• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    40
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Tbh it’s not 100% his fault the engineering competence began to visibly crumble under his leadership, but at the same time he absolutely stayed the course that his predecessors chose, which is what got them here in the first place. So yeah, he deserves to be excoriated for this stuff, but so do his predecessors.

    • @Buffalox
      link
      English
      122 days ago

      he absolutely stayed the course that his predecessors chose,

      Yes that part was always a bit confusing to me, because I couldn’t really see anything new in his strategy, except he was doing it harder. But isn’t that what it takes when you fall behind?
      As much as I hate Gelsinger’s pompous bragging style, it’s hard to see what else they could do?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        222 days ago

        What they could have done is to try to reverse the hollowing out of their engineering divisions, and give them more agency and control in leadership. Finance types trying to min/max the P/E ratio is what got them where they are. Serious tech companies that do REAL engineering can’t really follow the norms that Wall Street loves these days and expect to remain technically cutting-edge.

        Engineers are not really plug-and-play. Institutional expertise is a real and meaningful thing. They got here because their leadership has ignored those facts for at least a couple decades now.

        • @IndustryStandard
          link
          English
          52 days ago

          But think of the KPI’s and all other three letter acronyms!