Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said that Intel should not divide its business into two pieces, especially as it just had a technological breakthrough that would allow it to catch up with TSMC’s N2 process node. Barrett said this in his opinion piece on Fortune, in response to the suggestion of a few former Intel directors that championed dividing the chip giant instead of letting TSMC take it over.
Barrett said that the reason why Intel’s foundry business failed in the past years is because it lacked the technology to compete against the Taiwanese chipmaker, not because customers won’t trust Intel since it also makes and sells chips. But now that it’s seeing success with its 18A process technology, he argues that splitting off the foundry will only serve as a distraction and introduce complications. Instead, Intel should focus all its efforts on the 18A node, ensuring that it delivers “good customer service, fair pricing, guaranteed capacity, and a clear separation of chip designers from their foundry customers” alongside this advanced technology.
Aside from speaking up against the notion of splitting up Intel, the former CEO also criticized Intel’s former and current board. He said that the Intel board “bears ultimate responsibility for what has happened to Intel over the last decade” while saying that the next CEO to take the company’s reins should build on Pat Gelsinger’s accomplishments. The former CEO also took a swipe at the four former Intel board members. Barrett said that although they mean well, they were academics and former government bureaucrats who weren’t familiar with the complex workings of running a semiconductor business.
Pat Gelsinger, who was ousted as CEO of the company just last December, was one of the key people who led Intel to achieve its recent technological breakthroughs that might put it on par with TSMC. Developing and setting up production for new chip technologies takes years, something that Gelsinger pushed under his watch. In the end, it seems that Craig Barrett thinks that forcing Pat Gelsinger to retire was the wrong move for intel. He says, “In my opinion, a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years.”
