[threeseed]

For me, I think it’s lazy to blame the board.

There have been so many bad technical and operational decisions at Intel that are clearly the responsibility of the CEO and Senior Leadership Team.

And it doesn’t require an engineering degree to understand that they missed the boat on power efficiency, AI, cloud etc.

[markhahn]

No offense, but what you say sounds like an argument for the tech approach. Intel didn't lose the cloud, and what you describe as power efficiency was the fab/euv problem (that Pat fixed). AI: okay, but are you sure that Intel should aim to own every market? What if Intel fabs produce a lot of AI chips for fabless vendors?

No one has offered any real explanation for why the board would do this, now. 18a is about to go to hvm, which would carry large gains for server and consumer products, in addition to third parties. some mention "not listening to customers", which is peculiar, since customers (defined by current and past revenue) want faster, cheaper products (18a). about the only think I can imagine is that the board wanted a lower defect rate on large foundary chips (a potential product, not relevant to current products, except perhap Gaudi and maybe Altera). but firing Pat isn't going to improve defect rates...