But neither may happen no matter how long he waits. Without assigning total responsibility to him, the problem is the impact on US tech position, as now ASML has acquired Cymer. A key US tech company has disappeared. They would not have been able to do this without Intel's share. Was it necessary to do this? I would argue it would have been better to let Cymer continue to compete (it was leading anyway).
The other perspective is vendor management. This may be a really weak or really strong move, depending on whether you think ASML manipulated Intel, or vice versa.
Intel must find a way to dominate the mobile market, utilizing advanced silicon technology is an advantage but also and perhaps far more important a new mind set. Intel's new CEO first task: Get the mobile market!
intel 's trouble is too deep.
I don't see anyone (smart one) want to pick this huge pile of mess.
the best future of intel might be to let it fall apart.
it will evolve into a big piece of foundry, a piece of fabless processor, a piece of nand...
anyone want to hire me as consultant can msg me... (predicted intel's fate precisely last year)
any smart ppl wont' want to get into the deep faction politics of intel. he ll get burned like a piece of toliet paper.
in the end some idiot might pick up the mess and can't work it out. it's the same story as kodak, nokia...
the best solution is just let it disappear.
it's much easier to build some thing ground up rather than transform this huge monster.
it's face reading, dude, and some simple background checking.
I have a decent record in predicting stock movement.
my only problem is I will get nervous with my own stock, otherwise I will become Buffet II by now.
Really? See HP the good old Hewlett Packard for you today.! Intel's obsession and actions against AMD's competition threats may have just caught up with them. To big to fail? Well... DEC, Motorola, Sun, Fairchild Semi, and many others in the past and just possibly some big ones following the trend, once you consider the bestowing and hand over of proprietary design, process and manufacturing technology to 'offshore' foreign companies in the name of 'cost savings', more like much higher profits for the companies for the time being.
Large and successful companies usually get frozen into old ways of doing things, too many mid level managers who have a stake in continuing the old way. And then comes the technology shift, followed by confusion, wild swings, disintegration,...
IBM survived because it had the intellectual capital to shift to software services.
Intel is too deep into transistors and fabs, lazy designers who use far too many transistors because they know the Fabs can still make them Need to replace Salesman Otellini with someone who has strong leadership in system design. I recommend Prof. Hennessy ( who originated RISC designs, wrote the standard textbook for Architecture and founded MIPS ) and now is the President of Stanford. He can bind together both SoCs for Mobiles and CPUs for Servers with a uniform microcode and scalable architecture. Also being an academic Prof. Hennessy would be a breath of fresh air for the rather Stalinist organization at Intel ( instituted ironically by Andy Grove who himself fled Hungary to escape Stalinism ) to deliver the x86 tick - tock !
Second choice : make Warren East of ARM an offer he can't refuse !
Joining Intel at the top from outside is the ultimate sign of having low intelligence.
Share holders of a Stalinist organization needs to find a new Stalin in Lavrentiy Beria, not a Gorby. Otherwise, your 401K goes the way of Berlin Wall.
Hennessy hasn't made any contributions to the field in the last 20 years nor has he kept current with the latest trends in microrachitecture, circuits and process technology.
As a University president, Hennessy is twice the salesman that Otellini is.
Dirk Meyer would be a very good choice as an external candidate. Or Bob Colwell.
Intel's main problem is ethnic, national and racial balkanization. Too many cliques premised not on technical interests but ethnic or national interests.
This is results in the promotion of unqualified candidates to positions of technical leadership and since this "leadership" can't debate the technical merits of its decisions it becomes authoritarian and reactionary.
Does Intel have to dominate the mobile market to be successful? That's not clear to me. It can be a capable player and unlike most of its peers Intel can offer the backend (datacenter, networking processing) as well as the phones to Telecoms. That's a pretty compelling value proposition.
lazy designers? it is easy to take shots at Intel designers when you aren't one of them. in fact that is probably human nature -to disparage others rather than consider them as equals. certainly as a designer you are much much better than anyone who works at Intel. designed anything on 10nm recently?
I am referring "Licensing ARM cores" as every one else and build a chip with Intel frame work for mobile platform. I hope it may not get into legal issues. After all ARM is a IP company any one can lic it's IP.
