--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on January 27, 2023 9:31 am wrote:
> Anne O. Nymous (not.delete@this.real.address) on January 27, 2023 12:09 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.

Turning around a software company can be a lot easier if the company already knew its issues and had solutions in place. I don't mean to take anything away from Satya's accomplishments, he has done a good job, but in his case Office for iOS (and Android) had already been developed waiting for high level approval that Ballmer never gave. Buying Nokia was a big mistake and a very contentious decision, which made it easier to reverse later. BTW, it was Ballmer who had invested in the seeds of what became a successful cloud offering. Finally, the Microsoft board did better (esp. after activist ValueAct joined) than the Intel board which couldn't even get Krzanich to straight resign/retire.

I have no particular insights into Intel other than what is publicly known. But it would seem to me that even if any design mistakes are fixed, Intel cannot do much till the better fab processes come along. It's not like software where the bits are essentially free to replicate. It does indeed take a long time to turn around a semiconductor ship so to speak.