Resigns? He was basically fired. Basically to distance themselves from the person most responsible for the improprieties related to the possible insider trading, the office relationship, the mess he made with the 10nm delays, and the massive PR hole Intel is in right now.
Wow dude, get a clue. If you dont understand why its inappropriate for managers to have relationships their subordinates then you have a seriously misguided sense of ethics.
Wow dude, get a clue. If you don't understand the massive difference between consensual and non-consensual you really have a misguided sense of a lot more than ethics. While manager-subordinate relationships might very well be unethical or against company policy, as long as they are fully consensual they're nothing like #metoo. And a consensual relationship at the office might go against office policy but is otherwise legal. Can you say the same thing about non-consensual ones?
It's lovely that you have an opinion though and you found a way to share it. What's really not lovely is that you found yet one more way to dilute what the real #meetoo means and claim that two people engaging in a consensual relationship is basically the same as rape.
You and the other "i have a phone and an internet connection, my opinion must matter" people are the ones to blame for making #metoo look like a joke sometimes.
And please, don't scream #metoo just because I bent your argument over the table and had my way with it. There is NO (that's a negative) comparison between a consensual and a non-consensual relationship regardless of work subordination status. Period.
There is only approximately one person who says it's consensual and that's the CEO. That's not exactly a confirmation of it being consensual because he's not the one who gets to choose or declare if it's consensual. So, you're wrong, close. Consent can change, even after the fact.
@designerfx: Um... Do you have a deposition from any witness that nobody else has? Are you claiming to be the woman in that relationship? Because absent that and since every single news source called in "consensual" saying anything else is just you promoting your own agenda. That's an euphemism for "bullshit". How about you wait for some evidence?
And no, consent definitely cannot change after the fact. Do you even know what the word means and how the concept works? It can change before the fact, it can even change after the fact, it definitely NOT change after the fact. How would that even work?
Given you "flexible" understanding of English vocabulary I wonder how qualified you are to have any kind of opinion, let alone on complex topics. That's an euphemism for... ;)
P.S. @designerfx, while evidence might turn up showing the relationship was not consensual the point still stands: consent cannot be changed AFTER THE FACT. The relationship IS "the fact". And once ended nobody can "reconsider" the initial consent and realize "I actually didn't want that".
wow dude, get a clue. How wonderful that you can think, but your reasoning lacks depth. Please don't work in HR for any company, you are a mess.
This issue isn't concerned with consensual or nonconsensual. Nobody even cares if it is legal, it is still wrong because it can affect the perception that there was "quid pro quo" going on. You know the term..."this for that". This situation is also similar to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Power and authority over a subordinate. In this case it violates just plain old good sense and could be damaging to the careers of those that were not sleeping with him. Why was she getting ahead or that opportunity? A little bit of discrimination comes into play. Rape no...but always look further. Think strategically and masterfully. Take care now.
@camastersgt: this is the kind of forum where if you don't reply to a name nobody knows who you're talking to.
In case you were replying to me, whether it's consensual or not is relevant to the #metoo mention. People throw that hashtag around a lot without understanding what it means. It's a movement against sexual harassment and assault. Not a movement between what looks like could be quid pro quo but maybe isn't.
Now I see plenty of people who somehow confuse the two due to very limited understanding of the topic and/or limited processing power.
What Intel's CEO did is unethical and *COULD* be a conflict of interest. And yes, it could be damaging to careers. What #metoo means is basically rape. That damages a lot more than your career.
See the difference and the relevance now? Because if anybody confuses these 2 they shouldn't work anywhere near people or be tasked with any decision of any kind :).
in among these comments, somewhere, is a reference to the UCMJ. go read up on it. it asserts that any fraternization between an officer and a subordinate is, by definition, a court martial offense. consensual isn't considered, since the power position makes it impossible. if it's OK for the military, why not for Capitalism?
@FunBunny2: not sure if serious or... "if it's OK for the military, why not for Capitalism?" o_O
Why would I care about a reference to UCMJ? Why would I need to read up on it? Why would it matter how the military treats fraternization for this particular case? Why would the way the military treats it have any bearing on how civilian life treats it?
That could very well be the stupidest thing I've heard in a loooong time. How about you go to prison for disobeying any "order" that comes from your superiors? Most likely your primary school teachers given the nature of your assessment.
The military rejects you if you are over 27/29/34 years old, depending on the branch. Is that not good enough for "capitalism"? And I won't even go into the litany of medical conditions that prevent you from joining. Why not apply them in "capitalism"? You'll notice I use quotes on "capitalism". It's because I doubt you know what you mean when comparing "military" and "capitalism".
Also the military doesn't accept you without a high school diploma or GED. "Capitalism" allows it so people can still post comments like yours. ;)
Loss? My ass. 10nm delay after delay under him essentially hurting all of their core businesses, products cancelled or endlessly delayed under him. Intel was a shit show under BK I can only hope for someone better.
Last I checked, the CEO isn't the one thats implementing and designing fabs and processes. I don't think the 10nm delay can be blamed on him at all. I think that falls on the engineers.
Intel's top management lacks transparency and I thought the 10nm "launch" which was actually a PR Stunt would eventually take him down. I am hoping the new CEO will understand the need to be more open and transparent.
And for good reason. He takes the top $, why would someone else take the responsibility? This is what should come attached to the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and the golden parachutes that CEOs get.
And don't forget he started as an engineer at Intel. This is why most CEOs in large companies are either the founders, or people who actually understand the business and started by doing, not by managing. So they can't claim ignorance. No, just like the CEOs in the auto industry who were perfectly aware of what was going on, BK has no excuse for his failure. With great power (and full control) comes great responsibility.
It does. But who ARE the employees is determined by hiring and retention decisions of the management, recursively all the way to the board. If they have lost their competent engineers and managers to competitors, it is not the fault of the engineers.
It's not trivial for sure, but when your competition are catching up on what was previously a 3 year lead in that area then *something* has gone a bit wrong.
Still agree that it's not exactly his fault mind you.
"Or maybe they haven't lost anyone, still have the best engineers, and that 10nm is just a really, really hard problem to solve."
Given that everybody else has solved it in much shorter period of time (they just call it 7nm), this is unlikely.
Large stupid corporations lose the best engineers all the time, hiring useless MBAs or fakers in India etc. It is much more likely that Intel is just like that.
Also a board of directors isn't going to get too critical over technical decisions when "Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial reports ever"
@Ratman, I think that also depends in part on how technical and forward-looking they are though. Their financial performance right now might be great, but if they fall behind rivals in manufacturing, how long will those profits continue to roll in? It's not just AMD they have to worry about, but non-x86 as well.
@Ratman6161: "Also a board of directors isn't going to get too critical over technical decisions when "Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial reports ever""
This is the metric the board will be judging him on. He managed to pull this off despite the 10nm delay, products cancelled, etc. Imagine if everything had gone as planned.
Intel made a big deal of it in 2015 when they implemented their new hiring policy based on trying to achieve representative demographics. I don't have anything against hiring more qualified women, different ethnic backgrounds, etc. But when you make it a top goal, you're implying that competence has now taken a back seat to something other than competence, which is usually a bad sign for a company operating in a very competitive industry.
At the very least, it has a negative effect on morale/retention for people in the group you've decided you currently have too many of - the best among them just might decide to help you out with your quest to reduce the percentage of employees you have like them, by taking the initiative to quit, and thereby opening up a spot for someone else who will be more appreciated based on the criteria you established.
In such a highly competitive and cutting tech industry if you give up qualification for sake of anything else... you shoot your own leg. "Almost as good" might not be enough.
I don't think you understand quite how this works - these practices when implemented properly do not equal "she's a bit worse but hire her because she's a woman". It is in fact a policy of "when all else is equal, hire based on X". Where the hire would come down to a coin toss, you load the coin. You also make sure your hiring practices are set up to include as many people as possible in the hiring process right from the start, because there are a surprising number of little details in job listings that can subtly suggest to candidates that they may not be welcome to apply.
Of course you may still dislike that coin-loading (and that's fair), but it is necessary to address the fact that when all else is equal most companies still default to hiring able-bodied men with names they can pronounce easily. There are a whole bunch of reasons for that and they come down to implicit biases, some of which are harmless on a personal level and many of which seem like common sense.
This rather awkward process needs to be done for the health of the entire industry, though, because the end result is that you *will* be choosing the best available talent from all demographics, rather than what we have now: where you only get the best out of the people who already self-selected in the belief that they were likely to get the job (which in this area ends up being a lot of able-bodied white guys).
From practical experience, "traits" are not secondary criteria when "skills" are equal, but rather on same level where they pick max(skills+traits), in some cases traits even outweight skills for whatever reason (example: political pressure on various form of equality/positive/negative/whatever discrimination you simply have to live if you want to be on good side of authorities).
But ofc all that depends both on corp policy and specific set of recruiters as their decision will always and inevitably be subjectively influenced - the better the recruiters the smaller subjective impact.
@Spunjji What you say is true in the ideal sense and that is where things should eventually converge. However, there are a few complications that make the reality less than ideal in the short to mid term.
First is the natural outcome of forcing a diversity policy on a large company that historically had none. With said policy comes a metric for measuring it and a goal to be met. Otherwise, there is no point. Unfortunately, in a large company, they population percentages are not as easy to change as in a small one due to "the large population". Given this difficulty, the set goals may be unreasonable and potentially influenced by outside forces (Government mandate, public image, etc,), though sometimes it is simply an internal leadership decision. This puts more pressure on HR to hire the low populations and certainly fuels the good enough mentality.
