Intel should take a page out of HP's book when it came to dealing with a bug in the HP-35 (first pocket scientific calculator):

> The HP-35 had numerical algorithms that exceeded the precision of most mainframe computers at the time. During development, Dave Cochran, who was in charge of the algorithms, tried to use a Burroughs B5500 to validate the results of the HP-35 but instead found too little precision in the former to continue. IBM mainframes also didn't measure up. This forced time-consuming manual comparisons of results to mathematical tables. A few bugs got through this process. For example: 2.02 ln ex resulted in 2 rather than 2.02. When the bug was discovered, HP had already sold 25,000 units which was a huge volume for the company. In a meeting, Dave Packard asked what they were going to do about the units already in the field and someone in the crowd said "Don't tell?" At this Packard's pencil snapped and he said: "Who said that? We're going to tell everyone and offer them, a replacement. It would be better to never make a dime of profit than to have a product out there with a problem". It turns out that less than a quarter of the units were returned. Most people preferred to keep their buggy calculator and the notice from HP offering the replacement.

https://www.hpmuseum.org/hp35.htm

I wonder if Mr. Packard's answer would have been different if a recall would have bankrupted the company or necessitated layoff of a substantial percentage of staff.

I can't speak for Dave Packard (or Bill Hewlett) - but I will try to step in to their shoes:

1) HP started off in test and measurement equipment (voltmeters, oscilloscopes etc.) and built a good reputation up. This was their primary business at the time.

2) The customer base of the HP-35 and test and measurement equipment would have a pretty good overlap.

Suppose the bug had been covered up, found, and then the news about the cover up came to light? Would anyone trust HP test and measurement equipment after that? It would probably destroy the company.

Or potential of killing couple hundred passengers, or few astronauts. Oh, wait...

Their acquisition of Altera seemed to harm both companies irreparably.

Any company can reach a state where the Process people take over, and the Product people end up at other firms.

Intel could have grown a pair, and spun the 32 core RISC-V DSP SoC + gpu for mobile... but there is little business incentive to do so.

Like any rotting whale, they will be stinking up the place for a long time yet. =)

Could you elaborate on the process people versus product people?

I assume they're referring to Steve Jobs' comments in this (Robert Cringely IIRC) interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4dCJJFuMsE (not a great copy, but should be good enough)

Partly true, Steve Jobs had a charismatic tone when describing these problems in public.

Have a great day, =3

Oh yeah, this got rehashed as builders versus talkers too. Yeah, there's a lot of this creative vibe type dividing. It's pretty complicated, I don't even think individual people operate the same when placed in a different context. Usually their output is a result of their incentives, so typically management failure or technical architect failure.

I would argue the fabrication process people at Intel are core to their business. Without the ability to reliably manufacture chips, they're dead in the water.

You mean manufacturing "working chips" is supposed to be their business.

It is just performance art with proofing wafers unless the designs work =3

It is an old theory that accurately points out Marketing/Sales division people inevitably out-compete product innovation people in a successful firm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principl...

And yes, the Steve Jobs interview does document how this almost destroyed Apples core business. =)

Just to clarify do you mean employees marketing and selling their innovation skills or people literally in marketing and sales?

Shameless self-promotion is usually not a problem in most commercial settings. Sad, but true... lol =)

Letting Marketing/Finance people set technological product trajectories sooner or later becomes detrimental to large firms.

i.e. the product line becomes disconnected from the consumers actual experience of utility, novelty, and perceived scarcity. =)