Last weekend, the Giants suffered their worst loss ever, falling to the New Orleans Saints, a team below average, on a botched goal.
In the aftermath of this game, I became disgusted. Was Intel today the 2024 Giants equivalent? Although it may seem absurd, the similarities are startling.
Let’s face it: The two titans of their industries — the New York Giants in professional football and Intel in technology — have struggled through severe scrutiny and poor performance the past few years. It’s easy for us to draw comparisons between the two companies, as they were both once leaders in their respective fields.
Saquon’s signing with Philadelphia Eagles was one of the worst decisions made by the Giants management. It went beyond their shoddy performance on the field in recent years (the Giants haven’t won the Super Bowl since 2012.) They also extended a questionable, long-term deal to “franchise”, quarterback Daniel Jones before the start of the season. Barkley’s season is one of the most successful ever for a runner.
Intel is a company that has had a difficult time maintaining market share for PCs in recent years. The company also gave up the smartphone market after Apple asked for a suitable silicon for its iPhone back in 2007. This decision would have had ecosystem ramifications which Apple has taken full advantage of.
Both organizations have been criticized for (at least perceived), their inability to provide fans and customers with a modicum faith that turnarounds are in the works. Intel’s troubles are not the same as the New York Giants in 2024, although there are some similarities. Intel’s issues are also being handled differently.
Giant Issues
New York Giants were under enormous pressure as they entered the 2024 NFL season. The legendary team, which has won four Super Bowls in its history, had been through a number of difficult seasons.
Inconsistent play, questionable coaching decisions, and poor development of players have characterized recent years. The team in today’s NFL has struggled to adjust when it comes to creative play-calling, and tactics based on analytics.
The Giants are largely failing to make the most of their chances, despite some flashes of promise. This has left many fans and experts discouraged, while also making season ticket holders such as myself doubt their future.
Intelligence: The Challenges Ahead
Intel used to be undisputed in its industry. The company controlled the semiconductor market literally for many years. It set the standard in terms of chip performance and innovation. In the 2020s, a series of disruptions weakened Intel’s hegemony. Intel was forced to face its weaknesses due to the rise of AMD, Nvidia and Taiwan Semiconductor.
Intel’s biggest problem is its delay in moving to advanced manufacturing nodes. Intel’s 10nm, 7nm, and other nodes have suffered setbacks, resulting in a loss of market share. Meanwhile, Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor are advancing with their 5nm, 3nm, and other advanced processes. Intel’s x86 platform has faced challenges due to the increased use of Arm-based platforms, particularly in AI and Mobile applications.
The Giants and Intel both face enormous obstacles. However, they have responded in a way that is unique. The Giants often appear to be hapless. They switch quarterbacks and coach in an attempt find a temporary solution. Fans and experts have begun to question the long-term viability of the Giants due to their inability develop a plan of action.
Intel, on the other hand, has taken serious steps to overcome these obstacles. Intel launched an ambitious plan under CEO Pat Gelsinger to get back on top of the semiconductor market.
Intel’s IDM v2.0 strategy is at the core of this effort. It aims to modernize its manufacturing capabilities while increasing its role as a third-party foundry. Intel hopes that by doing so, it can compete head-to-head with Taiwan Semiconductor as a chip designer and manufacturing giant.
Intel also has a greater focus on cutting edge technologies. Intel’s attempts to create specialized hardware for data centers, and its investments into AI-specific hardware such as Gaudi AI accelerators demonstrate a proactive response to the coming wave of computing innovations. Intel has shown that it is willing to admit its mistakes and work to change the future, rather than simply reacting to it.
Changes to Leadership and Culture
Leadership is key to an organization’s ability overcome challenges. The Giants’ leadership has been challenged by the frequent coaching staff changes, and the front office which is often out of sync with the team. This lack of predictability has resulted in a loss of direction and identity. It’s difficult to deny this after watching the Giants lose in the last few seasons.
Pat Gelsinger’s return to Intel was met with a reasonable level of unity and support. Gelsinger prioritised a return of Intel’s engineering base while cultivating an innovation-driven and accountable culture. His tenure was marked with ambitious aims and an openness to taking risks, in stark contrast to the Giants cautious strategy.
Legacy is a double-edged sword
Both the Giants and Intel have a history that weighs them down. Giants fans are both proud of and burdened by their rich past, which makes recent setbacks more disappointing. It is difficult for fans to reconcile the current struggles of their team with its illustrious past.
