Hotard has more than 25 years of experience in the tech industry. Prior to serving at Intel, he had experience with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and NCR Corporation.

“I am delighted to welcome Justin to Nokia. He has a strong track record of accelerating growth in technology companies along with vast expertise in AI and data center markets, which are critical areas for Nokia’s future growth. In his previous positions, and throughout the selection process, he has demonstrated the strategic insight, vision, leadership and value creation mindset required for a CEO of Nokia,” said Sari Baldauf, Chair of Nokia’s Board of Directors.

“I am honored by the opportunity to lead Nokia, a global leader in connectivity with a unique heritage in technology. Networks are the backbone that power society and businesses, and enable generational technology shifts like the one we are currently experiencing in AI. I am excited to get started and look forward to continuing Nokia’s transformation journey to maximize its potential for growth and value creation,” said Justin Hotard.

Hotard is replacing Pekka Lundmark, who announced his decision to step down in order to pursue “the next phase of his career.” Lundmark joined Nokia at a critical point in its history, during the 5G rollout and the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I want to thank Pekka for his significant contributions to Nokia, he will leave with our highest respect. The planning for this leadership transition was initiated when Pekka indicated to the Board that he would like to consider moving on from executive roles when the repositioning of the business was in a more advanced stage, and when the right successor had been identified. Now, both of those conditions have been met, and he has decided to step down,” said Sari Baldauf.

She continued: “Pekka joined at a difficult time in Nokia’s history. Under his tenure, Nokia has re-established its technology leadership in 5G radio networks and built a strong position in cloud-native core networks. Network Infrastructure has delivered growth and significant profit improvement, and Nokia has secured the longevity of its patent licensing business. At the same time, Nokia has built strong foundations in new growth areas, refreshed the company’s brand and culture, transformed its operating model and rebalanced its portfolio.”

“Leading Nokia has been a privilege. When I returned to Nokia in 2020, I called it a homecoming, and it really has felt like one. I am proud of the work our brilliant team has done in re-establishing our technology leadership and competitiveness, and positioning the company for growth in data centers, private wireless and industrial edge, and defense. This is the right time for me to move on. I have led listed companies for more than two decades and although I do not plan to stop working, I want to move on from executive roles to work in a different capacity, such as a board professional. Justin is a great choice for Nokia and I look forward to working with him on a smooth transition,” said Nokia’s President and CEO Pekka Lundmark.

Nokia has its sights set on cloud networks and data centers, making Hotard a perfect fit for the job. His departure is further bad news for Intel, which has already experience significant brain drain in recent years.

Few companies’ fates and fortunes were so intertwined as Microsoft and Intel, with the latter’s chips powering the personal computers that ran Microsoft Windows. As a result, Gates has a unique perspective on Intel’s current woes.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Gates expressed his shock at Intel’s current situation.

“I am stunned that Intel basically lost its way,” Gates said. “(Intel co-founder) Gordon Moore always kept Intel at the state of the art. And now they are kind of behind in terms of chip design and they are kind of behind in chip fabrication. And both of those are very capital intensive. They missed the AI chip revolution, and with their fabrication capabilities, they don’t even use standards that people like Nvidia and Qualcomm find easy. I thought Pat Gelsinger was very brave to say, ‘No, I am going to fix the design side, I am going to fix the fab side.’ I was hoping for his sake, for the country’s sake that he would be successful. I hope Intel recovers, but it looks pretty tough for them at this stage.”

Gates’ comments about Gelsinger were especially telling, since Gelsinger was the first engineer-CEO in some time, after a string of CEOs that lacked significant technical experience or expertise. Gelsinger set about returning Intel to its engineering roots, but ultimately the board of directors grew impatient with how long a turnaround was taking and forced Gelsinger out.

Things have gone from bad to worse for Intel, with the company being the subject of takeover rumors and still having no clear direction for returning to its former glory. The company is also backpedaling on some of its most promising chips designs in years, raising questions about its ability to continue innovating.

Microsoft’s Missed Opportunity

In his AP interview, Gates also discussed one of Microsoft’s biggest missed opportunities, namely Google’s Android. Because Microsoft was dealing with the fallout of its loss in the antitrust case the use government brought against the company, Gates says he was too distracted to respond to Google’s ascendancy and its development of Android.