The second issue with a large company is that hiring is handled inconsistently between sites (particularly when some sites reside in other nations). To meet company wide diversity goals, some sites may need to put in "more effort" to make up for other sites.
The third is diversity of available applicants. This can be influenced heavily by location and can make it difficult to reach the company diversity goal, once again putting undue pressure on hiring the missing diversity groups in other parts of the company.
The fourth is the fact that no two applicants are actually equal. Historically, (whether due to culture, natural tendencies, or some other factor) different groups tend to exhibit different strengths. While this helps explain some of the uniform population issues, this shouldn't be considered in an individual hiring decision as there are always exceptions and the strengths of any particular group will change over time. When looking at two individuals, there are always differences that may be more or less important. While you may get a candidate that is universally superior to another, more often each candidate has at least some traits that are superior to the other. The decision comes down to who has the more important traits. Sometimes it is unclear who the superior candidate is and the decision is based on past experience and certain assumptions about the candidates. This is where the diversity policy should ideally be applied. However, detractors would argue that at this point you would be better off considering factors that influence team cohesiveness and have a better effect on overall morale. This is one of the reasons that lead to the lack of diversity in the first place.
Once the targeted diversity goal is met, most of these issues disappear and it becomes much easier to maintain diversity without sacrificing some amount of competency. There are still trade-offs, but job competency shouldn't be as much of a concern.
"Once the targeted diversity goal is met, most of these issues disappear and it becomes much easier to maintain diversity without sacrificing some amount of competency"
Nope. If you stop enforcing the policy, the distribution of people of various sub-population will start to go back according to the distribution of desirable traits in those subpopulations, which are not the same.
Using race in hiring decisions is RACISM. Using gender is SEXISM. No matter which side is hurt.
"It is in fact a policy of "when all else is equal, hire based on X""
That would apply to exactly 0 cases, because no people are ever equal to each other. In reality it works exactly as described - when HR is tasked with hiring more X than Y, they WILL discriminate against Y to achieve the goal or their performance will be evaluated negatively.
@Spunjji, what you're saying is a quote from the company policy. That looks good for the PR. Also it's a fairy tale. In practice in never ever works like that. Because the theory leaves the door wide open for a case where you can't find "all other things equal" type of candidate. But the "quota" is there and the people doing the hiring have to meet it or they take the blame.
So what actually happens is that they won't have time to hire based on merit, they will put other criteria first. And sometimes "close second" is not good enough.
I'm sure he did something at Intel... But from the outside looking in it looks like they rode out Otellini's product pipeline, squandered a few launches, let the marketing department go insane with relabeling what i3-9 chips are and created ever more confusing skus of metalic named server products, and then reacted poorly the last year with AMD's comeback. I am all for some new leadership in Intel.
To expand on this a bit, BK did do something while at the helm: lots of acquisitions. While their core business has indeed taken a hit waiting on 10 nm issues to be worked out, BK was rapdily trying to expand into other markets. (Note that BK took over when the company missed their golden opportunity in ultra mobile which they've since ceded to ARM.)
It is this excessive spending that will really hurt Intel which the next CEO will have to correct. This is a very, very similar story to what happened to HP.
@Kevin G: "It is this excessive spending that will really hurt Intel which the next CEO will have to correct."
What is this statement based on? Ratman was saying above that Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial report ever. If this is indeed true, then it is hard to say the excessive spending hurt Intel.
It is about the time frame for spending and what Intel has available to spend. Fabs aren't cheap and Intel should have started to purchase 7 nm equipment to start retrofitting existing facilities. As Intel is currently ramping up 10 nm, needless to say that 7 nm purchasing isn't ready. That works out to billions of spending that has essentially been deferred to the next CEO's term. Intel has also made commitments to go to 5 nm which is even more expensive, though unclear when this will be ready.
As for their fiscal report in the first quarter of this year, Intel's debt and cash on hand figures nearly cancel each other out. Intel is no where near fiscal collapse like AMD was recently, just that they'll likely have to taken on debt that could have been prevented if the CEO didn't go on an acquisition spending spree. They'll likely have to dip into the red for a bit. Investors will not be pleased.
This is also without the context that Intel is under competitive pressures from AMD and ARM based designs. Intel is also facing delays to get Spectre/Meltdown fixes into hardware too. Combine the necessary expenses with a reduction in revenue due to lost market share in their cores businesses, things aren't looking so rosy in the mid to long term.
To be fair to Intel, I'm not sure they reacted poorly - they've been able to quite handily counter AMD at every level they've chosen to. They *have* given the impression about not being prepared for it in advance, though, which is a bit pants.
Agreed. They've been able to keep things pretty well under control. Their financials could have been a lot worse than they are. On the other hand, their future prospects are less clear. I have no doubt that Intel will still be the 800lb gorilla of the industry, but will their short term decisions cede more market share to their competitors than necessary. We'll have to wait and see.
"10nm delay after delay under him essentially hurting all of their core businesses, products cancelled or endlessly delayed under him."
unless he's a scientist/engineer who knows the most of the most about building 10nm, you really can't blame him directly. OTOH, if he engaged in punitive retribution against those who did, for personal reasons, and thus 10nm went in the tank; then he gets the blame. until such behaviour is reported, he's just the unlucky guy at the top who gets the praise/blame for what happens down deep in the corporation.
He is from a manufacturing background. Other CEOs were from a Tech background or Engineers. Since the problem is purely related to manufacturing and under his watch Intel let Samsung, TSMC and GF take the lead from having a 18+month head start at the start of his tenure, he is more to answer for than prior scenarios....
I'm not convinced anyone has taken over the lead. While Samsung et al were earlier with a new process with the 10nm branding, their process nodes are typically larger than Intels as they use different metrics to come up with the branding. Also, Samsung got there by violating patents and got sued.
"as they use different metrics to come up with the branding"
Nobody uses any metrics for the branding since 1997. Pure marketing BS. Intel has actually UNDERbranded their processes from "180nm" all the way to "45nm", based on their (and generally accepted back then) previous metric of gate length (130nm for "180nm" process, 25nm for "45nm" process). Then they could not decrease gate length anymore (it is ~45nm for their "10nm" process and other's "7nm") and they had to increase density in other ways (for example using thinner wires with higher resistance, wasting more power at any given voltage), they continued decrease the number which completely disconnected from what it has been before.
Yes, it is a problem with their 10nm manufacturing node. However, the problem is still a technical problem (defect rates, exposure times, doping levels, number of masks, wavelength used, etc.) and not a manufacturing problem (supply chain logistics, production ramp up, time to delivery, automation, etc.). His background does not make him better suited to this type of problem. Not directly anyways.
More like Huge exaggeration. I wouldn't say "any CEO", but they should be able to easily find a better person. After selling shares before vulnerability reveals and a messy X299 launch, Intel deserves a better leader.
you have no idead to te veracity of the No One Better at What Brian did / does. I worked with him at Cray Research in Eau Claire Wisconsin on the Cray 3 Gallium Arsenide process used by Seymour Cray himself. Brian quickly IDd process and equipment problems and fies lickety split. So much so he invented without patent filing the most effective means to do (gold) Liftoff Patterning as if from thin air. No examples of the method he used / developed in the literature, not even hints. He prototyped on a tiny chemical wet bench a 1st 3inch GaAs wafer, the hulking genius sitting on a tiny lab stool with a teflon wafer dipper in the novel liftoff patterning chemistry. Stays in my head what transpired, no one in process engineering comes close not even by light years. He also wiped into shape a POS Perkin Elmer Censor optical wafer stepper camera in a few weeks where it never worked before ( as if magic ). This merely hinted at his amazing skill. His effort to get Intel's 1st (and world's 1st) 6inch wafer fab working was way huger a task but reflected on Brian's Extraordinary Skill ( and I have worked with many brilliant process engineers - he towered above all I had met prior and later in my career ). The importance of Process Engineering Skill to bleeding edge Wafer Fabrication Businesses is not to be underestimated. When Brian Delayed volume production ramps ( as with ?5-7nm using EUV / Xray Lithography ) he had experience and wisdom of when just ready ( or not yet ). Too early a production ramp on a novel process and one burns cash from Low-(est) Yields. Intel is an early adopter of EUV ( equip purchased and installed process ramp is taking time as the resist is entirely new an inorganic Metal / Oide system )
While Swam might be good with numbers and investors, he is a babe in the woods for operations and Technology of core intel Businesses ( not unintelligent but the stuff involved is WAAY over his head )
I am guessing 2 folks useful here might be Rene James ( software centric ? CPU design managment / product mgmt ) and Intel's retired Mooly Eden both who might have their reasons to not return,
Best of All woudl be to call Brian Back honorably as he is one of a kind in the whole world PERIOD.
He should have been given a 1 strike warning for the "consensual relationiship" and not told to leave ( others want his job, DUMB business motivation given his extraordinary skills on manny fronts ) He manages execution of projects and people effectively to a rare level.
