To make sense of this, we need to start to think of Intel as two separate entities: Intel Design and Intel Manufacture.
The
IDM 2.0 strategy, recently announced by the new CEO Pat Gelsinger, sets out the future for Intel, of which
Intel Foundry Services (IFS) is a big part. I think the path is clear. IFS will increasingly take over Intel Manufacture, while Intel Design migrates to a more independent and flexible industry-standard fabless operating model (Jim Keller worked on this transformation, in part, as I understand it, establishing the proper methodologies and abstraction levels between design and manufacture, as well as between different design groups — see discussion thread "
Keller's role at Intel").
The IDM 2.0 strategy stipulates the use of external foundries as they see fit for future products, e.g. to ensure product performance targets are met and are competitive and can be produced in sufficient volume. Former CEO Bob Swan boldly announced this change of direction after the announcement last summer of the unfortunate 7nm process delay. He unequivocally said they would consider using external manufacture for main products in the 2023 time frame, if 7nm wasn't ready by then, while also adopting a
disintegration design model (a.k.a. chiplet design), in which chiplets are made on the most suitable process, internally or externally. This change of direction requires an enormous operational change for Intel Design to a much more flexible design methodology, including changes to design tool use, standards and procedures.
Meanwhile, IFS is clearly set out to become an independent business, with its own accounting and management. I think it will gradually take over all of Intel's manufacturing operations, until formally spun off, either as a wholly owned subsidiary (like
Samsung Foundry) or as a joint venture with other investors. Pat Gelsinger is a pretty smart guy. He probably understands that independence is important, and that the lack thereof stunted previous efforts to provide foundry services. He also probably understands that he needs to go big or go home. Scale is important if they aim to have any chance of establishing IFS as a credible competitor to the leading-edge foundries in the industry, i.e. TSMC and Samsung.
"Samsung too was a vertically integrated Integrated Device Manufacturing unit before it created a subsidiary by the name of Samsung Foundries. This subsidiary belongs to Samsung semiconductors. Samsung like Intel was a vertically integrated company."
Intel Vs Samsung: The Foundry Scenario | by Vijayalakshmi Swaminathan | The Research Nest | Medium
So the rumoured takeover of GlobalFoundries should be viewed as a merger between IFS and GlobalFoundries into an independent foundry business, operating wholly independent from Intel Design, with the complete dedication to customer needs. Anything less will not work, and probably would not pass industry scrutiny and regulation, I think.
PS. For more discussion (and a poll) about the separation of design and manufacture at Intel, see:
With the ongoing 10nm debacle at Intel, what does the future hold for them as an chip manufacturer? Is the integrated business model sustainable? At heart, is Intel a product designer or a manufacturer? Let us assume, for this discussion, that Intel has lost its manufacturing lead for a...
forums.anandtech.com