Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett Opposes Splitting Company, Criticizes Board Over Gelsinger’s Exit

Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett has voiced strong opposition to splitting Intel’s business into two separate entities, arguing that such a move would be counterproductive, particularly as the company is on the cusp of a technological breakthrough that could help it catch up with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

In his opinion piece published in Fortune, Barrett rebuffed calls from a group of former Intel directors who suggested dividing the chip giant as a defensive measure against a potential TSMC takeover. Instead, he emphasized the need for Intel to double down on its 18A process technology, which is expected to rival TSMC’s N2 process node.

Focus on Technology, Not Distraction

Barrett argued that Intel’s foundry business struggles in recent years were not due to customer trust issues but rather because it lacked the necessary technology to compete effectively with TSMC. The former CEO highlighted that Intel’s newfound success with its 18A process technology demonstrates the company’s potential to reclaim its leadership in the semiconductor industry.

“Splitting off the foundry will only serve as a distraction and introduce complications,” Barrett wrote. Instead, he advised Intel to prioritize the 18A node while ensuring good customer service, fair pricing, guaranteed capacity, and a clear separation of chip designers from their foundry customers.

A Swipe at the Board and the Push for Gelsinger’s Return

Beyond advocating for a unified Intel, Barrett did not hold back his criticism of the company’s board, accusing it of being responsible for Intel’s struggles over the last decade. He suggested that the board’s actions, including the ouster of Pat Gelsinger as CEO in December, were misguided.

“In my opinion, a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years,” Barrett said.

The former CEO noted that while the board members who suggested splitting Intel may have good intentions, they lacked experience in managing a semiconductor business. He characterized them as academics and former government bureaucrats, suggesting they were out of their depth in making strategic decisions for Intel.

Pat Gelsinger’s tenure as CEO was marked by significant strides in technology development, particularly with the 18A process node. Under his leadership, Intel made progress in catching up with its competitors, especially TSMC, which has dominated the industry with its advanced chip manufacturing technologies.

Developing new chip technologies and setting up production is a process that takes years, and Gelsinger has been laying the groundwork for Intel’s recovery. Barrett’s remarks underscore a growing sentiment among industry insiders that Gelsinger’s exit was premature and that his vision could have steered Intel toward sustained success.

Industry analysts have also echoed Barrett’s concerns, with many believing that a split could hinder Intel’s recovery strategy. Splitting the foundry business from the chip design unit might lead to a loss of synergy, weakening the company’s position against competitors like TSMC and Samsung.

Barrett’s comments come at a critical time when Intel needs stability and visionary leadership.

Intel’s efforts to rebound from a decade-long slump have so far failed to produce tangible results. His call to rehire Gelsinger is a bold proposal, denoting a lack of confidence in the company’s current direction.

The company’s foundry business, which was expected to provide a competitive edge, has not yet made significant strides against industry leader TSMC. Despite recent advancements in 18A process technology, which were meant to put Intel on par with TSMC’s N2 process node, the board’s impatience with slow progress led to the sacking of CEO Pat Gelsinger in December.

Barrett’s statements underline a growing concern about the lack of a clear strategy to revive Intel’s fortunes. The company, once a market leader, now appears rudderless, with no well-defined plan to reclaim its position. Analysts note that while the 18A process technology is promising, Intel still faces significant challenges in production scaling, customer acquisition, and market competitiveness.