Mooly Eden ( of Intel Israel prior ) might come close to Brian but I do not know specifics of his company wide skills ( design management he is gonzo good with the Core M and COre 2 series higher clock jump ) and Mooly is well regarded/
BUT BRING BRIAN BACK HONORABLY. The folks who lead to Brian's resignation need FIRED ( really ) as there was conflict of interest that reminds me of Ken Levy being fired from KLA / Tencor that he founded as KLA Instruments long ago. Ken Levy was incomporable to have lead SEMI for decades, and was a brilliant technologist versus some of the yutzes running KLA today ( really ) ( KLA director of advanced technology actually caused 40yr old Perkin Elmer EG&G Reticon to FAIL since he got zero wafer yield of sensors and was told how to remedy 2 ways, but refused )
Good time to get out. looking bleak at intel for the next year or two.
AMD will gain market share. Intel 10nm is behind and most will be on 7nm by the time Intel gets it fixed. Meltdown/Spectra seems to be getting worse with more bugs coming out and now affecting HT for Intel. etc...
So good time to pull the golden parachute and walk away before the blame hits him.
Health and family are code words on Wall Street. This resignation was for cause and it had nothing to do with the affair but was blamed on that to avoid sparking a sell off on wall street as it would be Intel admitting they have a very serious problem that they have not yet acknowledged to wall street.
The actual metric is critical half-pitch, the spacing BETWEEN transistors, as that is a fairly straightforward stand in for density.
IIRC Intel 10nm is within a couple nm of foundry 7nm (from multiple foundry partners) for half-pitch, but in effect everyone else caught up while Intel was sleeping on 10nm issues.
Because the transistors are only one layer deep for virtually everything, save certain memories (e.g. 3D NAND). So it is much easier to treat the height of a transistor as uniform and consider only the resulting minimum 2D footprint and spacing of the transistors. That is more useful for comparing the density of different companies' processes.
"transistors are only one layer deep for virtually everything"
so, no matter the manufacturing method or company or whatever, layer depth is the same? but I thought it true that finFET, for example, was a lot Z as opposed to previous types. but, given peevee's comments, the conclusion has to be that there's been little increase in density in 2D. which has to mean that cpu chip has merely gotten bigger? is that emperor's new clothes or that man behind the curtain?
No, other parameters decreased instead of gate length, like spacing between elements and wire widths (with which they could get away by decreasing voltages, otherwise neither would work).
Intel's proposal of using transistors per sq mm (in specific distribution of elements, 60% NAND and 40% flip-flops AFAIR) was quite reasonable, but the rest of the industry did not take the bait given that their claims of feature size are even more exaggerated now than Intel's.
I don't think he was ever investigated for that since it 1) was a preplanned/scheduled sale, and 2) cost him money since the stock has gone up since then.
Except the preplanned sale was planned AFTER they knew about the flaw, and BEFORE they told the public about the flaw. So...preplanned sale doesnt fly with me.
The stock going up after has nothing to do with it. If you commit and crime and have a bad outcome, you are not forgiven for the crime. (NOTE i am not saying a crime was commited). I personally beleive its insider trading, but thats just a personal belief.
Yeah, I'd have liked to see a little more scrutiny there, even just from the press. It came across very badly and none of the explanations given hold much water.
It may not fly with you, but its tough to investigate such a thing when the CEO lost money by doing it. I don't think its reasonable to say that if they know there is any problem they can't sell any shares. It would be tough to even determine at what point one could say when the fallout was over.
Based on the market response, it would be fair for any response to an investigation to be "I didn't anticipate it having any significant impact on our share price" and then they look at the share price and see he was correct.
Not defending it. I shouldn't have to qualify this by pointing out that I have a Ryzen. But insider trading is very serious and has explicit conditions that do not appear to have been met here. The original post asked if he was 'still under investigation' but so far as I am aware no such investigation happened at all. Does anyone have a link?
Great way for him to leave before the proverbial hits the fan when 10nm (or lack of) bites hard next year.
But yeah, this is either him resigning on a high before the disaster, with an excuse to cover why he would be leaving; or he was fired (aka 'asked to resign').
He's also under investigation for securities fraud for selling $39 million in stock the day before the Specter flaw was announced. Sounds like a real PoS.
So the CEO gets caught selling all his stock just before shares took a plunge because of the Spectre/Meltdown news, their fabrication nodes went from 1 year ahead of everyone to 1 year behind TSMC and Samsung… but he's being kicked out because of a sex scandal?!
To me it looks like since this Spectre/Meltdown - Intel stock actually raise - yes it lower since the beginning of month and two points today - but still 10 points higher than beginning of the year.
Keep in mind both AMD and ARM cpus also have issues - not just Intel.
So sad to see once great American company go down because of various offshoots of political correctness, from hiring and promoting NOT the best but people with "right" race or gender to the meddling in employee's personal affairs.
Ask yourself if Samsung and TSMC promote "diversity" over competence and fire competent people because of their private affairs.
Huh? Where did this come from? He banged someone that directly reported to him. That's an abuse of power. How do we know he didn't offer a promotion in return for sexual favors? When you're ceo you don't get to have sex with employees.
The point is that (as made very clear over the past year or so) you don't even need to actually explicitly mention anything for the power relationship to make things very uncomfortable for the other side.
"He banged someone that directly reported to him. That's an abuse of power."
Not necessarily AT ALL. If he threatened to fire for not having sex, or offering company benefits for that, that would be abuse of power. Sex between 2 consenting adults is not.
When someone holds power over you, whether or not they threaten to use it, can you really make the same decisions as you would have if they were a total stranger? Probably not.
Are you high? When you are a CEO, you totally get to have sex with some bimbo secretary, this is literally one of the basic, thus unspoken, perks. Every audit firm in the Big Five literally has AN ALLOCATED BUDGET for hookers starting at the partner level!
All that, and it is not even considering basic biology. If ladies in your firm don't get hot at the thought of having an affair with the most powerful man in the hierarchy, he is defective and your firm is dead.
I agree. I find it incredibly sad that Intel is basically falling apart from the inside out all because they want to make "diversity" the "top priority" over qualifications. Intel is ran by the biggest bunch of idiots around.
It's like they're purposely running the Titanic into every iceberg they see, but the strength of the Xeon-plated hull is stopping them from scuttling the ship.
"I find it incredibly sad that Intel is basically falling apart from the inside out all because they want to make "diversity" the "top priority" over qualifications."
if you really think that the CxO class is in place by way of diversity, can I get a pound of what your smoking???
No, it is not CxOs who do all the work in the company. Competence and work ethics of every one employee matters. Hire for diversity as a policy - lose to competitors.
With all of Intel's bad press lately and hiring new people, I hope they hire some one high up that would improved the relations. With all of Intel capital, I sure this is not a big deal. After all, it hard to replace some one like the Legendary Gordon Moore.
One thing is for sure with way we been getting more cores lately, Moore's Law is still in effect.
Nope. A cost of transistor does not half every 18 months for several years now. Increase of the density cannot be made profitably if it does not decrease the cost of transistor, which is currently the case with Intel's "10nm".
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year (see graph on next page). Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase."
he never said that number of transistors was the metric, but that the cost of implementing a specified function halves. and that's clearly in the rearview mirror.
That's what I said. It used to be that cost of a chip (and so any feature implemented using transistors) was roughly proportional to the area of silicon. It went out of the window with double-patterning, 3D etc. Today for Intel a transistor of any given marketable performance (or any feature taking N transistors to implement) on 10nm costs more than a transistor on 14nm. And they cannot do anything about it for 3 years. It used to be that costs would fall by the factor of 4 or more in that time. If it is not the end of Moore law I don't know what is.
And let's mention that almost no performance-critical work is done on Intel processors anymore. GPUs, DSPs, ISPs, tensor processors, hardware video codecs etc etc. Intel's CPUs are basically good for nothing but kept as slow "scripting" engines to give work to other processors for compatibility reasons, and unlike ARM Intel wants a whole lot of money MIPS, especially per REAL (as opposed to never-reached "peak") MIPS.
Putting Jim Keller behind a desk doing 16 hours/day of meetings, firings and paychecks which would keep him away from laboratories would be an enormous waste of technical resources.
Great engineers/scientists don't have to be great managers.
Yea as nicely as this was put by Intel ‘a past consensual relationship with an Intel employee’ I am going to go out on a limb here and say it was a nice way to have him leave. They probably gave him a few choices and maybe he picked this. Lets say he would have picked leaving because of health issues then it pretty much makes it so he would never get hired any where else for a long time.
My question is this who outed this to Intel that is the real story and why did they do it and what are they looking for to get from it. These types of rules are so out dated and need to be updated to modern times. Yes you need rules of conduct but frick man these were probably made 50 years ago.
I think he seen the writing on the wall yes he did good while at Intel but with the exploits happening a while ago and him pulling a lot of his stock out just before the crap fest hit the fan as well as all the trouble with 10nm and basically having the company look like fools by these weird releases after AMD outed Ryzen which basically had Intel caught with their pants down maybe his a well depending on when this relationship happened.
I think the board said enough is enough lets get some new blood in here fast or maybe he just wanted to leave and venture off some where else. I am sure if he wants to work else where most would scoop him up in a heart beat heck maybe AMD will hire him who knows...lol If indeed AMD does hire him just remember you heard it here first folks from me....lol
The rules are so strict because of modern times, if you are accussed of sexual harassment or sexual attacks, even if it is a made up story, often, your career is more or less ruined.
Nice way out? Do you lack empathy or are you just a plain sociopath? How is this a nice way out? Who would choose leaving a company like that? Who would want to hire him right now with his sexual macho label? What about his family? What if he was married whilst having the relationship?
