Lisa Su : Challenge accepted.

Day one: 13.9nm tech process.

I've liked to blame Brian Krzanich (CEO 2013-2018) for a lot, but perhaps the real culprit is Paul Otellini (2005-2013). Otellini is actually the only Intel CEO who is a pure businessman, not an engineer or scientist of any sort. I reckon Krzanich simply didn't try hard enough to undo the damage Otellini caused. That being said, I'm sure all Intel stock owners worship the ground Otellini walked on, but he clearly didn't much respect the technology Intel's whole existence is based on.

Kaarme:

I've liked to blame Brian Krzanich (CEO 2013-2018) for a lot, but perhaps the real culprit is Paul Otellini (2005-2013). Otellini is actually the only Intel CEO who is a pure businessman, not an engineer or scientist of any sort. I reckon Krzanich simply didn't try hard enough to undo the damage Otellini caused. That being said, I'm sure all Intel stock owners worship the ground Otellini walked on, but he clearly didn't much respect the technology Intel's whole existence is based on.

paul was with intel from the 1970s, he knew the business well, considering things didn't stagnant until just after he left, i wouldn't put much stock in this idea.

It's really incredible that 21st-century Intel can't do any better than to dig down into its past and pull people out of retirement to run the company. It means Intel has no clue about what to do. What are we going to see--Itanium 2? Wasn't the first debacle enough? It took AMD to put Intel on the path of DDR SDRAM and x86-64 and *off* of an Itanium no one wanted. I'm just amazed. Otellini sucked, in my view, because all he did for years was try to cement a monopoly supplier position for Intel--which only happened at all because the old AMD dropped the ball after Opteron and had no clue where to go from there. Sounds just like Intel right now, doesn't it? Bringing people back from Intel's halcyon days of no high-end CPU competition doesn't seem very sage to me. What is the guy doing right now? Running ads against Apple. For what? Vengeance for dropping Intel because the company was stagnant? Seems like a fairly clumsy start to me! Back when Gelsinger was working pre-retirement, Intel didn't even like to acknowledge AMD as a competitor in public...! Perhaps he is still underestimating an AMD that is right now beating the pants off of Intel technically speaking, and crushing it in retail sales, and fast gaining on Intel's share of the Enterprise market (which is much slower to change than the retail markets)--and Apple isn't even a CPU company. Wasting time on Apple is just wasting time. To me, all this looks like is that Intel is spinning the bottle in hopes of putting someone at the helm who understands that Intel's major worry today and tomorrow is AMD. I mean, Apple doesn't even measure on the scale, unless Intel is planning to "transition" to a cell-phone company--no, don't even say it!...;)

user1:

paul was with intel from the 1970s, he knew the business well, considering things didn't stagnant until just after he left, i wouldn't put much stock in this idea.

No, I think I'm onto something. Sure, he has been with Intel since forever, but he was a businessman and managing such things at Intel, naturally. It's not like Intel wouldn't have been a gigantic success financially, so they needed people who could see to it, not only engineers. I bet that was Otellini's primary concern. During his CEO years Intel turned the CPU market almost into a monopoly. Pretty much nobody wanted an AMD CPU unless they had extremely budget constraints. However, Otellini still failed to understand how technology leads to success and how no change is degeneration in technology. He thought he could run some kind of pure business. Intel didn't cease R&D, and indeed invested heavily here and there (though I bet a lot of it was for higher efficiency), but if the leadership is lacking a vision, the organisation is headless. Otellini is the one who started the decade of no progress: four core maintream maximum and generation after generation of pretty much nothing changing, except for the process technology and updates to SATA, USB, and such. That granted AMD such a golden opportunity to strike back. For some reason Krzanich took it very easy and was blind to Otellini's mistakes.

Kaarme:

No, I think I'm onto something. Sure, he has been with Intel since forever, but he was a businessman and managing such things at Intel, naturally. It's not like Intel wouldn't have been a gigantic success financially, so they needed people who could see to it, not only engineers. I bet that was Otellini's primary concern. During his CEO years Intel turned the CPU market almost into a monopoly. Pretty much nobody wanted an AMD CPU unless they had extremely budget constraints. However, Otellini still failed to understand how technology leads to success and how no change is degeneration in technology. He thought he could run some kind of pure business. Intel didn't cease R&D, and indeed invested heavily here and there (though I bet a lot of it was for higher efficiency), but if the leadership is lacking a vision, the organisation is headless. Otellini is the one who started the decade of no progress: four core maintream maximum and generation after generation of pretty much nothing changing, except for the process technology and updates to SATA, USB, and such. That granted AMD such a golden opportunity to strike back. For some reason Krzanich took it very easy and was blind to Otellini's mistakes.

otellini came into the position right at the time the decision to ditch netburst was made, the development of core 2 and the future core ix chips all happened under his leadership, he certainly didn't hinder the company from producing new products that are actually good, unlike his successors.

Meh, they all thought they were invulnerable. The real danger isn't AMD, never has been. The moment AMD sold out their factories (correctly at the time), they were out of the picture as any sort of real threat for Intel. Even now, they will never manage to really compete due to capacity alone. Intel is running against TSMC and NVIDIA+ARM. Unless there's a miracle, they've lost this war already, and that will be a great pity and a sad moment for all of us.

They got complacent. It bit them in the ass.