• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 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?

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 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.