I'm not sure why people keep saying careers are 'ruined' over sexual harassment claims, even when substantiated. Even over the past year most of the men who were found to be serial harassers are already finding more work. At worst it was embarrassing for some.
"Are you smoking something? Hell, you WANT your CEO to be aggressive"
sex with subordinates has never been OK. got back up the comment stream to see what the UCMJ has to say about it. and has for at least decades. long before metoo.
-Managers or Chief Officers or senior executives clandestinely banging their subordinates, happens all the time and nobody gives a dime. Check. - Fail with the 10nm/7nm node. Check. - AMD biting hard, AMD CPU's relevant outside the fringe whackjob minority for the first time since 2003. Check. - AMD GPUS selling well. Check. - Intel delays entering the discrete GPU market while NVIDIA has found the genee-inside-the-bottle and are living their very own thousand-and-one-nights fairy-tale as Caliphs of GPU's. Check.l - Misc other fails. Check.
In my professional experience, Brian didn't want to go but a Cabal inside Intel wanted him out, and so they had him scaked via the so-called "honey trap".
You might be right about Brian, it not the CEO - but I think you giving AMD too much credit - remember AMD lost high ups like Raju to Intel and others.
A lot of people say things like this, but if your largest competitor is clearly making lots of plays to hire away your staff then you can't be doing *that* much wrong. It's not like it would be trivial for Intel to offer people a much better offer in terms of pay and benefits.
I agree. Despite their best ever financially, the long term doesn't look as good. You also forgot to add that they also failed to tap the mobile industry.
Well I won my bet on this one. Called his departure being in June.
Past violations of company policy notwithstanding, he hit his 5 year last month and became eligible for the full C-suite severance, he will walk away with a few $10Ms for his trouble.
Might not get any parachute package, this violation is pretty serious.
I'm surprised at the posters saying this is a nice way to let someone go. Its horrible way, and could blacklist you from any future companies as a potential lawsuit liability. Much better to say heatlh or need personal time off, etc.
It shows an extremely poor lack of judgement. There's not many ppl that are direct reports to someone, and really puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. Not just for these 2 individuals, but everyone on the team. Companies like Intel often rank employees, how will you get ranked compared to your coworker if they're sleeping with the boss? I recall I was on a team of 12 CPU architects and ranked 4th, I'd be upset if I knew the ones ranked 2nd and 3rd are sleeping with the ranking manager as i'd be skeptical if the manager remained unbiased in his/her assessments.
Even when consensual, the optics are terrible and its something that could've been avoided by juggling the HR direct reports to make the relationship work.
What the hell is biological hierarchy supposed to mean anyway? And what the hell does it have with whether or not people in positions of power (male or female) abuse that position to have sex with subordinates? Why is that action in any way defensible or desirable?
It's always a good idea to keep your pants on when around people you work with. A C-level manager has to be exceptionally careful because that means keeping your pants on around anyone in the company.
He is the CEO (Chemical Engineering Officer) and would be a better fit in managing the chemicals used to process wafers; he can't even tell the difference between a design bug and a design feature and told the public that uniquely requiring OS kernel relocation is the INTENDED design (a hidden feature?), treating people as idiots (may be some are and still buy the "Bug Inside" products).
Hopefully, we won't see the headline "Krzanich Gone, Su Heading To Intel."
I wouldn't take the news at the surface. I guess, it is still about 10nm and seems finally that I'm wrong, thinking that they are "not" struggling with it. I couldn't believe that Intel would have a problem and can't fix it for a couple of years. If they are, it should be just a matter of throwing more money at the problem like using EUV equipment
I wonder what the background circumstances for this were. Given that the relationship happened in the past, was there evidence of altered decision-making based on the non-permitted relationship? Otherwise, if you're really happy with your CEO's performance, why would you be investigating something like this, as if you're the FBI on the hunt for a killer?
So I'm not so sure that the board really was all that happy with his performance. Sure, their stock price increased significantly under his tenure, but so did the US stock market in general, and maybe more importantly, for the first time in Intel's history, they seem to have lost their manufacturing process advantage over rivals. That was Intel's golden goose, ensuring their long-term future and ability to demand a price premium over alternatives, and it may not be easy to get that advantage back now that it's been lost.
10nm seems to me to be the critical failure. EUV equipment has a long lead time and Intel did not order soon enough (or in high enough volumes) to prevent its competitors from catching up. AMSL has a backlog for its EUV equipment and an order placed now would not be delivered before 2019 at the earliest. The failure by Intel to place a large order for EUV equipment is a board level failure as the investment would have been well over a billion dollars. As the Intel board did not see the urgency for the investment they have fallen behind and someone had to take the blame.
"EUV equipment has a long lead time and Intel did not order soon enough "
this doesn't get mentioned anywhere near enough. so far as I know, all foundries are dependent on AMSL? anyone else in EUV? weakest link in the chain, and all that.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
163 Comments
Back to Article
Tkan215215 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
The market is too tough. I dont think any CEO will be better than him. Hugh loss to Intel.formulaLS - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
He had improper relationships with a co-worker it seems.Lord of the Bored - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"Intel Inside"close - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Resigns? He was basically fired. Basically to distance themselves from the person most responsible for the improprieties related to the possible insider trading, the office relationship, the mess he made with the 10nm delays, and the massive PR hole Intel is in right now.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, July 3, 2018 - link
Is he the one who sold stock while Google enabled Intel to hide its meltdown and spectre problems from the public/journalism?brunis.dk - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Is that what they call getting weinsteined now?Sttm - Saturday, June 23, 2018 - link
Having a consensual relationship with a coworker is the same as raping an actress in her hotel room now.The only impropriety was breaking the company rule.
#MeToo is some puritanical horse dung these days.
MooseNSquirrel - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
Wow dude, get a clue. If you dont understand why its inappropriate for managers to have relationships their subordinates then you have a seriously misguided sense of ethics.Your drive-by attack on #metoo is just infantile.
close - Monday, June 25, 2018 - link
Wow dude, get a clue. If you don't understand the massive difference between consensual and non-consensual you really have a misguided sense of a lot more than ethics. While manager-subordinate relationships might very well be unethical or against company policy, as long as they are fully consensual they're nothing like #metoo. And a consensual relationship at the office might go against office policy but is otherwise legal. Can you say the same thing about non-consensual ones?It's lovely that you have an opinion though and you found a way to share it. What's really not lovely is that you found yet one more way to dilute what the real #meetoo means and claim that two people engaging in a consensual relationship is basically the same as rape.
You and the other "i have a phone and an internet connection, my opinion must matter" people are the ones to blame for making #metoo look like a joke sometimes.
And please, don't scream #metoo just because I bent your argument over the table and had my way with it. There is NO (that's a negative) comparison between a consensual and a non-consensual relationship regardless of work subordination status. Period.
designerfx - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
There is only approximately one person who says it's consensual and that's the CEO. That's not exactly a confirmation of it being consensual because he's not the one who gets to choose or declare if it's consensual. So, you're wrong, close. Consent can change, even after the fact.close - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
@designerfx: Um... Do you have a deposition from any witness that nobody else has? Are you claiming to be the woman in that relationship? Because absent that and since every single news source called in "consensual" saying anything else is just you promoting your own agenda. That's an euphemism for "bullshit". How about you wait for some evidence?And no, consent definitely cannot change after the fact. Do you even know what the word means and how the concept works? It can change before the fact, it can even change after the fact, it definitely NOT change after the fact. How would that even work?
Given you "flexible" understanding of English vocabulary I wonder how qualified you are to have any kind of opinion, let alone on complex topics. That's an euphemism for... ;)
close - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
P.S. @designerfx, while evidence might turn up showing the relationship was not consensual the point still stands: consent cannot be changed AFTER THE FACT. The relationship IS "the fact". And once ended nobody can "reconsider" the initial consent and realize "I actually didn't want that".peevee - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
"There is only approximately one person who says it's consensual and that's the CEO"Or you can learn to read and count...
camastersgt - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
wow dude, get a clue. How wonderful that you can think, but your reasoning lacks depth. Please don't work in HR for any company, you are a mess.This issue isn't concerned with consensual or nonconsensual. Nobody even cares if it is legal, it is still wrong because it can affect the perception that there was "quid pro quo" going on. You know the term..."this for that". This situation is also similar to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski. Power and authority over a subordinate. In this case it violates just plain old good sense and could be damaging to the careers of those that were not sleeping with him. Why was she getting ahead or that opportunity? A little bit of discrimination comes into play. Rape no...but always look further. Think strategically and masterfully. Take care now.
close - Wednesday, June 27, 2018 - link
@camastersgt: this is the kind of forum where if you don't reply to a name nobody knows who you're talking to.In case you were replying to me, whether it's consensual or not is relevant to the #metoo mention. People throw that hashtag around a lot without understanding what it means. It's a movement against sexual harassment and assault. Not a movement between what looks like could be quid pro quo but maybe isn't.
Now I see plenty of people who somehow confuse the two due to very limited understanding of the topic and/or limited processing power.
What Intel's CEO did is unethical and *COULD* be a conflict of interest. And yes, it could be damaging to careers.
What #metoo means is basically rape. That damages a lot more than your career.
See the difference and the relevance now? Because if anybody confuses these 2 they shouldn't work anywhere near people or be tasked with any decision of any kind :).