“The success of Google is an amazing thing, they led the way on search,” Gates said. “The area that Google did well in that would not have happened had I not been distracted is Android, where it was a natural thing for me. I was trying, although what I didn’t do well enough is provide the operating system for the phone. That was ours for the taking.

“Google is the first company that comes along that is like us, that’s trying to hire as many smart people as they can. And, even though search was important to them, they just decided to do YouTube and Office-type software and cloud-type infrastructure. They did a lot of things. Our other competitors up to that point were single-product companies. So that competition with Google has been very healthy. I don’t envy anyone having antitrust problems but in America, if you are hyper-successful, it’s almost like confirmation that, ‘Wow, you must have done really well., and now they are wondering how to tame you. Microsoft learned a lot and, so far, by and large, we have stayed out of trouble since then.”

In a post on Bluesky, Senator Wyden said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly granted DOGE full access to the U.S. Treasury systems.

NEW: Sources tell my office that Treasury Secretary Bessent has granted DOGE full access to this system. Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk’s own companies. All of it.

In a letter to the Secretary Bessent, Wyden demands answers, especially in the context of concerns about various payments being shut down in recend days.

I write regarding disturbing reports that officials associated with Elon Musk and the socalled U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) attempted to gain access to systems that control payments to millions of American citizens, including Social Security, Medicare and tax refunds.1 A confrontation over access apparently resulted in the abrupt resignation of David Lebryk, a career non-partisan Treasury official who recently had been named acting Secretary of the Treasury by President Trump. These reports are particularly concerning given incidents earlier this week in which Medicaid portals in all 50 states were shut down along with other crucial payment programs, following the Trump Administration illegally issuing an order to freeze all grant and loan payments.

Senator Wyden also points out the inherent conflict in DOGE personnel having access to sensitive financial and payout information for companies that include those competing against Musk’s own companies.

As you are aware, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion in annual payments to households, businesses and other entities nationwide. These payment systems process more than a billion payments annually and are responsible for the distribution of Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax refunds, payments to federal employees and contractors, including competitors of Musk-owned companies, and thousands of other functions.

The letter goes on to emphasize the fiscal challenges the U.S. government faces, as well as the importance of it continuing to pay its bills, including to servicemen and women.

To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically-motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy. I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems … The federal government is in a financially precarious position, currently utilizing accounting maneuvers to continue paying its bills since it reached the debt limit at the beginning of the year. I am concerned that mismanagement of these payment systems could threaten the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Whether intentional or unintentional, failure of these payment systems could stop Social Security checks from being sent to retirees who need to pay bills and buy food and drugs. It could stop paychecks from being sent to our troops and their families. As you well know, Americans are in the middle of tax filing season, with many counting on tax refunds that they are legally owed by the government. Most importantly, the federal government is in a financially precarious position, currently utilizing accounting maneuvers to continue paying its bills since it reached the debt limit at the beginning of the year. I am concerned that mismanagement of these payment systems could threaten the full faith and credit of the United States.

Accordingly, I am deeply concerned by the possibility that Elon Musk and a cadre of other unknown DOGE personnel are seeking to gain access to and potentially control the Fiscal Service’s payment systems in order to carry out a political agenda that clearly involves violating the law. It appears that Musk’s behavior is forcing out highly qualified and experienced career public servants in order to get his way and fulfill Trump’s goal of eviscerating the federal budget, including potentially by cutting social security and Medicare benefits for millions of Americans who are already struggling to pay their bills or buy groceries.

“To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically-motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy,” Wyden writes. “I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems … The federal government is in a financially precarious position, currently utilizing accounting maneuvers to continue paying its bills since it reached the debt limit at the beginning of the year. I am concerned that mismanagement of these payment systems could threaten the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Sentaor Wyden also points out the potential national security risk posed by Musk’s access to U.S. Treasury data, especially given his close ties with China.

The press has previously reported that Musk was denied a high-level clearance to access the government’s most sensitive secrets. I am concerned that Musk’s enormous business operation in China — a country whose intelligence agencies have stolen vast amounts of sensitive data about Americans, including U.S. government employee data by hacking U.S. government systems — endangers U.S. cybersecurity and creates conflicts of interest that make his access to these systems a national security risk.