Intel FAB, ARM Core(s) and Intel processor frame work around (for socket compliance) would be a great combination to achieve best performance/watt and I am sure Industry will like it and Intel can continue it's legacy. If Intel wants to re-invent the wheel, I am sure it will lose the race. Who ever comes on Intel Board - if he can keep his ego aside and "give what industry wants!" will be a great push for Intel into the Mobile space.
hi guys, I come up with a brilliant solution.
he can make use of intel fab to replace tsmc...
enough ego to deal with current intel cliques.
knows how to drive mobile computation...
+ a smart daddy behind as a bonus.
what a perfect fit...
I agree emphatically. As someone who worked for Intel from Grove to Otellini, Intel started its downward (in spite of what profits have shown), when Barrett took over. Intel went from inventions to investors. Just staying ahead of competition because they had money to at any problem, does anyone remember Prescott. To turn things around and turn Intel back into the innovation company it once was, it needs a visionary engineer to lead. Not a myopic manufacturing or sales investor singing pawn
The x86 is already in the mobile market, and is already compatible with ARM in the same power range. I cannot see a reason why Intel use ARM in the future. As for the Server market, I don't see why ARM is better than Power, SHARC(they satisfy most of people here by RSIC, and with much more legacy in server market).So if Power and SHARC cannot compete x86, how much chance are there for the ARM (no market yet)?
To me, Intel just secured the Server/HPC market by xeon and xeon phi in the last decade. And they are not big enough to fight 2 war, mobile and server, at same time. Anyone knows the server has much higher profit than mobile market. Now, with server secured, it's time for Intel to fight in mobile market.
Anyway, Intel's shape in mobile market is better than the ARM in their own market now. The future is unclear to anyone of us...
wsw1982 is the only one here that see the opportunity and pitfall. TI has made the ARM mistake with OMAP (which too many lemmings here are recommending) and destroyed Motorola and Nokia while shrinking itself significantly. Worst - it through away its best values at the time. I would not like to see a repeat of that scenario. Intel X86 was in mobile with less power before ARM (200LX) and the current models are already ahead of ARM. The value is in functionality and re-use. The pottencial in technologies Intel already holds is in the many 1000's but running too fast shrinks revenues. - The issue for Intel (and MS) is finding a marketing model for all that.
"server has much higher profit than mobile market"
There in lies the problem for Intel. The server market which is has huge margins is under attack by the lowly ARM vendors who will scrap over half those margins and still have a succesful business.
Can the Intel cost structure survive such an erosion in margins?
Anyone who knows Rob knows Bob has been conducting a survey for 2 years on the subject of “does anyone love us anymore”.
Where the opinion of this respondent is too release some old frictions operating within the enterprise. To undertake some serious cost cutting that recognizes an unstable behemoth, looted by some employees for $183,062,739,749 over the last 20 years.
Too reconfigure the operation for organic competitiveness. Intel needs to focus on strengths that can make the new order an efficient contributor in the market place.
Is Intel bankrupt on a future value basis from all the unwanted stocks? Assembled product in channels on deferred revenue recognition? For an enterprise that does not manufacture much product anymore after flooding the commons at 32 nanometers. The strategic choice of some top executives to crush the competition, which destroyed the industry, Intel barricading itself on a leap frog from planar commercial industrial art into a 22 nanometer FinFet applied science.
Perhaps IBM will buy Intel or the Common
Platform Alliance will pick up the pieces?
Obviously under the premise of this survey it’s rationale to keep manufacturing; surely a gem in the enterprise. Too release economists responsible for the production inefficiencies of running a surplus racket. Accounting and financial staff who long time concealed this fact. To erase the sales department, like Lehman, there is no possibility of cleansing. Get rid of the system theorist’s who gave us juxtaposed channel attractor, and tied charge back metered price discrimination. Some in the marketing communication group suspoected as propagandist who don’t really work for Intel but the channel influences who maintain them their for their media channel ties. The Board enrolled in DOJ cartel amnesty? And of course too can all the attorneys. It’s time to clean house.