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, June 27, 2018 - link
@close:in among these comments, somewhere, is a reference to the UCMJ. go read up on it. it asserts that any fraternization between an officer and a subordinate is, by definition, a court martial offense. consensual isn't considered, since the power position makes it impossible. if it's OK for the military, why not for Capitalism?
close - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
@FunBunny2: not sure if serious or... "if it's OK for the military, why not for Capitalism?" o_OWhy would I care about a reference to UCMJ? Why would I need to read up on it? Why would it matter how the military treats fraternization for this particular case? Why would the way the military treats it have any bearing on how civilian life treats it?
That could very well be the stupidest thing I've heard in a loooong time. How about you go to prison for disobeying any "order" that comes from your superiors? Most likely your primary school teachers given the nature of your assessment.
The military rejects you if you are over 27/29/34 years old, depending on the branch. Is that not good enough for "capitalism"? And I won't even go into the litany of medical conditions that prevent you from joining. Why not apply them in "capitalism"?
You'll notice I use quotes on "capitalism". It's because I doubt you know what you mean when comparing "military" and "capitalism".
Also the military doesn't accept you without a high school diploma or GED. "Capitalism" allows it so people can still post comments like yours. ;)
peevee - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
Unlike in the military, you are not forced by the law to follow your boss's orders.Dayman1225 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Loss? My ass. 10nm delay after delay under him essentially hurting all of their core businesses, products cancelled or endlessly delayed under him. Intel was a shit show under BK I can only hope for someone better.Stuka87 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Last I checked, the CEO isn't the one thats implementing and designing fabs and processes. I don't think the 10nm delay can be blamed on him at all. I think that falls on the engineers.mpbello - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Everything falls on the CEO.Intel's top management lacks transparency and I thought the 10nm "launch" which was actually a PR Stunt would eventually take him down. I am hoping the new CEO will understand the need to be more open and transparent.
close - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
And for good reason. He takes the top $, why would someone else take the responsibility? This is what should come attached to the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and the golden parachutes that CEOs get.And don't forget he started as an engineer at Intel. This is why most CEOs in large companies are either the founders, or people who actually understand the business and started by doing, not by managing. So they can't claim ignorance. No, just like the CEOs in the auto industry who were perfectly aware of what was going on, BK has no excuse for his failure.
With great power (and full control) comes great responsibility.
CaedenV - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
You are not wrong. The Intel does not do the work, but Intel gets people in the right positions to get things done. Things have not been getting done.peevee - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
" I think that falls on the engineers."It does. But who ARE the employees is determined by hiring and retention decisions of the management, recursively all the way to the board. If they have lost their competent engineers and managers to competitors, it is not the fault of the engineers.
Gigaplex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Or maybe they haven't lost anyone, still have the best engineers, and that 10nm is just a really, really hard problem to solve.Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It's not trivial for sure, but when your competition are catching up on what was previously a 3 year lead in that area then *something* has gone a bit wrong.Still agree that it's not exactly his fault mind you.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"Or maybe they haven't lost anyone, still have the best engineers, and that 10nm is just a really, really hard problem to solve."Given that everybody else has solved it in much shorter period of time (they just call it 7nm), this is unlikely.
Large stupid corporations lose the best engineers all the time, hiring useless MBAs or fakers in India etc. It is much more likely that Intel is just like that.
Ratman6161 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Also a board of directors isn't going to get too critical over technical decisions when "Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial reports ever"twtech - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
@Ratman, I think that also depends in part on how technical and forward-looking they are though. Their financial performance right now might be great, but if they fall behind rivals in manufacturing, how long will those profits continue to roll in? It's not just AMD they have to worry about, but non-x86 as well.close - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
If you're on the board and judge only by looking at yesterday's results you're in the wrong room.BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
@Ratman6161: "Also a board of directors isn't going to get too critical over technical decisions when "Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial reports ever""This is the metric the board will be judging him on. He managed to pull this off despite the 10nm delay, products cancelled, etc. Imagine if everything had gone as planned.
twtech - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Intel made a big deal of it in 2015 when they implemented their new hiring policy based on trying to achieve representative demographics. I don't have anything against hiring more qualified women, different ethnic backgrounds, etc. But when you make it a top goal, you're implying that competence has now taken a back seat to something other than competence, which is usually a bad sign for a company operating in a very competitive industry.At the very least, it has a negative effect on morale/retention for people in the group you've decided you currently have too many of - the best among them just might decide to help you out with your quest to reduce the percentage of employees you have like them, by taking the initiative to quit, and thereby opening up a spot for someone else who will be more appreciated based on the criteria you established.
HollyDOL - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
In such a highly competitive and cutting tech industry if you give up qualification for sake of anything else... you shoot your own leg. "Almost as good" might not be enough.Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
I don't think you understand quite how this works - these practices when implemented properly do not equal "she's a bit worse but hire her because she's a woman". It is in fact a policy of "when all else is equal, hire based on X". Where the hire would come down to a coin toss, you load the coin. You also make sure your hiring practices are set up to include as many people as possible in the hiring process right from the start, because there are a surprising number of little details in job listings that can subtly suggest to candidates that they may not be welcome to apply.Of course you may still dislike that coin-loading (and that's fair), but it is necessary to address the fact that when all else is equal most companies still default to hiring able-bodied men with names they can pronounce easily. There are a whole bunch of reasons for that and they come down to implicit biases, some of which are harmless on a personal level and many of which seem like common sense.
This rather awkward process needs to be done for the health of the entire industry, though, because the end result is that you *will* be choosing the best available talent from all demographics, rather than what we have now: where you only get the best out of the people who already self-selected in the belief that they were likely to get the job (which in this area ends up being a lot of able-bodied white guys).
HollyDOL - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
From practical experience, "traits" are not secondary criteria when "skills" are equal, but rather on same level where they pick max(skills+traits), in some cases traits even outweight skills for whatever reason (example: political pressure on various form of equality/positive/negative/whatever discrimination you simply have to live if you want to be on good side of authorities).But ofc all that depends both on corp policy and specific set of recruiters as their decision will always and inevitably be subjectively influenced - the better the recruiters the smaller subjective impact.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
@SpunjjiWhat you say is true in the ideal sense and that is where things should eventually converge. However, there are a few complications that make the reality less than ideal in the short to mid term.
First is the natural outcome of forcing a diversity policy on a large company that historically had none. With said policy comes a metric for measuring it and a goal to be met. Otherwise, there is no point. Unfortunately, in a large company, they population percentages are not as easy to change as in a small one due to "the large population". Given this difficulty, the set goals may be unreasonable and potentially influenced by outside forces (Government mandate, public image, etc,), though sometimes it is simply an internal leadership decision. This puts more pressure on HR to hire the low populations and certainly fuels the good enough mentality.
The second issue with a large company is that hiring is handled inconsistently between sites (particularly when some sites reside in other nations). To meet company wide diversity goals, some sites may need to put in "more effort" to make up for other sites.
The third is diversity of available applicants. This can be influenced heavily by location and can make it difficult to reach the company diversity goal, once again putting undue pressure on hiring the missing diversity groups in other parts of the company.
The fourth is the fact that no two applicants are actually equal. Historically, (whether due to culture, natural tendencies, or some other factor) different groups tend to exhibit different strengths. While this helps explain some of the uniform population issues, this shouldn't be considered in an individual hiring decision as there are always exceptions and the strengths of any particular group will change over time. When looking at two individuals, there are always differences that may be more or less important. While you may get a candidate that is universally superior to another, more often each candidate has at least some traits that are superior to the other. The decision comes down to who has the more important traits. Sometimes it is unclear who the superior candidate is and the decision is based on past experience and certain assumptions about the candidates. This is where the diversity policy should ideally be applied. However, detractors would argue that at this point you would be better off considering factors that influence team cohesiveness and have a better effect on overall morale. This is one of the reasons that lead to the lack of diversity in the first place.
Once the targeted diversity goal is met, most of these issues disappear and it becomes much easier to maintain diversity without sacrificing some amount of competency. There are still trade-offs, but job competency shouldn't be as much of a concern.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"Once the targeted diversity goal is met, most of these issues disappear and it becomes much easier to maintain diversity without sacrificing some amount of competency"Nope. If you stop enforcing the policy, the distribution of people of various sub-population will start to go back according to the distribution of desirable traits in those subpopulations, which are not the same.
Using race in hiring decisions is RACISM. Using gender is SEXISM. No matter which side is hurt.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"It is in fact a policy of "when all else is equal, hire based on X""That would apply to exactly 0 cases, because no people are ever equal to each other.
In reality it works exactly as described - when HR is tasked with hiring more X than Y, they WILL discriminate against Y to achieve the goal or their performance will be evaluated negatively.
close - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
@Spunjji, what you're saying is a quote from the company policy. That looks good for the PR. Also it's a fairy tale. In practice in never ever works like that. Because the theory leaves the door wide open for a case where you can't find "all other things equal" type of candidate. But the "quota" is there and the people doing the hiring have to meet it or they take the blame.So what actually happens is that they won't have time to hire based on merit, they will put other criteria first. And sometimes "close second" is not good enough.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Yep, I bet this stupidity has contributed to their recent troubles in a big way.CaedenV - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I'm sure he did something at Intel... But from the outside looking in it looks like they rode out Otellini's product pipeline, squandered a few launches, let the marketing department go insane with relabeling what i3-9 chips are and created ever more confusing skus of metalic named server products, and then reacted poorly the last year with AMD's comeback. I am all for some new leadership in Intel.Kevin G - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
To expand on this a bit, BK did do something while at the helm: lots of acquisitions. While their core business has indeed taken a hit waiting on 10 nm issues to be worked out, BK was rapdily trying to expand into other markets. (Note that BK took over when the company missed their golden opportunity in ultra mobile which they've since ceded to ARM.)It is this excessive spending that will really hurt Intel which the next CEO will have to correct. This is a very, very similar story to what happened to HP.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
@Kevin G: "It is this excessive spending that will really hurt Intel which the next CEO will have to correct."What is this statement based on? Ratman was saying above that Intel recently posted its best quarterly financial report ever. If this is indeed true, then it is hard to say the excessive spending hurt Intel.
