Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> but in 3.5 years couldn't do the actual goal

...which means he was allowed to release maybe 1 if even that of Intel's bread and butter, CPUs. They have a lead time of somewhere between 3-5 years. And that's not including fab development, which takes even longer.

So was he "burning billions" or was he investing billions into what made Intel a dominant force in the first place? We'll probably never know, but 3.5 years isn't anywhere close to long enough in this industry.



Investment of cash without profits to make those investments is still a burn…

Pat still deserved longer. Intel is basically a storied brand that needs to be run like a startup because all of its legacy revenue products/models are dying.


> Investment of cash without profits to make those investments is still a burn…

there was, though? That's why net income averaged zero, and cash on hand is flat the last 4 years. He didn't run Intel at a loss.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: