and sober for once), was their self-inflicted security-mess which resulted in business in NEEDING large quantities of EXCLUSIVELY Intel Xeon-CPUs (to compensate for the sudden massive decline in performance due to deactivated Hyperthreading et al.) and their shortages (which were not only partly inflicted but greatly amplified by AMD's Corean War and saved Intel's sit-upon, as AMD itself couldn't stem the actual volume) – Changing the hardware-vendor in such difficult times ATOP the procurement-mess Intel inflicted, was nigh impossible and would've killed a good chunk of the businesses, so companies *had* to stay with Intel and were literally forced to buy Intel alone, even when being fully aware of way superior AMD-offerings at that time and being extremely p!ssed about Intel's handling of the situation.
If it weren't for the dying Swan, their shortages and the bug hitting (which all of them tremendously helped Intel to save face for the time being!), AMD's Core-race would've slaughtered Intel already by 2018–2019 in the datacenter – The sold AMD-volume during the pandemic would've replaced the better part of installed Intel-CPUs ...
AMD prior tremendously helped Intel to save their broken x86 and carry it over into the 64-Bit era by bringing their
AMD64in 2003 (which Intel teeth-gnashingly had to adopt eventually and can't forget about being humiliated over their own incompetence to this day!) – Intel wanted to kill their own x86 with Itanium instead!AMD even before that, also tremendously helped with the K5 (x86 being no longer a true x86-core but a RISC-design having wrapped some x86-decoder around it), to greatly help increase the operating speed, which Intel's x86-design already had troubles with back then. If it weren't for AMD's K5 in 1996, Intel's x86 would've been already dead as a door-nail since easily a decade and being replaced (as it was about to) with RISC!
So AMD saved Intel's criminal a— with the War on Cores™, after having already done the same with the AMD64 ISA-extension (to help x86 into the 64-Bit era and survive the 32-Bit era-death), and also prior with the K5 (x86 being no longer a true x86-core but a RISC-design having wrapped some x86-decoder around it, to greatly help increase the operating speed, which Intel's x86-design already had troubles with back then).
Third time lucky. There won't be a fourth time. AMD helped enough despite being shat on for decades from Intel itself. No-one has to care about Intel anymore …
TomTuff@reddit
Brand New fan?
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
What you mean?
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Not for purchase by AMD for sure – A split-up is in order – I've said since years, that Gelsinger was to be Intel's last CEO! Or at least the one, who reigns over Intel as a whole as we knew it. Tan got most likely aboard for a split-up.
The only question is, *what* exactly remains to be the "Intel" afterwards …
The design-shop and their fundamentally flawed architectures? Or the broken and kaput fabs?!
That's the only real question here, as it depends on whether Intel either keeps existing, or dies trying.
If Intel ditches the fabs, they're in for a RUDE awakening – Utter loss of reputation *and* significance, with other smaller companies being able to rightfully dictate them around and being of higher importance all around.
Intel will be just another fabless next to minor fabless companies in Far East, last in line!
Not only will be their credibility being next to no existent (they're not that far away from it anyway), but even them being basically irrelevant with no greater say in any industrial bodies and hardware-, software- and whatsoever technology-consortium or specifications-drafting – IRRELEVANT.
Intel will STILL have nothing but a pile of shambles of their already two decade old Core-architecture being highly flawed and inferior in every single regard – The ability to attract actual competent staff in the near-term (compared to other fabless companies), is going to be very, VERY hard! … and Intel already had massive issues to attract actual talent ever since the 2000s.
Their market-value will be much, MUCH less than before, just due to potential prospect alone of having to fight for wafer-contingents at TSMC, Samsung, GlobalFoundries and others like the big ones (and having the actual money for it!). The likelihood for Intel being able to afford TSMC as a fabless, is way smaller than now – The prospect of a longer dry spell (architecture, manufacturing-ability, financial standing) will likely price them into $15–$35Bn range, and thus under threat of constant take-over from someone bigger.
