Question Intel's future after Pat Gelsinger

[DavidC1]

they are wrapping up NEX and Automotive as well

Yea I heard.

I don't think some hail mary aka E core team is going to save them this time. I love what they are doing there but Intel sounds like hell. Some part of Intel sounds like despite this they were able to achieve what they were able to do. Now they seem to be draining the soul and spirit of the company.

2028 is way far off.

 

[511]

Yea I heard.

I don't think some hail mary aka E core team is going to save them this time. I love what they are doing there but Intel sounds like hell. Some part of Intel sounds like despite this they were able to achieve what they were able to do. Now they seem to be draining the soul and spirit of the company.

Their current hail Mary is 18A for the process at least let it come out lol

2028 is way far off.

Yeah I am waiting for earnings lol for the spin they are going to give

 

[johnsonwax]

So does Apple but Tim is hands off luckily the hardware side of Apple VPs engineers are very competent. The software side of Apple is struggling now in AI because of being caught off guard but its failure falls on Tim. Apple has money so it can catch up, Intel though is in the deep end.

Your company can survive bean counter CEOs if some parts of your company excels, which for Apple is the iPhone sales. Intel suffered enough damage that NO parts of the company are excelling.

AI is a cultural mismatch for Apple, which is why they're struggling. You can't protect user privacy and operate the way OpenAI does. They're trying to build a competing business model for AI, and I'm not sure they're failing, but it's going to move slower than the 'let's shove all user data into the cloud and steal as much IP as possible during training'. What Apple really screwed the pooch on was overpromising. Historically Apple has been a very 'don't get too far over your skis' kind of company and that's broken down pretty badly around AI. Apple (actually everybody) does best when they ignore the fact they have investors. 'Maximizing shareholder value' might prove to be the most expensive idea ever floated in humanity.

 

[DavidC1]

'Maximizing shareholder value' might prove to be the most expensive idea ever floated in humanity.

It might be, but like many things it's not the idea that's wrong, but the inherently flawed human nature.

Shareholder stake exists because it's the easiest way to get wide exposure to mass capital. If you do it private it's much harder. Many things in advertising is alerting the world that you and your product simply exists. Many products fail commercially because it lacks such exposure, not necessarily because the product sucks.

Even simpler, saying Intel or Apple is making x,y,z mistake just means like any living entity(including a corporation which is made of living entities), it has a lifespan and when it's at an end, it perishes.

 

[johnsonwax]

It might be, but like many things it's not the idea that's wrong, but the inherently flawed human nature.

Shareholder stake exists because it's the easiest way to get wide exposure to mass capital. If you do it private it's much harder. Many things in advertising is alerting the world that you and your product simply exists. Many products fail commercially because it lacks such exposure, not necessarily because the product sucks.

Even simpler, saying Intel or Apple is making x,y,z mistake just means like any living entity(including a corporation which is made of living entities), it has a lifespan and when it's at an end, it perishes.

That's not what I'm saying. Maximizing shareholder value is not an inherent property of capitalism - it's a relatively new idea, cooked up in the 70s and started to get implemented in the 80s and 90s. Prior to that the general philosophy was 'create a new customer'. It was a philosophy centered on the needs of the customer and therefore revenues and reach of the business, not an investor focused philosophy centered on profits and rent seeking. That's not to say those things didn't apply previously - but they were considered economically undesirable. A heap of policies reinforced that, and when the new philosophy took over those policies changed to favor investors. Throughout that period the stock market was not a spectacular place to invest because the benefits of the business were being conferred to the customers and society. That is, after all, what the benefits of competition in capitalism are promised to be - cheaper and better products, not higher returns for investors. Bonds were a better investment because companies were raising capital by borrowing - because expanding the business was the goal.

In the modern telling, we're still fighting communism and selling the benefits of competition, but the incentives are aligned toward monopoly and away from competition. The policies can either support of resist that flawed human nature and they've shifted form resisting to supporting.