I've noticed that it's all the chip companies that have CEOs that understand to a deep level the stuff that the company is actually doing.
Compare and contrast the big software / services tech firms...
It feels like companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia and TSMC are much more about delivering good technical solutions to hard problems than software companies like Google or Microsoft that try to deliver "concepts" or "ideas".
I do sometimes wonder though why decision making at a company like AMD benefits so much from having a highly competent engineer as the CEO compared to let's say Oracle...
You don't want to hear this, but it's because what we programmers do is the easy part of software. In the hardware business the goal is well-defined (just be faster+) and all the magic is in how to do it. In software the difficult part is figuring out what the customer actually wants and then getting your organization to actually align on building that. The coding itself is easy.
+There is obviously some nuance to what faster means. Faster at what? But finding some popular workloads and defining benchmarks is a lot easier than what software people have to do
Calling all the “ad-ware” web companies “Tech companies” is what leads to this apparent contradiction. It is largely identity appropriation across the board.
In general it's very common for CEOs to be of a business/MBA background. Apple and Google both have this, along with tons of other companies outside the semiconductor industry.
You mean like the CEOs of Intel, Nvidia, TSMC, ASML, Micron etc?
I've noticed that it's all the chip companies that have CEOs that understand to a deep level the stuff that the company is actually doing.
Compare and contrast the big software / services tech firms...
It feels like companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia and TSMC are much more about delivering good technical solutions to hard problems than software companies like Google or Microsoft that try to deliver "concepts" or "ideas".
I do sometimes wonder though why decision making at a company like AMD benefits so much from having a highly competent engineer as the CEO compared to let's say Oracle...
You don't want to hear this, but it's because what we programmers do is the easy part of software. In the hardware business the goal is well-defined (just be faster+) and all the magic is in how to do it. In software the difficult part is figuring out what the customer actually wants and then getting your organization to actually align on building that. The coding itself is easy.
+There is obviously some nuance to what faster means. Faster at what? But finding some popular workloads and defining benchmarks is a lot easier than what software people have to do
2 replies →
Calling all the “ad-ware” web companies “Tech companies” is what leads to this apparent contradiction. It is largely identity appropriation across the board.
In general it's very common for CEOs to be of a business/MBA background. Apple and Google both have this, along with tons of other companies outside the semiconductor industry.
Apple as a hardware company needed someone who was good at operations and logistics. Tim Cook is one of the best in the business.
On the other hand, I have no idea what Google’s CEOs purpose is. Google has no vision and can’t produce new products to save their lives.
Google is unique among the current BigTech companies in being completely incapable of diversifying or pivoting to new market opportunities
1 reply →
Isn't the CEO of Intel a bit crazy in regards of Leading his company through praying?
And so is her first cousin (once removed) Jensen Huang of Nvidia!