--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on January 27, 2023 9:31 am wrote:

> Outsiders obviously have to work with limited data; we can't prove anything,
> we can just point to patterns and say what they suggest to us.
>
> Having said that, I compared Pat with Steve Job's return to Apple, or even
> Satya's first two years. Both made it clear in their first year that it was
> no longer business as usual, that things had to be shaken up and changed.
> Conversely I don't see Pat as doing anything similar. Steve, for example, dealt with
> complexity (of a different sort, sure) by dramatically pruning the product line. But
> Pat has done nothing similar. Intel differentiators (whether AVX512 or accelerators)
> are used as a market segmentation mechanism, not as a way to grow the ecosystem.
> IMHO the fundamental problem with Intel is that engineers are not in charge. Finance controls one set of decisions,
> marketing controls another. Steve or Satya would have dealt with this by dramatic changes in those core areas;
> but Pat retains the dividend, in spite of everything, and retaining the marketing control (engineer effort spread
> over finely differentiated product segmentation, far too much making promises and setting schedules before it's
> known what is possible). Compare how Intel and AMD comport themselves in this respect.
>
> It's easy to mock Intel or complain for tribal reasons. The problem is,
> it's just as easy to do so for good, grounded, data-based reasons.

Short version, those changes you don't see ARE happening and they are doing good. This is why I am upbeat on Intel and why I was downbeat 5ish years ago.

-Charlie