Which brings us to their joke of manufacturing …
If they ditch everything design (Intel Core-IP, Xeon-brand) and concentrate they're even in for a bigger surprise and a TWOFOLD pikachu (and I think Intel's board might have already tried to walk that path with VERY sobering results, while getting handed a reality check for obscene consulting-fees). Since the reality is, that ALL of their IP is next to worthless and ALL of it needs a MAJOR technological overhaul anyway (flawed CPUs, flawed network, flawed, lackluster graphics etc), while their brands have become a laughing-stock and lost brand-recognition brutally …
Neither Xeon nor Core is anything of a brand, what someone from outside would pay any amount of a premium for atop now, as these brands are for sure neither premium anymore and even got highly tarnished by Intel itself (flawed, buggy, insecure, slow, hot, you name it …).
If Intel's management thinks, that just because they ditched everything design and are now a foundry, being eligible for vast amounts of tax-payers' money because of that and anyway, #NationalSecurity! … Intel will be in for a quite a humbling experience and deeply shocked, that the overall consensus of either party will be something along the line of; “We agree in principle … Yet NOT under management from anyone from Santa Clara in charge! Either nationalised, or nothing at all!” …
Which then will basically amount to their former manufacturing being effectively needed to be converted into a industrial consortium under a expert-committee first (without anyone from former Intel itself), before seeing even a single dime of federal loans, grants or any other kind of monetary backing.
Trust me on that … Since if politicians are going to go around for asking all the other big fabless to fork out some money for the newly erected national entity (in exchange for a neat seat at the table in the steering committee; let's call it USMC in this context), ALL of them will demand, that NO-ONE from former Intel neither has a say in any of it nor even sits at the table – If anything, may have only consulting capacity on this entity, if being involved at all.
So more like a Radio Yerevan joke »In general yes, but NOT with anyone from former Intel – Get rid of them!«.
If Intel (after having ditched the fabs) will refuse to do so and act accordingly, politicians from either side of the fence will NOT bail out Intel, since there's absolutely sub-ZERO backing of it in the public and voters' eyes – Politicians don't care about companies but votes!
All involved know, that Intel can no longer be saved, as long as their cr!m!nal BoD is in charge.
So Intel is most definitely just going down either way – The politics may then pick up the scraps and form a national industry-consortium lead by ACTUAL experts and not incompetent Intel-brats, and that's basically it.
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Not with money at least. As whatever amount of money being thrown at Intel, it's basically burned for nothing.
So politics know for a fact, that Intel is not to be saved, as long as Santa Clara is in charge.
I wrote a post lately, which explains the background, you may have a read.
It's the destructive board who ruins Intel ever since the 2000s, yes. As long as it's in charge, there's no betterment.
railagent69@reddit
Intel the new IBM
meshreplacer@reddit
Actually IBM was able to pivot when big iron sales was slowing down and look at the stock price VS Intel which focused on financial engineering. Imagine if C-suite looked past worrying about 3 months to get bonus and chose to do business with Steve Jobs when they got the call, they had a stake in StrongARM as well. Instead they refused and then sold StrongARM to use the money for share buybacks instead.
INTC -27.93 (-58.52%)past 5 years
IBM +135.72 (115.58%)past 5 years
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Intel not just had a mere stake in StrongARM™ … Intel basically sat on the market's single-most performant energy-efficient ARM-Cores (they got from DEC's through the law-suit), there was and the market had to offer point blank.
Also, that was the sole reason why Apple approached Intel in the first place!
Since the former latest Apple Newton already ran off DEC's StrongARM™ SA-110. It ran at 162MHz and offered stellar performance (up to 24 hrs w/ backlight on off just 4 ordinary AA-batteries). … and since Intel now reigned with StrongARM/XScale over the market's undisputed most stellar ARM-designs, naturally Apple approached Intel for the iPhone-SoC in 2005 asking for the next ARM-based CPU, now in Intel's hands.
Apple was put down due to Intel only wanting to offer only a x86-Atom, not any ARM-design – Apple told Intel to kick rocks and that it was only ARM they'd be interest in, so the deal failed through, obviously …
Only to then turn around immediately after the iPhone-deal fell through, to demonstratively and well-intended quickly sell everything StrongARM/XScale (even INCLUDING every given related personnel!) to Marvell, out of spite in a fit of cold-hearted calculation and determination towards their x86, before the iPhone even hit the market just months after …
So that no-one ever again could possibly mistake Intel for everything else but a one-stop x86-shop exclusively.
