Former Intel CEO and Chairman Craig Barrett has made a compelling argument against breaking up Intel into separate design and foundry units. In a recent critique, Barrett vehemently opposed the idea, citing Intel’s technological resurgence under recently ousted CEO Pat Gelsinger. He emphasized that Intel is on the brink of reclaiming its leadership position in the semiconductor industry, particularly in challenging TSMC’s dominance.
Barrett criticized the notion of splitting the company, labeling it as the “dumbest idea around” that could hinder Intel’s progress. He highlighted Intel’s advancements in cutting-edge technologies like high NA EUV lithography and backside power delivery, essential for future silicon technology. These developments, according to Barrett, position Intel to compete with industry giants like TSMC and Samsung.
One of Barrett’s key arguments revolves around the principle that the best technology ultimately triumphs in the semiconductor industry. He stressed that Intel’s past foundry business failures were due to technological shortcomings rather than structural issues. With Intel now matching TSMC’s capabilities, Barrett believes that the company can attract customers by offering competitive manufacturing technology.
Moreover, Barrett cautioned against the risks associated with splitting a company of Intel’s scale, with over 100,000 employees worldwide. He warned that a corporate breakup could disrupt Intel’s momentum, deplete resources, and introduce unnecessary complexities during a critical period for the company.
In terms of leadership, Barrett advocated for focusing on appointing a capable successor to build on Gelsinger’s accomplishments. He criticized the current leadership structure at Intel, suggesting that the company needs a CEO with a deep understanding of chip manufacturing, rather than individuals focused on corporate division.
Barrett’s recommendations also extended to government support, urging stronger action from the Biden administration to bolster Intel’s global competitiveness. He called for more decisive implementation of CHIPS Act funding and emphasized the importance of US semiconductor manufacturing for national security and economic stability.
As Intel navigates these challenges, Barrett’s insights underscore the pivotal decisions the company faces. Instead of dismantling Intel, he proposes leveraging its technological advancements and securing adept leadership to propel the company forward. With the future of the semiconductor industry hanging in the balance, Intel’s strategic choices in the near future will undoubtedly shape the industry landscape.