Conclusion

Elon Musk may be a brilliant engineer and businessman, but Senator Wyden makes a strong case that there are legitimate concerns about he and his department being given access to such sensitive data.

Further complicating the issue is Musk’s track record, especially with his acquisition of Twitter. Musk showed little to no regard for previous agreements and contracts that Twitter was legally bound by, whether in the form of lease agreements, compensation contracts, or cloud computing agreements. As a result, Twitter/X defaulted on any number of agreements and suffered significant reputational damage as a result.

While recklessly managing a business he purchased and took private is well within Musk’s prerogative, the argument can be made that one should demonstrate far more maturity, responsibility, and restraint when conducting the finances of a government that millions of people rely on.

Musk has been mired in controversy, in no small part because of his support of the far-right German Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party with ties to neo-Nazism. Musk conducted a lengthy interview with party leader Alice Weidel, even seemingly agreeing with her false statement that Adolf Hitler was a communist.

Unfortunately for Tesla, it seems some Dutch customers have had enough. According to Fortune, a survey by EenVandaag found that 31% of Dutch customers have either sold their vehicle or are considering it.

“There’s been a debate in the Netherlands around Tesla shame,” pollster Joyce Boverhuis told Fortune. “But it’s one thing just to be embarrassed by Musk. It’s another thing entirely when you take the next step and think about actually selling it.”

As Fortune points out, the survey was conducted before Musk’s salute at Donald Trump’s inauguration, an incident that will likely push even more Tesla owners to consider selling. During the inauguration, Musk twice made a gesture that looked nearly identical to a Nazi salute. Some have tried to explain it as Musk using the gesture to say “my heart goes out” to the audience, but the tech exec has used a far more benign gesture when making such a statement to past audiences.

Interestingly, as the outlet notes, EVs enjoy far wider adoption in the Netherlands than in the US. A significant percentage of Dutch support President Trump.

“We’re following the U.S. in terms of politics and cultural behavior,” Boverhuis added. “To give you an idea of how the Dutch feel about Trump, 23% of 26,000 people we surveyed last week replied by saying they would like to live in a country where he is president.”

As a result, Musk supporters cannot claim that the Dutch are reacting they way they are because of a dislike of Trump, his politics, or Musk’s support of the administration. Instead, it would appear to be a dislike for Musk alone that is causing the issue.

Musk Is a Growing Problem for Tesla

This is not the first time Musk has been accused of dragging Tesla down. Market intelligence firm Caliber found that Tesla’s brand consideration score dropped dramatically over the last few years—from 70% in 2021 to 31% in 2024—likely because of Musk.

“It’s very likely that Musk himself is contributing to the reputational downfall,” said Caliber CEO Shahar Silbershatz.

Ultimately, no one knows whether Musk meant his salute as a Nazi salute, a Roman salute (which the Nazi salute drew inspiration from), or if he meant it as “my heart goes” to the audience gesture. Given that he has used a much different gesture for the latter scenario, it seems unlikely that was his intention.

Ultimately, however, it may be a distinction without a difference. Either Musk willfully made a Nazi salute, or he made a gesture that was so similar that he still should have known better. It’s also not outside the realm of possibility that he made the gesture purely to rile critics, counting on his wealth and position within the administration to shield him from any real consequences.

In the aftermath of the incident, Musk has not denied that it was a Nazi salute, instead mocking critics who took offense at it.

Whatever Musk’s intentions, Tesla owners may finally be growing tired of his child-like antics.

Benioff was speaking to Axios’ Ina Fried Wednesday, sharing his thoughts on the future of AI agents, especially as they pertain to the workforce.

“We are really moving into a world now of managing humans and agents together,” he said.

Benioff has been positioning Salesforce as the safe and innovative AI provider, touting its Agentforce platform as being far ahead of the chatbots provided by OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, and others.

“But we’re seeing that breakthrough occur because, with our new Agentforce platform, we’re going to make a quantum leap for in AI, and that’s why it wants you all at Dreamforce because I want you to have your hands on this technology to really understand this,” Benioff said when introducing Agentforce. “This is not copilots. So, many customers are so disappointed in what they bought from Microsoft Copilots because they’re not getting the accuracy and the response that they want. Microsoft has disappointed so many customers with AI.”