It was a surefire statement from Intel, which clearly signaled, that Intel is a x86-shop first and foremost and offers their own x86 only exclusively – “No other architecture is allowed to thrive nor even exist at Intel!” — Gelsiner
Intel actually HAD everything they needed to offer for Apple (in terms of a potent StrongARM-based ARM-design), yet they demonstratively did not wanted to offer Apple anything but their own x86 alone.
The monumental stupidity from Intel over that move of refusing the deal of the century back then, is just mind-blowing already and really can make one speechless – Just because if wasn't x86-based.
Yet it gets even more mental, if you truly think about and grasp the actual fact, that Intel after that immediately turned on the spot, only to fight the very myriad of ARM-vendors, Santa Clara itself helped to create all by themselves in the first place, by refusing Apple their deal over their iPhone-SoC — +$10–12Bn loss in that mobile fight with Atom.
Then after that, running after Apple for a modem-deal for years, only to again waste $18–$21Bn US-dollar that way, when wrapping their LTE-modems into $10-dollar bills to outdo Qualcomm …
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
Ironically, the chances for Intel folding and roll over, only for being reduced to fancy blue-tinted fairy Smart Dust before IBM (as the former Big Blue 1.0) getting knocked their lights outs, is most definitely higher than ever!
Since in another smile from Godfather of Time Eternal, the *other* and original Big Blue 1.0 is far from dead and is just as full of POWER as it ever was since the IBM 801, being more alive than ever!
As the last and actually original Big Blue (now hovering in the background as the Mighty Blue Electron, watching everyone), is still making massive dimes (after a successful turn-around from near-term bankruptcy).
Just kidding. Actually IBM has been on a real roll since around 2020 and has been steadily approaching its all-time high just now with no less than $296.16 USD!
The joke is, IBM was at $216 USD just before the crash in 1929 – Even during its actual all-time high in the 1970s in the mainframe-era, when International Business Machines basically was international business and basically synonymous with everything computing, it still 'only' was $179.70 USD.
Even its creation of the infamous IBM-PC 5151 and the whole PC era afterwards now looks like a mere blip in IBM's time-line, though a happy fluke reshaping the industry.
So despite its age of now no less than 114 years (sic!), when founded through merger back in 1911 (and no less than 141 years, if we account for Hermann Hollerith since 1884 and his Tabulating Machine Company), this true dinosaur of computers is really hard to die and just refuses to let go of thinking, still trots on and jogs along as the age-old reactionary diehard it ever was from day one.
Though I guess that's because back then, when good 'ol Hermann ›The German‹ Hollerith started to begin to compute and punched things to no end, computers just weren't crystal-controlled, and thus NOT able being bricked by hardware-bugs like the Y2K-bug – Numbers were just *punched* in by hand into cards (hence punchcards).
So as long as someone literally punches in every morning (and they still have 293,400 doing it every single day), this giant of old age and old days of yesteryear just marches, and likely outlives all of us.
Though that's just 👁️ 🐝 M – It didn't coined Watson's famous slogan „Think!“ for no reason!
Since thinking is being. I think, therefore I am. (Cogito, ergo sum).
… and it seems this beast just took it literally, and already easily outlived Kodak. The next one is🔻Verbatim!
Unironickek2@reddit
Twisted and deranged belief
TerriersAreAdorable@reddit
What does AMD get from buying Intel? They already have generous patent cross-licensing agreements and are winning on merit in markets where they overlap.
No-Relationship8261@reddit
Fabs and right to be x86 monopoly.
Is that worth 80 billion dollar? Probably not.
But after lip Bu fails to compete even more and Intel stock price lowers another %50. I could say 40 billion dollar is a fair price for it.
wintrmt3@reddit
But the fabs are shit and a they are just a gigantic hole to burn money in, AMD really doesn't need them.
No-Relationship8261@reddit
Fair point. US manufacturing has been in a massive decline since forever. If you think that it won't go back up, it's a foolish investment while you can buy TSMC shares instead with that money.
ditroia@reddit
Networking stuff, thunderbolt stuff?
Exist50@reddit
Cheaper and better acquisitions for that stuff.
