Koduri spricht sich gegen die Abspaltung der Foundry-Sparte auf. Intel könnte stattdessen aus seinem langjährigen Know-How Wert schöpfen. Alles unter einem Dach - von Transistorphysik über Fertigungstechnologie bis zu Software - kann synergetisch stark innovationsfördernd wirken, sofern die Unternehmenskultur dies zulässt. In dem Punkt beklagt Koduri, dass zu viele ehrzeige Cutting-Edge-Projekte bei Intel einer wagnisscheuen Cancel-Culture der Powerpoint-Bürokraten zum Opfer gefallen sind. Intel müsse wieder mehr wagen. Einst sagte der damalige CEO Andy Grove: "Let chaos reign and then rein in chaos." Man muss zunächst Chaos walten lassen und es anschließend einhegen. Ohne Chaos gibt es zu wenig Innovationen. Deshalb trat Intel so lange auf der Stelle. Die Sparfüchse und "Geht-nicht-gibts-nicht"-Bürokraten haben den Ingenieuren den Mut zur Innovation genommen.
Intel müsste sich neue ehrgeizige Ziele setzen. Gelsinger war in dem Punkt der richtige Mann. Am besten wäre es (#5824), das gesamte Direktorenboard zu feuern und Gelsinger zurückzuholen.
https://x.com/RajaXg/status/1892222720710152315
...I am in the bulls camp, and rest of the article outlines my perspective and opinion, which is the basis of my hope. My central thesis is that Intel needs to set itself an audacious product target that inspires their whole engineering to rally behind. To achieve these targets the entire technology stack that includes transistor physics, advanced packaging, silicon design and software architecture need to take shared risks. There is chatter about splitting process technology and product engineering into separate companies - this could be counter productive
Creating an arm's length foundry relationship now risks crippling the only company theorectically capable of innovating across the entire stack – from fundamental physics (atoms) to software (python).
....Running foundry service will be a challenging transition for Intel. Licensing partnerships with companies that are already in the foundry services business could be a more pragmatic approach....
...Having witnessed companies rise from the ashes before, I know transformations are possible, even from the depths of despair. While financial engineering provides essential sustenance for development, it alone cannot ignite the spark that drives engineers to build something truly revolutionary. In the cutting-edge world of technology, engineers need more than just resources – they need an inspiring, almost audacious target to pursue. The ideal target should be simultaneously intimidating and inspiring: intimidating because it pushes the boundaries of what's possible, inspiring because it represents a leap forward for computing. Leadership's role isn't just to set these targets – it's to provide the tools, show the path forward, and get their hands dirty alongside the team in the trenches....
|
Thread abonnieren
