After a search for a new chief executive officer that lasted more than three months, Intel Corp has decided that Lip-Bu Tan (陳立武) is the best choice to salvage the company’s future. He will take up the most difficult job in the chip business, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday evening. I think you could take it a step further — this might be the toughest gig in US tech, full stop.
In a letter, Tan told his new subordinates that they were “in many ways” the “founders” of “the new Intel” — some motivational speaking to give the endeavor the feeling of a fresh start.
What exactly the “new” Intel will look like is not yet clear. Tan wrote of his belief that Intel should lead at product design and manufacture, a hint — in my reading at least — that keeping the company intact, rather than splitting off its foundry business, would be the way forward.
The reality for Tan and his team is that the “new Intel” could end being the “last Intel” as we know it. It is final-throw-of-the-dice time. If Tan cannot execute Intel’s embattled turnaround plan, it seems unlikely anybody else will get the chance.
Failure would mean that Intel, a former jewel in the US tech crown, would almost certainly be picked apart. Intel Foundry — a manufacturing arm to make chips for other companies in addition to its own — has piqued the interest of outside investors, namely Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the company most to blame for Intel’s downturn (other than perhaps Intel itself).
Reuters on Wednesday reported that the Taiwanese colossus had been seeking allies to join a bid to buy and operate Intel’s fabrication plants.
It is unclear whether TSMC’s recent announcement of a US$100 billion US investment, hailed by US President Donald Trump earlier this month, has made a move for Intel Foundry less likely. Even if so, others would most likely be interested — rumors of other deals for different parts of the company, or all of it, regularly surface.
Some rightly question whether selling Intel Foundry to TSMC would further weaken the US’ standing in cutting-edge chips, given that TSMC would be expected to keep its most innovative research and manufacturing processes within Taiwan. Under this arrangement, US talent would ebb away. The better alternative — for competition in semiconductors and for the US’ position in this critically important industry — is to double down on a plan to keep Intel in one piece, slugging it out like a battered Rocky Balboa. That means keeping its own product design business under the same roof as its manufacturing.
Concerns have been raised that companies might be reluctant to use Intel plants to make their chips because of competition concerns, but that seems overstated. In recent months, it has been announced that Nvidia Corp, Broadcom Inc and Amazon.com Inc are checking out Intel’s manufacturing capabilities.
Although it is still early days, Bloomberg Intelligence analysts suggest the interest indicates those companies have some confidence in progress made on 18A — Intel’s next generation of chip manufacturing and a milestone on which the company’s future seems to rest.
Investors appeared cheered by Tan’s selection. Intel shares rose more than 11 percent in after-hours trading following the announcement.
However, there is no time for further delay. Tan is familiar with Intel. He is a 30-year industry veteran who previously served on the company’s board. He said that “Intel will be an engineering-focused company” and will take “calculated risks to disrupt and leapfrog.” He wants to find Intel’s “winning culture” again.
At this stage in Intel’s turbulent but proud history, if he cannot do it, no one else is likely to get a shot.
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS