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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS