Arm boss casts doubt on Intel's path forward after CEO shakeup

zohaibahd

Posts: 657   +16
Staff
Why it matters: Everyone has an opinion on what went wrong with Intel and where the company is headed. Recently, the CEO of one of its biggest rivals - and an occasional partner - weighed in on what could be next for the chipmaking giant.

In an exclusive interview with The Verge, Arm CEO Rene Haas shared his perspective on Intel's recent chaos. He also addressed rumors that his $150 billion British semiconductor company may start manufacturing chips rather than just licensing its designs.

Haas expressed some sadness regarding Intel's tumultuous situation. Last week, Intel's CEO Pat Gelsinger resigned after failing to stop the company's downturn.

He noted that companies must continually reinvent themselves in the tech industry. Haas believes Intel's core dilemma is deciding whether to remain vertically integrated by designing and manufacturing chips or to split those roles by becoming fabless. Intel has wrestled with this "fork in the road" for the past decade.

Indeed, when running both design and manufacturing wings, chip advancements require heavy investments in infrastructure and a longer time-to-market. Perhaps that's why rivals like AMD have adopted a fabless model, relying on partners such as TSMC for manufacturing to avoid the financial strain of maintaining costly fabs.

Gelsinger had firmly chosen vertical integration when he took the helm in 2021, a strategy Haas felt required 5-10 years. Sadly, Gelsinger resigned in just three. Haas suggested that such a model has its upsides, but he also questioned whether the immense associated costs made it "too big of a hill to climb" for Intel.

In September, Arm had reportedly approached Intel about acquiring its product division, which develops chips for PCs, servers, and networking equipment. Intel turned down the offer. Haas declined to comment on the deal other than to note that he repeatedly urged Gelsinger to license Arm designs to boost Intel's prospects and leverage its manufacturing capacity. However, Gelsinger didn't take that offer.

Haas did not confirm or deny the rumors of Arm getting into manufacturing - perhaps for AI. However, he did say that there are benefits to simultaneously defining the instruction architecture and building the processors. It allows for being closer to the hardware-software interaction and a better understanding of the tradeoffs in chip design. So if Arm did pursue making its own chips, Haas said that integration would be "one of the reasons."

Permalink to story:

 
ARM would love it if an x86 competitor went under. I wouldn't listen to ARM, they've been real scumbags lately and have been doing more to hinder ARM through licensing than helping move it forward to replace X86.
 
Rather than too big a hill to climb, I think Intel's problems stem more from something afflicting many companies.....the stock marker has absolutely NO interest or reward for long term thinking. It doesn't matter if the company is still here 5 years from now. the market needs revenue and profits NOW to drive stock price. I don't know if Pat was on the right track or now, but I can tell you the board won't let him or any other CEO have the time to find out.
 
the stock marker has absolutely NO interest or reward for long term thinking. It doesn't matter if the company is still here 5 years from now. the market needs revenue and profits NOW to drive stock price.
Ah yes, the wonders of late stage capitalism. The only thing that matters is profit above everything else. Reminds me of AOL back in the day when its owners didn't care about innovating, keeping up with the rest of the tech sector, or investing much in the company itself. All they cared about was squeezing every last penny of profit out of AOL, and look at them now. I wonder if Intel will be the next AOL.
 
Ah yes, the wonders of late stage capitalism. The only thing that matters is profit above everything else. Reminds me of AOL back in the day when its owners didn't care about innovating, keeping up with the rest of the tech sector, or investing much in the company itself. All they cared about was squeezing every last penny of profit out of AOL, and look at them now. I wonder if Intel will be the next AOL.
"late stage capitalism", alongside "bad faith argument" and "facism", has totally lost all meaning in the modern Reddit driven world.

Yes, companies care about profit. Because profit is what keeps the lights on. Of course, there are plenty of examples of companies that will willingly throw away profits to push ESG scores (hello bud light and disney) but those dont fit the narrative, so they get ignored in favor of the tired argument that gets trotted out, that only profits and growth matter, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Let's be real here: Intel is in a bad spot. Last quarter they reported a LOSS per share. That is bad news for intel. this follows many quarters of falling revenue and profits, while intel's node projects continue to fail expectations and roadmaps change constantly amid corporate panic. Intel's consumer parts now rely on TSMC! That not only indicates how much trouble IFS is in, it also cuts deep into intels pockets.

A CEO has two jobs, the first is to provide a vision to guide the company towards future profitability, and the second is to inspire confidence among it's investors and the public. Pat has, frankly, totally failed to do both of these things. Lisa su, as an example, inherited a company in far worse shape, and by this time, chronologically, had already launched zen 1, threadripper, and zen+ to great success, and to a lesser extent Polaris and Vega. Pat has done the opposite, we got Alder lake, which was a good step up, then multiple years of stagnation with raptor lake, we got failing CPUs, we got Alchemist launching years late and barely functional, we got one node totally dropped, another with poor yields, a cancelled dividend, and a loss per share for the first time since the 80s. Intel's stock has become a joke, as has their leadership.

Instead of making jokes and attacking TSMC, Pat should have been focusing on Intel's future. Is he the only one responsible? No, the board is likely corrupted as hell and their management teams are bloated beyond belief. But at the end of the day, the CEO is responsible for fixing the company's public image, and Pat has utterly failed to do so.
 
Back