Managers and executives are different groups of people.
Everyone wants better management, but it wont magically solve itself. Those with the power to drive that change need to have an incentive to do so.
I get that there is probably only one top-end fab in Intel and that would be hard to split across two entities.
But if you split Intel into three entities, they might (gasp) hire a bunch of the engineers that have steadily fled intel or be chopped off in shortsighted layoff rounds. You might get (gasp) innovation.
If you give all three the access rights to Intel's IP, things would probably be FINE in the long run. Give three separate companies a couple fabs and the IP, and see what happens. Intel has FIFTEEN fabs. So hand five to each of them.
Intel is a shell because existing management is financial "wizards" and war-on-labor MBAs that are trying to manipulate the stock price to hit options targets.
If you split the companies, they have to compete on engineering, or they die. You can probably also wipe away a lot of the management because the companies will have to do "real work" in the medium run and their "skillsets" won't really apply.
The MBA types will all say that's impossible. IMO that's why we should do it, because all the people that failed the industry and company are opposed to it.
It’s either bailout or not.
When they accidentally make something their customers like (the Bolt, CarPlay), upper management intervenes and discontinues it.
The US would be much better off if the engineers and factories they are squandering were allocated to other companies.
Haven't seen that before.
Excellent response, gave you the upvote so others will hopefully read it.
The state probably did a better job than a private takeover could have because: - They had effectively infinite backstop-- they could afford to spend years and front load a lot of costs to fix the mess - They had a mandate to restructure the sector beyond a single company. I'd expect a nationalized Intel would have an easier time pivoting to new models, while private investors might be too afraid of killing their current golden geese for, say, a full fab spin-off or becoming a more aggressive x86 licensor.
If things get bad enough for Intel, the precedent that makes the most sense is to follow the model that was used with GM: the company enters bankruptcy, existing investors and creditors are wiped out, and a new corporate entity backed by the fed.gov steps in and assumes the assets and operations of the company. Once things have sufficiently stabilized, the government can then divest its ownership in the company.
Intel is economically and strategically important enough that just letting it collapse without a plan to pick up the pieces is a serious footgun. We have a framework for handling this kind of situation that has been shown to work without rewarding those who caused the problem. It'd be silly not to use it.