I thought about LSI CEO Abhi Talwalkar too. I had pitched him as a candidate with the AMD CEO chair was open.
He's a reasonable candidate for Intel now, similar in kind to Gelsinger, but I don't think a likely one.
Gadi Singer is a wonderful left field pick, too, but not the outsider and business guy Intel needs.
Intel needs an "outsider" like it needs a whack in the head. Just look at the series of incompetent outsiders the HP board has hired in the past decade as CEOs and the wreckage they caused. Intel should look inside and pick someone with both technology and business acumen.
Sanjay Jha would be a very interesting choice. But like many others on this string, I would expect Intel to go with someone internal. A couple of the people mentioned, such as Talwalkar and Gelsinger, would be interesting choices because they have a lot of Intel experience and have added outside experience. But it seems like Gelsinger kind of burnt some bridges when he departed.
If an outsider, anyone but Gerstner! He will part the company out, sell all the low-lying fruit for pennies on the dollar, give himself a good package and bolt with max benefits... just like he did to IBM.
I'm available and would consider to take on the challenge to shake up and wake up Intel. I have no degree or any collection of them from renowned Universities but I certainly have more common sense and vision than many 'famous' and highly regarded CEO's that ruined corporations on their way to the top and fame. Do I have to list some names?
Well, my number is still unlisted and confidential but if you don't mind, let's meet at the 'Walker's Wagon Wheel' to discuss some serious business, one without any of the Wall Street bull s..t . Remember the place of real innovations and business plans, created and sketched on napkins by true leaders in the past? Oops...I just remember the place is history now, wrecked and demolished as many Silicon Valley companies have been since, companies that were, to my knowledge, created there in the 1960-70's'. I've frequented the 'watering hole' in the 70's after a day of hard work and must have rubbed shoulders with many of the Silicon Valley pioneers, the modest and unpretentious creators of the Silicon Valley at that time.
You regrettably omitted to name any of the corporate 'gnomes' (the board members), the mastermind and fashioners of corporations failures. Who else? It's utmost time that the board of directors of all public corporations must consist of and include at least 25%++ lower level employees/workers, a principle implemented and practiced to my knowledge by some very successful German companies. Hello!
sprite0022: I'm willing to participate in some due diligence search and selection process at no charge. Who needs any of these high level executive search firms and consultants, the ones that placed too many company crashers in the past.
1 thing i agree is the current board structure is flawed.
the shareholders are a group of nonsense ppl who chase after fortune only, nearsight and timid.
(those who invest in intel are definitely timid ones)
Intel's best and brightest days may be behind us when it comes to its marketing muscle and when it comes to moving into new areas of applications. But intel has by far the best and the most advanced process technology in the world. In fact they are easily five years ahead of TSMC and Global Foundaries both. Intel needs a new CEO who will be able to maintain this kind of technological edge. Most of the candidates you proposed have little background and experience in cutting edge process technology, Intel's crown jewel.
Guys, why do we keep forgetting about Intel's history.. remember there forays in domains outside of the PC market.. digital watches many decades ago, strongARM, communications some telecom stuff, etc, etc. Never was able to make anything out of these. Always back to the PC market, their center of gravity, bread and butter, high margin( need to answer the shareholders). And now the entry into mobile market against a formidable opponent who plays in the high volume low margin market.. you figure it out, who will win this market.
For Intel to make a mark against the ARM - TSMC duopoly in Mobile, they would need to leverage their lead in transistor & Fab technology to come out with SoC s that would perform better ( faster at even lower power ) than ARM based designs but would be able to run std. PC software on Tablets and cost no more than $ 10. Intel has less than 2 years to create this breakthrough product, otherwise it might as well forget all about it as by then Chinese companies would be making their own ARM based designs. This is a technical goal and would need a CEO savvy in Technology ( Mobile, Software, Architecture, Chip Design & Process ) as well as Business strengths.
Intel no doubt has advantage in technology but product design is a problem. They couldn't define a better architecture with low power. The other issue is cost. I don't think anyone can compete against TSMC in IC mfg. cost reduction. It's an art that mastered by all level of employees in TSMC. But Intel employees has strong discipline like military. It takes a strong leader to lead and change the top level and the rest could follow the order to execute thoroughly.