Kevin G - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It is about the time frame for spending and what Intel has available to spend. Fabs aren't cheap and Intel should have started to purchase 7 nm equipment to start retrofitting existing facilities. As Intel is currently ramping up 10 nm, needless to say that 7 nm purchasing isn't ready. That works out to billions of spending that has essentially been deferred to the next CEO's term. Intel has also made commitments to go to 5 nm which is even more expensive, though unclear when this will be ready.As for their fiscal report in the first quarter of this year, Intel's debt and cash on hand figures nearly cancel each other out. Intel is no where near fiscal collapse like AMD was recently, just that they'll likely have to taken on debt that could have been prevented if the CEO didn't go on an acquisition spending spree. They'll likely have to dip into the red for a bit. Investors will not be pleased.
This is also without the context that Intel is under competitive pressures from AMD and ARM based designs. Intel is also facing delays to get Spectre/Meltdown fixes into hardware too.
Combine the necessary expenses with a reduction in revenue due to lost market share in their cores businesses, things aren't looking so rosy in the mid to long term.
Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
To be fair to Intel, I'm not sure they reacted poorly - they've been able to quite handily counter AMD at every level they've chosen to. They *have* given the impression about not being prepared for it in advance, though, which is a bit pants.BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Agreed. They've been able to keep things pretty well under control. Their financials could have been a lot worse than they are. On the other hand, their future prospects are less clear. I have no doubt that Intel will still be the 800lb gorilla of the industry, but will their short term decisions cede more market share to their competitors than necessary. We'll have to wait and see.FunBunny2 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"10nm delay after delay under him essentially hurting all of their core businesses, products cancelled or endlessly delayed under him."unless he's a scientist/engineer who knows the most of the most about building 10nm, you really can't blame him directly. OTOH, if he engaged in punitive retribution against those who did, for personal reasons, and thus 10nm went in the tank; then he gets the blame. until such behaviour is reported, he's just the unlucky guy at the top who gets the praise/blame for what happens down deep in the corporation.
rocketbuddha - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
He is from a manufacturing background. Other CEOs were from a Tech background or Engineers. Since the problem is purely related to manufacturing and under his watch Intel let Samsung, TSMC and GF take the lead from having a 18+month head start at the start of his tenure, he is more to answer for than prior scenarios....Gigaplex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
I'm not convinced anyone has taken over the lead. While Samsung et al were earlier with a new process with the 10nm branding, their process nodes are typically larger than Intels as they use different metrics to come up with the branding. Also, Samsung got there by violating patents and got sued.peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"as they use different metrics to come up with the branding"Nobody uses any metrics for the branding since 1997. Pure marketing BS. Intel has actually UNDERbranded their processes from "180nm" all the way to "45nm", based on their (and generally accepted back then) previous metric of gate length (130nm for "180nm" process, 25nm for "45nm" process). Then they could not decrease gate length anymore (it is ~45nm for their "10nm" process and other's "7nm") and they had to increase density in other ways (for example using thinner wires with higher resistance, wasting more power at any given voltage), they continued decrease the number which completely disconnected from what it has been before.
BurntMyBacon - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Yes, it is a problem with their 10nm manufacturing node. However, the problem is still a technical problem (defect rates, exposure times, doping levels, number of masks, wavelength used, etc.) and not a manufacturing problem (supply chain logistics, production ramp up, time to delivery, automation, etc.). His background does not make him better suited to this type of problem. Not directly anyways.saikrishnav - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
More like Huge exaggeration. I wouldn't say "any CEO", but they should be able to easily find a better person. After selling shares before vulnerability reveals and a messy X299 launch, Intel deserves a better leader.brunis.dk - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Hugh Loss is coming to Intel? Cool!JKflipflop98 - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
. . . are you joking? He's the worst CEO we've ever had.mark_nano - Tuesday, June 26, 2018 - link
you have no idead to te veracity of the No One Better at What Brian did / does. I worked with him at Cray Research in Eau Claire Wisconsin on the Cray 3 Gallium Arsenide process used by Seymour Cray himself. Brian quickly IDd process and equipment problems and fies lickety split. So much so he invented without patent filing the most effective means to do (gold) Liftoff Patterning as if from thin air. No examples of the method he used / developed in the literature, not even hints. He prototyped on a tiny chemical wet bench a 1st 3inch GaAs wafer, the hulking genius sitting on a tiny lab stool with a teflon wafer dipper in the novel liftoff patterning chemistry. Stays in my head what transpired, no one in process engineering comes close not even by light years. He also wiped into shape a POS Perkin Elmer Censor optical wafer stepper camera in a few weeks where it never worked before ( as if magic ). This merely hinted at his amazing skill. His effort to get Intel's 1st (and world's 1st) 6inch wafer fab working was way huger a task but reflected on Brian's Extraordinary Skill ( and I have worked with many brilliant process engineers - he towered above all I had met prior and later in my career ). The importance of Process Engineering Skill to bleeding edge Wafer Fabrication Businesses is not to be underestimated. When Brian Delayed volume production ramps ( as with ?5-7nm using EUV / Xray Lithography ) he had experience and wisdom of when just ready ( or not yet ). Too early a production ramp on a novel process and one burns cash from Low-(est) Yields. Intel is an early adopter of EUV ( equip purchased and installed process ramp is taking time as the resist is entirely new an inorganic Metal / Oide system )While Swam might be good with numbers and investors, he is a babe in the woods for operations and Technology of core intel Businesses ( not unintelligent but the stuff involved is WAAY over his head )
I am guessing 2 folks useful here might be Rene James ( software centric ? CPU design managment / product mgmt ) and Intel's retired Mooly Eden both who might have their reasons to not return,
Best of All woudl be to call Brian Back honorably as he is one of a kind in the whole world PERIOD.
He should have been given a 1 strike warning for the "consensual relationiship" and not told to leave ( others want his job, DUMB business motivation given his extraordinary skills on manny fronts ) He manages execution of projects and people effectively to a rare level.
Mooly Eden ( of Intel Israel prior ) might come close to Brian but I do not know specifics of his company wide skills ( design management he is gonzo good with the Core M and COre 2 series higher clock jump ) and Mooly is well regarded/
BUT BRING BRIAN BACK HONORABLY.
The folks who lead to Brian's resignation need FIRED ( really ) as there was conflict of interest that reminds me of Ken Levy being fired from KLA / Tencor that he founded as KLA Instruments long ago. Ken Levy was incomporable to have lead SEMI for decades, and was a brilliant technologist versus some of the yutzes running KLA today ( really ) ( KLA director of advanced technology actually caused 40yr old Perkin Elmer EG&G Reticon to FAIL since he got zero wafer yield of sensors and was told how to remedy 2 ways, but refused )
Marlin1975 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Good time to get out. looking bleak at intel for the next year or two.AMD will gain market share.
Intel 10nm is behind and most will be on 7nm by the time Intel gets it fixed.
Meltdown/Spectra seems to be getting worse with more bugs coming out and now affecting HT for Intel.
etc...
So good time to pull the golden parachute and walk away before the blame hits him.
formulaLS - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Yeps, it probably has more to do with his CEO performance and using improper employee relationships as an excuse.iwod - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I hardly doubt they would use that as an excuse. He could have said personal health issues or family health issues.https://newsroom.intel.com/biographies/executive-m...
Shows only a handful of people that could have been directly reporting to him.
FunBunny2 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"Shows only a handful of people that could have been directly reporting to him."the PR, as I read it, didn't say a direct report during his stay as CEO. could be anyone he's ever been over.
rahvin - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Health and family are code words on Wall Street. This resignation was for cause and it had nothing to do with the affair but was blamed on that to avoid sparking a sell off on wall street as it would be Intel admitting they have a very serious problem that they have not yet acknowledged to wall street.FullmetalTitan - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
BingoSpunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Yeah, agreed here.HollyDOL - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
If there was "Lewinski case" involved I quite doubt there would be any parachute waiting for him...Manch - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
If 21m isn't a parachute then....HollyDOL - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
That was his last year profit though? But ye, I wouldn't be able to spend that till end of my life.peevee - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"Intel 10nm is behind and most will be on 7nm by the time Intel gets it fixed."Gate length (the metric which was used for node names up until 1997) of Intel's "10nm" is 45nm.
Gate length of competing "7nm" is 46nm.
BTW, for comparison, gate length of Intel's "45nm" process was 25nm.
FullmetalTitan - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
The actual metric is critical half-pitch, the spacing BETWEEN transistors, as that is a fairly straightforward stand in for density.IIRC Intel 10nm is within a couple nm of foundry 7nm (from multiple foundry partners) for half-pitch, but in effect everyone else caught up while Intel was sleeping on 10nm issues.
