Bill,
I have talked to ex-Intel employees and the message I got is that challenging conventional wisdom is not looked upon as a negative but rather as a positive. Of course, I'm sure you can find disgruntled employees from any company who will say anything <gg>.
<Even the largest companies are not immune >
I agree, but Intel has demonstrated that they can recognize mistakes and recover and change course quickly and effectively. That has been one of Intel's biggest strengths over the years. Every company has glitches. Their reaction to these are one of the best ways to judge management's ability. I see no changes in the basic internal philosophies at Intel which would suggest a more closed environment.
<AMD has done well ....>
Done well?? Staggering losses quarter after quarter is doing well?? Continuing major yield problems with the introduction of every new chip is doing well?? Credit rating lowered again?? Balance sheet deteriorating?? Bloated invetories of down level product?? Phantom product announcements? This is doing well?
<As to published comments vis-a-vis Intel management....dare anyone criticise the pope?>
Actually, somebody posted an article a couple weeks ago on Jerry which included highly negative comments by AMD employees on Jerry's rule by terror style. The article stated that employees were so scared to challenge conventional wisdom or revealing problems, that Jerry was usually the last to learn of problems. BTW, employees can always be referenced with the condition of anonymity. Also, when someone like AG writes a book detailing Intel's history and his anagement philosophies, I have no reason to second guess it. Indeed, if it wasn't for bold initiatives and an environment which fostered change, Intel would have died a dismal death as a DRAM company. Finally, many articles about Intel's deep rooted (not here today gone tomorrow) management philosophies were written by independent parties.
<Who made the Rambus error at Intel?>
I think it is premature to call this an error, but as I already conceded all companies make mistakes. The notion that mistakes relative to Rambus are being made due to managers having investments in Rambus sounds a little ridiculous to me. This would either imply a major conspiracy all the way to the top or that upper management is clueless. Given Intel's strong management history, I find this highly unlikely.
<I feel Intel does have better management>
IMO, although Intel has a lot going for it (e.g. tremendous resources, strong marketshare/mindshare, exceptional manufacturing prowess, strong engineering, solid products, etc.) their #1 asset, by far, is their strong management team and management philosophies.
On the other hand, Jerry has been a disaster for AMD. He has taken what was a very profitable company and run it in the ground because of his large ego and personal war against Intel. As a long time Intel investor, I hold my breath every time AMD announces an unscheduled press conference. Although it is usually to simply report more losses or manufacturing problems, my biggest fear is that one day it will be to announce that Jerry is stepping down. I would feel much less comfortable with my Intel investment if Sanders was replaced by a rational CEO with a strong business acumen. In fact, I might even go long AMD if the right person was selected to replace Jerry. Damn...did I just say that <ggg>.
FF |
