Intel went off the rails when it started being run by business and finance people instead of deeply technical leaders, because hardcore technical decisions affecting billions of dollars can't be made through a spreadsheet.
Gelsinger argues Intel's decline traces to leadership moving from deeply technical executives to business/finance people who made investment decisions by spreadsheet rather than technical vision. ✦ AI generated
Pat Gelsinger · All-In Podcast · 2026-07-15 · original ↗
starts at this moment · 2:11
“When we look back on it and we do our post-mortem, what were the mistakes and what would we change in terms of the direction of that company?”
As you look at the great technology companies today, they're deeply technical and founder led typically... even if they're not, you know, Satya is not a founder, Sundar is not a founder as well, but they're deeply technical individuals. And when you're making these hardcore technical decisions that affect billions of dollars, you don't do that through a spreadsheet.
verbatim transcript · starts at 2:11
2:11co-inventor, you know, these were deeply technical leaders. I remember when I joined the executive staff for the first time, you know, there was, you know, probably 15 of the 20 people that were in the room were PhDs, right? You know, it was just that technical. And, you know, I view one of the things that went off the rail was when it started to be run by business people
2:32>> as opposed to technical, >> the bean counters, the finance people. >> Yeah. And you know when I became uh CEO uh in 2001 that was the first technical leader in essentially 15 years >> right you know associated with it you know and if you have a business leader who does he promote business leaders and you know right you know so I think one of the fundamental things is and you
2:54know as you look at the great technology companies uh today you know they're deeply technical >> and founderled typically >> you know and even if they're not you know Satcha is not a founder no right? You know, Sundar is not a founder as well, but they're deeply technical individuals. And when you're making these hardcore technical, you know, decisions that affect billions of dollars, you don't do that through a
3:17spreadsheet. That's a lousy investment, right? Unless the technology trends make it the right investment. And I think that's one of the fundamental things. And obviously you know in the five years uh five six years before I came back you know Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders. >> Oh the dividends >> and stock buybacks >> a hundred. What I wouldn't have done for another hundred billion dollar on the uh
3:47what would you have done? You probably would have made chips for iPhone [snorts] which Intel passed on. Yeah. >> Yeah. you know, but you know, it hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there. It's like, you know, how can you not be building? How could you not buy EUV machines? You know, there's just all of these things, you know, that you would only do as a technologist because
4:08the economics behind them by themselves were not good. >> So, you know, it's getting back to the core of technology to me that was, you know, the fundamental thing. You know, you make good decisions, you make bad decisions as leaders. Every business uh does that uh as they go along but uh you know fundamentally this is a technology business and you need technologists running technology uh that then hires
- ·Great tech companies stay deeply technical, often founder-led
- ·Even non-founder CEOs (Satya, Sundar) are deeply technical
- ·Intel shifted to business/finance-led leadership
- ·Billion-dollar technical calls can't be made by spreadsheet
- ·Technical leaders: vision-driven technical decisions
- ·Finance/business leaders: spreadsheet-driven decisions
- ·Gelsinger: only the technical model fits chip-scale bets