FunBunny2 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
so, why not use 3D, i.e. transistor volume?? that's pretty unambiguous.SaberKOG91 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Because the transistors are only one layer deep for virtually everything, save certain memories (e.g. 3D NAND). So it is much easier to treat the height of a transistor as uniform and consider only the resulting minimum 2D footprint and spacing of the transistors. That is more useful for comparing the density of different companies' processes.FunBunny2 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"transistors are only one layer deep for virtually everything"so, no matter the manufacturing method or company or whatever, layer depth is the same? but I thought it true that finFET, for example, was a lot Z as opposed to previous types. but, given peevee's comments, the conclusion has to be that there's been little increase in density in 2D. which has to mean that cpu chip has merely gotten bigger? is that emperor's new clothes or that man behind the curtain?
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
No, other parameters decreased instead of gate length, like spacing between elements and wire widths (with which they could get away by decreasing voltages, otherwise neither would work).Intel's proposal of using transistors per sq mm (in specific distribution of elements, 60% NAND and 40% flip-flops AFAIR) was quite reasonable, but the rest of the industry did not take the bait given that their claims of feature size are even more exaggerated now than Intel's.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"The actual metric is critical half-pitch, the spacing BETWEEN transistors, as that is a fairly straightforward stand in for density."It was not this way when all that (micrometer then) stuff started in the 80s and to the end of the 90s.
And 10/7nm does not relate to any half pitch anymore either.
Martijn ter Haar - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Is Krzanich (still) under investigation by the SEC for selling his stock options shortly before the Meltdown/Spectre stuff became public?Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I don't think he was ever investigated for that since it 1) was a preplanned/scheduled sale, and 2) cost him money since the stock has gone up since then.none12345 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Except the preplanned sale was planned AFTER they knew about the flaw, and BEFORE they told the public about the flaw. So...preplanned sale doesnt fly with me.The stock going up after has nothing to do with it. If you commit and crime and have a bad outcome, you are not forgiven for the crime. (NOTE i am not saying a crime was commited). I personally beleive its insider trading, but thats just a personal belief.
Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Yeah, I'd have liked to see a little more scrutiny there, even just from the press. It came across very badly and none of the explanations given hold much water.Reflex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It may not fly with you, but its tough to investigate such a thing when the CEO lost money by doing it. I don't think its reasonable to say that if they know there is any problem they can't sell any shares. It would be tough to even determine at what point one could say when the fallout was over.Based on the market response, it would be fair for any response to an investigation to be "I didn't anticipate it having any significant impact on our share price" and then they look at the share price and see he was correct.
Not defending it. I shouldn't have to qualify this by pointing out that I have a Ryzen. But insider trading is very serious and has explicit conditions that do not appear to have been met here. The original post asked if he was 'still under investigation' but so far as I am aware no such investigation happened at all. Does anyone have a link?
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, July 3, 2018 - link
Great logic there. Just because a crooked business maneuver doesn't pan out the way the crook hopes it means it's not crooked!Oxford Guy - Tuesday, July 3, 2018 - link
No, he clearly sold the stock out of pure altruism. To save the whales or something. Ask Reflex about it.psychobriggsy - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Great way for him to leave before the proverbial hits the fan when 10nm (or lack of) bites hard next year.But yeah, this is either him resigning on a high before the disaster, with an excuse to cover why he would be leaving; or he was fired (aka 'asked to resign').
Amandtec - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"Brian, the board is waiting in the main boardroom""Be right there - just looking for a big cardboard box"
Amandtec - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
The photo looks like is was taken a while back when intel had the smallest node and his secretary thought he had the biggest node.Manch - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
They're probing his probing of another employee.drexnx - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
he took "Intel Inside" a little too seriously, methinks ;]DigitalFreak - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
He's also under investigation for securities fraud for selling $39 million in stock the day before the Specter flaw was announced. Sounds like a real PoS.ToTTenTranz - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
So the CEO gets caught selling all his stock just before shares took a plunge because of the Spectre/Meltdown news, their fabrication nodes went from 1 year ahead of everyone to 1 year behind TSMC and Samsung… but he's being kicked out because of a sex scandal?!Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=U147ED&PC=U14...What plunge..?
Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
(flip to the one year view, it defaults to the daily view)HStewart - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
To me it looks like since this Spectre/Meltdown - Intel stock actually raise - yes it lower since the beginning of month and two points today - but still 10 points higher than beginning of the year.Keep in mind both AMD and ARM cpus also have issues - not just Intel.
peevee - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
So sad to see once great American company go down because of various offshoots of political correctness, from hiring and promoting NOT the best but people with "right" race or gender to the meddling in employee's personal affairs.Ask yourself if Samsung and TSMC promote "diversity" over competence and fire competent people because of their private affairs.
Ej24 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Huh? Where did this come from? He banged someone that directly reported to him. That's an abuse of power. How do we know he didn't offer a promotion in return for sexual favors? When you're ceo you don't get to have sex with employees.Qwertilot - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
The point is that (as made very clear over the past year or so) you don't even need to actually explicitly mention anything for the power relationship to make things very uncomfortable for the other side.Very sensible policy I'd think.
Ej24 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I agree with you. My confusion was with the previous comment that I was replying to.peevee - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"He banged someone that directly reported to him. That's an abuse of power."Not necessarily AT ALL.
If he threatened to fire for not having sex, or offering company benefits for that, that would be abuse of power. Sex between 2 consenting adults is not.
Ej24 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
When someone holds power over you, whether or not they threaten to use it, can you really make the same decisions as you would have if they were a total stranger? Probably not.peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
About my private, including sex life? Absolutely the same.ElvenLemming - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
He might not have actually abused his power in any way, but the possibility is reason enough for Intel to forbid such relationships.Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Consent can never be equal when one person holds power over another.peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Consent is binary. It is either there or not. Yes/no question.Reflex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It wasn't there. It can't be in situations with a power imbalance.peevee - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
Yes it can. Just as it always was. Women are attracted to power.Reflex - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
Unsupported assertion. Also irrelevant.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, July 3, 2018 - link
So, you're invalidating the vast majority of heterosexual sex. Males are physically stronger than females, statistically.URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Are you high?When you are a CEO, you totally get to have sex with some bimbo secretary, this is literally one of the basic, thus unspoken, perks. Every audit firm in the Big Five literally has AN ALLOCATED BUDGET for hookers starting at the partner level!
All that, and it is not even considering basic biology. If ladies in your firm don't get hot at the thought of having an affair with the most powerful man in the hierarchy, he is defective and your firm is dead.
jimjamjamie - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It took me a second to realise this wasnt a quote from The Wolf of Wall StreetReflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Um, not banging your subordinates is not some new 'politically correct' thing. It's been the standard for decades.FunBunny2 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
I suspect if one looked long enough, one could find a General in trouble. here's just a light colonel: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/...URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
It was an Israeli company right when they got their first employee lol.JKflipflop98 - Sunday, June 24, 2018 - link
I agree. I find it incredibly sad that Intel is basically falling apart from the inside out all because they want to make "diversity" the "top priority" over qualifications. Intel is ran by the biggest bunch of idiots around.It's like they're purposely running the Titanic into every iceberg they see, but the strength of the Xeon-plated hull is stopping them from scuttling the ship.
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, June 27, 2018 - link
"I find it incredibly sad that Intel is basically falling apart from the inside out all because they want to make "diversity" the "top priority" over qualifications."if you really think that the CxO class is in place by way of diversity, can I get a pound of what your smoking???
peevee - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
No, it is not CxOs who do all the work in the company. Competence and work ethics of every one employee matters. Hire for diversity as a policy - lose to competitors.HStewart - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
With all of Intel's bad press lately and hiring new people, I hope they hire some one high up that would improved the relations. With all of Intel capital, I sure this is not a big deal. After all, it hard to replace some one like the Legendary Gordon Moore.One thing is for sure with way we been getting more cores lately, Moore's Law is still in effect.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"Moore's Law is still in effect."Nope. A cost of transistor does not half every 18 months for several years now. Increase of the density cannot be made profitably if it does not decrease the cost of transistor, which is currently the case with Intel's "10nm".
FunBunny2 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year (see graph on next page). Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase."he never said that number of transistors was the metric, but that the cost of implementing a specified function halves. and that's clearly in the rearview mirror.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
That's what I said. It used to be that cost of a chip (and so any feature implemented using transistors) was roughly proportional to the area of silicon. It went out of the window with double-patterning, 3D etc. Today for Intel a transistor of any given marketable performance (or any feature taking N transistors to implement) on 10nm costs more than a transistor on 14nm. And they cannot do anything about it for 3 years. It used to be that costs would fall by the factor of 4 or more in that time.If it is not the end of Moore law I don't know what is.
And let's mention that almost no performance-critical work is done on Intel processors anymore. GPUs, DSPs, ISPs, tensor processors, hardware video codecs etc etc. Intel's CPUs are basically good for nothing but kept as slow "scripting" engines to give work to other processors for compatibility reasons, and unlike ARM Intel wants a whole lot of money MIPS, especially per REAL (as opposed to never-reached "peak") MIPS.
dgingeri - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I don't think he'll be missed by the customers.Evren - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Ryzen designer Jim Keller could be nice for Intel CEO positionToTTenTranz - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Putting Jim Keller behind a desk doing 16 hours/day of meetings, firings and paychecks which would keep him away from laboratories would be an enormous waste of technical resources.Great engineers/scientists don't have to be great managers.