Dziadzios@reddit
x84 licence, forever, for one time payment. Among other intellectual property.
hardware2win@reddit
Amd with half of revenue would buy them?
meshreplacer@reddit
For AMD it would be intellectual property, AMD will be able to manage the IP better and most likely it would be accretive to net earnings eventually.
dragonblade_94@reddit
It's wild to think about Intel being in a position where considering a buyout is even a possibility. Even considering their recent manufacturing woes, afaik they still remain the de-facto standard supplier for enterprise/industrial computing solutions, as well as holding well over majority market share for consumer hardware.
The curse of infinite growth, I guess.
Exist50@reddit
This is an interesting one. He's in charge of Intel's PDK development, which has reportedly been one of their major issues with 18A. People familiar with his tenure at IBM and GloFo didn't seem to have anything good to say about him when he was hired in 2019. E.g. this comment from the time. https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/intel-hires-former-globalfoundries-ibm-chip-executive-dr-gary-patton.12175/
And that prediction seems to have proved prophetic. He grew Intel's PDK team mostly in India (where it only had a minority presence prior), and now they're in the layoff stage, which is naturally going to disproportionately impact the "high cost geo" employees, regardless of relative productivity.
der0hrwurm@reddit
I’m an amateur so this is a genuine question- what does 18A mean in this context?
Exist50@reddit
Intel's next-gen 18A process node.
der0hrwurm@reddit
Thanks!
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
The three senior executives are;
suicidal_whs@reddit
I'm really surprised to see Ryan Russel forced out. I've only spoken to him directly a handful of times, but he was really well respected and gave straight answers at the quarterly meetings.
beach_2_beach@reddit
Patton? Of that Patton family?
brand_momentum@reddit
Let's roll out the red carpet for the /r/hardware CEOs, financial experts, doctors and engineers to tell everybody what Intel's CEO did wrong and what he should be doing
ProfessionalPrincipa@reddit
Why do that when you could go to the /r/intel sub and see Team Blue backseat CEO-ing!
hwgod@reddit
Meanwhile, users such as yourself have been insisting all the while that Intel has no problems at all, and anything to the contrary is "fake news". Weren't you calling basically every piece of info that's come out since earnings fake when the media reported it in advance?
It doesn't take a genius to see where Intel's failed. All these highly paid execs have demonstrated that they don't actually deserve their positions.
ProfessionalPrincipa@reddit
I encountered this user on this web site the first time when they were cross posting Intel press releases across half a dozen or more subs and noticed it was a normal activity. Make of that what you will.
OutrageousAccess7@reddit
ITT: OP and OOP and OOOPs are just paraphrasing each other.
Proglamer@reddit
Oh no, I'm not going to do that. I'm just glad the ol' Bribe Machine is going down in flames
meshreplacer@reddit
Does not take a rocket scientist that they should not have refused Steve Jobs business especially when they had a stake in StrongARM. Instead they said no, sold the StrongARM stake and bought back stocks to temporarily boost prices so C-suite stock options vest.
Now we end up with this. Vs triple digit Intel share price and fat dividends.
28.35 (-59.41%)past 5 years Aug 1, 11:54 AM EDT • Disclaimer
No-Relationship8261@reddit
Honestly even r/hardware level understanding of:
New product performance number must be bigger than old product performance number
Seems to be something Intel execs are missing. All of Arrow Lake should have been released one/two price tier below.
PainterRude1394@reddit
Let's get this started. Intel bad, they should have done what I said. Also, buybacks should be illegal because I don't know how they work!
deonteguy@reddit
Ohio might succeed in preventing them from opening their foundry. I never thought that would happen. Also, Oregon is forcing them to close more manufacturing in Oregon. They've hated Intel because of high salaries for years so that isn't surprising.
glizzytwister@reddit
Of course these shitheads are allowed to retire with full benefits, but fuck all those other people they laid off and will never being back.
Tiny-Independent273@reddit
can't tell if this is a good or bad sign
shroombablol@reddit
good for the remaining executives bonuses, bad for the company.
bestsandwichever@reddit
this is a good news. these people are dinosaurs (Kaizad used to run the famous the "10nm™" program) who should have retired a long time ago.
Exist50@reddit
And as far as I can tell, no one who's ever worked under him ever liked Patton, and he objectively failed in his mission. The bigger question is who the replacements are.
Helpdesk_Guy@reddit (OP)
The article notes that …