I think Mitt Romney is looking for a job. :)
My guess is that Andy Bryant will step in as interrim CEO. (He's already Chairman of the Board and has been the corporate conscience since the Andy Grove days.)
Intel can't go back to an Engineering CEO; Otellini led it out of the wilderness from an engineering company to a marketing company. That was necessary when the PC industry went from a growth market to a replacement market.
They are already competitive with ARM in the cell phone market, they just didn't do it on 4G, so you won't see them make inroads against ARM until next year. Unfortunately, the stock price and stockholders (and thus the board) ran out of patience with Otellini.
The company needs to fix it's cycle time if it has any hope to survive. 6 years to plan, design and implement a processor is a non-starter in a competition with ARM. They highly vulverable and will lose massively in a war of manuever. (That's how they ended up on 3G instead of 4G for smartphones today. Took too long to get to market.)
Intel also needs to quit running the company on the basis of everything they learned with PCs over the last 3 decades. That's the innovator's dilemma in spades. An external leader that can shake up Intel's top management, clean house, reinforce Intel as a market company, and fix the cycle time by moving the company to 100% SoC (even for it's mainline x86 processors) is what's needed.
That's a hell of a job description and challenge. Any sane person would look askance at the challenge. There doesn't appear to be anyone within Intel that fits the bill (although it's possible that, like Harry Truman, there is someone that can grow into the job). There are some Intel alums that might work: Luis Machuca, Pat Gelsinger, Abhi Talwalkar, Anand Chandrasaker, Mike Fister -- but they also have baggage from their departures.
It will be an interesting search.
Intel needs new technology to get itself out of the current mess. Remember when they were getting crushed by the japanese in the DRAM market, it was their processor technology that gave them a second chance.
A marketing or sales ceo cannot solve their issues. Intel has succeeded for so long because it is a very engineering focussed company all the way to the top. During Intel's heyday, all the ceos were engineers. Only lately have their ceos been non-ceos and they have started to slip - co-incidence?
to conclude, intel is doomed.
deeper reason is it's board structure.
it's made up with some non-interested, non-professional, retirement fund managers.
you can keep on dreaming they can save intel.
if by some way intel could shake up its board by including me(chair), irwin jacobs, maybe also bill gates it might get a chance of revival...
I think a manufacturing or tech honcho, internal or external, can only save Intel by restructuring it as foundry, where it can utilize fab tech strength and not worry so much about defining key products, which go from fad to commodity pretty quickly these days.
crazy thought but what if Elop is brought in to secure flagging wintel and flagging Nokia share of mobile. It goes without question that noone can displace Intel from the PC world as we know it. even if Sylvia Summer runs it (remember Trident Microsystems..)Whether PC as we know it will continue to grow or not is the key question - If one agrees with this, then the new CEO needs to be one that can win mobility & the internet of things.
They MUST find the new CEO outside.
The inside culture is just too strong to allow any change.
The "we've always done it this way" arrogance syndrome will not allow the necessary changes if not driven very strongly by an outsider.
What to do is actually not so difficult. Intel has fabulous assets and can leverage them to win and become even stronger than they are now.
Those unique assets are :
- Process technology. They are years ahead of TSMC on 3D finfet.
- They "own" the cloud (ARM is nowhere in servers) and they can drive its
future more than they even realise themselves. In particular, if they were
a little smarter and humbler, they could drive the cyber-security resolution
much much harder and define a security de-facto standard that the world
(including the ARM camp) would have to follow.
- Manufacturing capacity. Qualcomm went through hard times this year
because of TSMC. This industry learned a hard lesson. Apple MUST be
looking at using Intel's fabs to secure its future. The industry is struggling
to ramp up 28nm when Intel is already ramping up 16nm (more or less
equivalent to everyone else 20nm). They have 1 to 1.5 process node
advantage and they have HUGE capacity. The PC decline is freeing up this
very advanced capacity. Intel must open up to fill its fabs.
In fact, the next CEO should have a lot of fun if he/she is smart enough !
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.