Achaios - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
"We don't hire smart guys to work for us. We hire smart guys to tell us what to do". - Steve JobsZipSpeed - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Su > Krzanich. Auf Wiedersehen. Writing was on the wall for awhile. Surprised it took this long for him to leave.rocky12345 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Yea as nicely as this was put by Intel ‘a past consensual relationship with an Intel employee’ I am going to go out on a limb here and say it was a nice way to have him leave. They probably gave him a few choices and maybe he picked this. Lets say he would have picked leaving because of health issues then it pretty much makes it so he would never get hired any where else for a long time.My question is this who outed this to Intel that is the real story and why did they do it and what are they looking for to get from it. These types of rules are so out dated and need to be updated to modern times. Yes you need rules of conduct but frick man these were probably made 50 years ago.
I think he seen the writing on the wall yes he did good while at Intel but with the exploits happening a while ago and him pulling a lot of his stock out just before the crap fest hit the fan as well as all the trouble with 10nm and basically having the company look like fools by these weird releases after AMD outed Ryzen which basically had Intel caught with their pants down maybe his a well depending on when this relationship happened.
I think the board said enough is enough lets get some new blood in here fast or maybe he just wanted to leave and venture off some where else. I am sure if he wants to work else where most would scoop him up in a heart beat heck maybe AMD will hire him who knows...lol If indeed AMD does hire him just remember you heard it here first folks from me....lol
Maxiking - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
The rules are so strict because of modern times, if you are accussed of sexual harassment or sexual attacks, even if it is a made up story, often, your career is more or less ruined.Nice way out? Do you lack empathy or are you just a plain sociopath? How is this a nice way out? Who would choose leaving a company like that? Who would want to hire him right now with his sexual macho label? What about his family? What if he was married whilst having the relationship?
Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I'm not sure why people keep saying careers are 'ruined' over sexual harassment claims, even when substantiated. Even over the past year most of the men who were found to be serial harassers are already finding more work. At worst it was embarrassing for some.peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Like who's? So much BS there now, real victims are hidden amongst hordes of golddiggers...Reflex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Jeffrey Tambor & Ryan Phillipe just in the past month.Also, how do you determine who is a 'gold digger' vs a 'real victim'?
peevee - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
Forcible (meaning real) rape = real victim. Prostitution for money/promotion/movie role etc = gold digging.Nothing against prostitutes personally. It is just NOT rape, nowhere near and not even from the same universe.
Reflex - Thursday, June 28, 2018 - link
1) That is your definition of 'real victim'. Being denied a job, black listed, etc are also actions that victimize people.2) You are not privvy to the details, you have no idea which cases are 'real' or not.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, July 3, 2018 - link
We are privy to the fact that the guy who accused Takei was lying for publicity.URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Are you smoking something? Hell, you WANT your CEO to be aggressiveSpunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
I think you have misunderstood one style of management for the only style of management.FunBunny2 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"Are you smoking something? Hell, you WANT your CEO to be aggressive"sex with subordinates has never been OK. got back up the comment stream to see what the UCMJ has to say about it. and has for at least decades. long before metoo.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Never? How about the time when Intel was created?Achaios - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
-Managers or Chief Officers or senior executives clandestinely banging their subordinates, happens all the time and nobody gives a dime. Check.- Fail with the 10nm/7nm node. Check.
- AMD biting hard, AMD CPU's relevant outside the fringe whackjob minority for the first time since 2003. Check.
- AMD GPUS selling well. Check.
- Intel delays entering the discrete GPU market while NVIDIA has found the genee-inside-the-bottle and are living their very own thousand-and-one-nights fairy-tale as Caliphs of GPU's. Check.l
- Misc other fails. Check.
In my professional experience, Brian didn't want to go but a Cabal inside Intel wanted him out, and so they had him scaked via the so-called "honey trap".
HStewart - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
You might be right about Brian, it not the CEO - but I think you giving AMD too much credit - remember AMD lost high ups like Raju to Intel and others.Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
A lot of people say things like this, but if your largest competitor is clearly making lots of plays to hire away your staff then you can't be doing *that* much wrong. It's not like it would be trivial for Intel to offer people a much better offer in terms of pay and benefits.zodiacfml - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I agree. Despite their best ever financially, the long term doesn't look as good.You also forgot to add that they also failed to tap the mobile industry.
URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
They made all the right choices considering mobile industry. Handset market is saturated to hell, it pays to take positions in infrastructure instead.Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Agreed here. It's big business but it's not one Intel can tap to make the margins they want.Ananke - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
BK got cooked up by somebody, probably this was prepared years ago to be used in the right moment. Very likely some "activist" type of investor :)FullmetalTitan - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Well I won my bet on this one. Called his departure being in June.Past violations of company policy notwithstanding, he hit his 5 year last month and became eligible for the full C-suite severance, he will walk away with a few $10Ms for his trouble.
webdoctors - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Might not get any parachute package, this violation is pretty serious.I'm surprised at the posters saying this is a nice way to let someone go. Its horrible way, and could blacklist you from any future companies as a potential lawsuit liability. Much better to say heatlh or need personal time off, etc.
It shows an extremely poor lack of judgement. There's not many ppl that are direct reports to someone, and really puts everyone in an uncomfortable position. Not just for these 2 individuals, but everyone on the team. Companies like Intel often rank employees, how will you get ranked compared to your coworker if they're sleeping with the boss? I recall I was on a team of 12 CPU architects and ranked 4th, I'd be upset if I knew the ones ranked 2nd and 3rd are sleeping with the ranking manager as i'd be skeptical if the manager remained unbiased in his/her assessments.
Even when consensual, the optics are terrible and its something that could've been avoided by juggling the HR direct reports to make the relationship work.
Reflex - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I'm sure Larry Ellison will be glad to hire him. He has a penchant for hiring guys who were dismissed for abusing their position. Just ask Mark Hurd.URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Would you even want to work in a company that operates in denial of basic biological hierarchies anyway?Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
No such thing as a biological hierarchy. They are by definition social, even in animals (social insects excluded - but we are not wasps or ants).peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
You'd be surprised. It is as simple as testosterone production, especially during development years (right after puberty).Reflex - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
What the hell is biological hierarchy supposed to mean anyway? And what the hell does it have with whether or not people in positions of power (male or female) abuse that position to have sex with subordinates? Why is that action in any way defensible or desirable?Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Thiiiis. Thank you.PeachNCream - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
It's always a good idea to keep your pants on when around people you work with. A C-level manager has to be exceptionally careful because that means keeping your pants on around anyone in the company.HStewart - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Huge loss - was Gordon Moore.wow&wow - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
He is the CEO (Chemical Engineering Officer) and would be a better fit in managing the chemicals used to process wafers; he can't even tell the difference between a design bug and a design feature and told the public that uniquely requiring OS kernel relocation is the INTENDED design (a hidden feature?), treating people as idiots (may be some are and still buy the "Bug Inside" products).Hopefully, we won't see the headline "Krzanich Gone, Su Heading To Intel."
zodiacfml - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I wouldn't take the news at the surface. I guess, it is still about 10nm and seems finally that I'm wrong, thinking that they are "not" struggling with it.I couldn't believe that Intel would have a problem and can't fix it for a couple of years. If they are, it should be just a matter of throwing more money at the problem like using EUV equipment
twtech - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
I wonder what the background circumstances for this were. Given that the relationship happened in the past, was there evidence of altered decision-making based on the non-permitted relationship? Otherwise, if you're really happy with your CEO's performance, why would you be investigating something like this, as if you're the FBI on the hunt for a killer?So I'm not so sure that the board really was all that happy with his performance. Sure, their stock price increased significantly under his tenure, but so did the US stock market in general, and maybe more importantly, for the first time in Intel's history, they seem to have lost their manufacturing process advantage over rivals. That was Intel's golden goose, ensuring their long-term future and ability to demand a price premium over alternatives, and it may not be easy to get that advantage back now that it's been lost.
bernardl - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
Incredibly stupid move from Intel. Who cares who he sleeps with as long as they both agree?URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
A couple of snowflakes may cut wrists in protest, but how that is a bad thing exactly?xpto - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Like rats abandoning a sinking ship.URGH - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Wishful thinking of demented AMD zealots divorced from reality as usual.Duncan Macdonald - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
10nm seems to me to be the critical failure. EUV equipment has a long lead time and Intel did not order soon enough (or in high enough volumes) to prevent its competitors from catching up. AMSL has a backlog for its EUV equipment and an order placed now would not be delivered before 2019 at the earliest. The failure by Intel to place a large order for EUV equipment is a board level failure as the investment would have been well over a billion dollars. As the Intel board did not see the urgency for the investment they have fallen behind and someone had to take the blame.FunBunny2 - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
"EUV equipment has a long lead time and Intel did not order soon enough "this doesn't get mentioned anywhere near enough. so far as I know, all foundries are dependent on AMSL? anyone else in EUV? weakest link in the chain, and all that.
peevee - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Intel's "10nm" does not use EUV, and neither does GF's (and probably others') "7nm".Gothmoth - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
stupid smirk on his face... douchebag material.....brunis.dk - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link
Quit while you're behind and can't see a way to get ahead.