>> from Shockley on down to Rodgers, Woz / Jobs..., the whole pack
It is not true. Shockley never ran anything right. All his firms were bankrupt.
For Intel, the guy that built Intel was the marketing guy that figured out how to make people aware of the components used inside their PCs. Before then, no one cared what was inside their PCs. But when Intel Inside campaign came, Intel took off. AMD has made better products than Intel but this is not a tech race, it is marketing which techies are not good in.
>> But don't you think an CEO should have some understanding of how the products are produced---how can a CEO or manager make good decisions
The problem with experience is that you keep perfecting the thing you have experience on. A chip designer will continue to see a business from that lens instead of from the needs of the market. There is no correlation between been an IT geek and being a great IT manager. It is like universities that hire anyone to run over professors instead of making professors Presidents purely because they are professors. You get someone who has been watching spiders and how they walk to run a university with $1B budget becuase he has published papers less than 30 people in the world have cited. It is the same with business. Management does not get much from deep specific expertise.
from Shockley on down to Rodgers, Woz / Jobs..., the whole pack
and if you want examples of the opposite, won't have to go any further than H-P, created by Engr.s Bill & Dave, the founding fathers of Si Valley, but now bleeding 15 years after falling for glorified sales girls ( MBAs ) like Fiorina & Whitman.
But don't you think an CEO should have some understanding of how the products are produced---how can a CEO or manager make good decisions if they don't know how they will effect work production. Being an engineer or a chip designer or at least having that knowledge would help CEO make more informed decisions.
>> I do know that he benefited from Motorola being aquired by Google.
That is the most important line in your comment. CEOs win - head or tail. While others get fired or layed off, CEOs with their special contracts win in all scenarios. Jha failed in leading MOT to the promised land, we hope his chance in this new call is brighter.
>> But I don't suppose any business leader gets a big vote of confidence from engineers.
I do not think there is a correlation between being an engineer to being a good CEO in a technical firm. It is like in academia where you appoint a professor who has never run a single 5-person business to run a university with $1B budget. Where is the prepration? Publishing papers in journal has no relationship to managing students, staff and faculty.
I wish him good luck but this type of company always make great guys seem simple. When a bright man hits a terrible business model, the latter always wins. Let us hope Sanjay is lucky this time around.
GloFo needs 3 things: more customers, more capacity and a new DNA.
The chart we showed on anysilicon site, can demonstrate how far are GloFo and UMC from TSMC. Sanjay will bring a new set of contacts: Qualcomm, Moto/Google, but this is not enought. GloFo needs also Apple.
Capacity is also an issue. GloFo cannot grow without bringing more wafer capacity which ATIC has now agreed to an investment of 10B$ to the fab.
Last but not least, GloFo was created by a merger of several fabs, organizations and cultures. To ensure all this work together a new leader has be in place. And Sanjay has the right backgound and the spirit to create that and drive GloFo to the top.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.