Intel struggles to meet the expectations that come with being a leader in its field. Its reputation as a technological innovator makes its mistakes more impactful. Intel’s history offers distinct advantages. These include a wealth technical know-how and solid industry connections, as well as a reputation that is still envied, particularly with legacy PC OEMs such HP, Dell and Lenovo. Intel has been able to capitalize on its past achievements and concentrate on the future.
Intel’s Future is Extended
Intel and Giants have very different timelines for their respective sectors. This is one of the biggest differences between them. NFL teams have an annual cycle and fortunes often fluctuate depending on the outcome of a season. Giants’ failures are headline news and, because they are so immediate, it is difficult for them to recover in the near term.
In the tech sector however, timelines are longer. The development of semiconductors can take years, and the strategic decisions made today may not have a full impact for 10 years.
Intel can achieve its ambitious goals and rebound from setbacks with a longer horizon. Intel’s problems are more gradual in nature, allowing for a progressive course correction. However, Wall Street tends to be impatient and gets nervous when there is no positive sign of market share growth or revenue growth.
Intel’s Path Ahead
Intel, despite its challenges, is not one of those businesses that are content to just let things be. Intel is preparing for a long term resurgence through its IDM 2.0 Strategy, AI Initiatives, and a redoubled commitment to silicon excellence.
Intel may never again be the leader in the semiconductor industry, as its problems are too complicated to resolve. AMD and Nvidia gained market share due to Intel’s delays in manufacturing. The gap has also increased as Intel prepares itself for 18A production.
Intel’s Foundry Sector has also struggled to attract customers. This has made recovery more difficult. Pat Gelsinger’s resignation highlights the necessity for strong leadership and innovative ideas, after his tenure was marked by a dramatic drop in stock price. In order to restore investor trust and the industry’s stature, Intel will need to implement a strategic restructuring with a renewed focus on execution. This will be incredibly difficult due to internal opposition to whomever becomes Intel’s new leader.
It’s easy for us to forget how many analysts welcomed Gelsinger back to Intel in the year 2021, believing that his familiarity with Intel, his understanding of the industry, his focus and vision would be the perfect combination to help turn the giant around.
Intel has, under his guidance, worked to overcome many obstacles. These include a lack of manufacturing improvements as well as increased competition by rivals AMD and Nvidia. These problems caused Intel’s stock to drop significantly, wiping out nearly $150 billion of market capitalization.
While some people claimed that Gelsinger needed more time in order to execute his plan successfully, the board decided otherwise. They finally decided that an abrupt change of direction was needed, beginning with a different CEO.
Even though it is amusing and interesting, the link between Intel and 2024 New York Giants falls short.
Intel’s strategy shows strategic vision and flexibility the Giants do not. Intel is building a foundation that will solidify its position as the leader of the technology industry in the future, and not just fighting to stay relevant. Intel, if it is a behemoth company, is reinventing itself, not declining, as it must if it wants to grow.
Intel has good reasons to be hopeful. Intel’s Lunar Lake processor family is proving to be more efficient and have a longer battery life than Apple Silicon or Qualcomm.
Intel’s next CEO faces high stakes
Intel’s next CEO, whoever it may be, faces one of the most difficult corporate turnaround challenges ever. Intel will need to drastically reduce its headcount. This is a far cry from the 15,000 cuts it made earlier this year.
Intel is committed to the foundry strategy. It will take many years before this investment yields any significant returns. In an era post-Biden, it may be difficult for the company to continue relying on federal funding in the foundry sector. Intel’s “church-state” strategy, which involves manufacturing non Intel chips in Intel facilities, may be an issue for some customers.
Intel’s chance of success is heavily dependent on the new leader. I recommend hiring someone outside Intel who isn’t an insider. They might be influenced or influenced by the legacy Intel staff who are prone to a survival mindset and who don’t like taking risks. Intel’s new chief executive officer will be one of the most closely watched hires in the tech industry by 2025. Their leadership will provide crucial insights into the company’s future.
The new Intel CEO will have to deal also with an existing management team that is still in survival mode, and may not want to make necessary changes.
In regards to the Giants, it’s horrifying to say that I am not optimistic. For the first in 46 years that I have been a season ticket owner (and spent over $200,000 on them during this time), I am contemplating giving them away. Or I could just play Madden 2020 on my Xbox One to finish the season, and not waste any of my team’s time watching Big Blue struggle.
Intel is not yet at this point. Intel controls its own destiny but time is against it. The new CEO will have to show tangible results as soon as possible.