Benioff continued to emphasize the transformative effect Agentforce will have in a later interview.

This is what AI was meant to be. Just yesterday, I was reading feedback from a customer who had just turned it on and they were like, “This must be witchcraft. This is crazy what’s happening with my customers now.” And I am really excited about this. I think this is going to change companies forever. I think it’s going to change software forever. And I think it’ll change Salesforce forever.

In his interview with Axios, Benioff said Agenforce is already changing how he works.

“Because I’m using Agentforce, I just have that much more productivity,” he said.

Benioff said Agentforce has already changed how employees work, allowing the company to “redeploy” personnel become some employees “don’t have as much to do because Agentforce is so productive for them.”

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was asked about Musk’s comments when he said, “All I know is, I’m good for my $80 Billion.”

Sonos launched a major update to its app in mid-2024, but the app was universally panned by customers and critics alike for missing features, poor performance, and general bugs. The big question was why or how the company could release an app that was so obviously inferior to its predecessor.

In the wake of the launch, Spence issued a blog post apologizing for the issue. Unfortunately for the company, Spence’s apology did little to stem the backlash, with the company laying off 100 employees just weeks after the apology.

Now, just six months later, Sonos is announcing a “CEO transition.”

Sonos, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONO) today announced that the Sonos Board of Directors and Patrick Spence have agreed that Mr. Spence will step down as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and as a member of the Board effective today. The Board has appointed Tom Conrad, an independent member of the Board since 2017, as Interim CEO, also effective as of today. The Board has initiated a search for its next CEO with the assistance of a leading executive search firm, and is committed to identifying a leader who will build on the Sonos legacy of innovation and excellence in serving its customers while also driving profitable growth. This leadership change is unrelated to the Company’s fiscal first quarter results, which will be reported on February 6, 2025, and for which the Company is providing no update at this time.

“I am deeply honored to step into this role at such an important moment for Sonos,” said Mr. Conrad. “Nearly two decades ago, when I led the earliest initiative to integrate Pandora and Sonos, I got my first glimpse of the magic that Sonos could bring to millions of lives every day. I am excited to work with our team to restore the reliability and user experience that have defined Sonos, while bringing innovative new products to market. Together, we will focus on delivering extraordinary experiences for our customers and strong results for our shareholders.”

Julius Genachowski, Chair of the Board of Directors, praised Spence’s contributions while saying Conrad will build on the company’s core experience.

“On behalf of the Board, I want to thank Patrick for his contributions as CEO,” said Genachowski. “During his tenure, Patrick built on our pioneering success in wireless home audio and led the Company’s expansion into premium audio for home theater, portables, and headphones. We appreciate Patrick’s dedication to Sonos.”

“Tom’s mandate is to improve the Sonos core experience for our customers, while optimizing our business to drive innovation and financial performance,” Genachowski added. “With his deep product expertise and long-term relationship with Sonos, Tom is uniquely suited to guide the company forward during the transition and the Board looks forward to partnering with him closely. We are excited about the opportunity ahead.”

Spence’s fate underscores the stakes involved when a company rolls out a new app, and the importance of ensuring the customer experience is not undermined.

Spotted by Wired, Musk engaged in a bizarre interview with Weidel, in which the German politician tried to claim that Hitler was a communist.

“[Hitler] was a communist, and he considered himself as a socialist,” Weidel said.

“The biggest success after that terrible era in our history was to label Adolf Hitler as right[-wing] and conservative, he was exactly the opposite,” Weidel added. “He wasn’t a conservative, he wasn’t a libertarian, he was a communist, socialist guy, and we are the opposite.”

“Right,” Musk responded.

Grok Disagrees With Musk

Grok, Musk’s own AI model, disagreed with the tech executive, saying his agreement with Weidel “appears to be rooted in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of historical facts.”

When asked if Hitler was a communist, Grok replied with the following:

Adolf Hitler was vehemently opposed to communism. His stance was characterized by:

• Ideological Opposition: Hitler viewed communism as an existential threat to his vision of a racially pure, authoritarian state. The Nazi ideology was fundamentally nationalistic, emphasizing racial purity and the superiority of the Aryan race, whereas communism advocated for a classless society and international proletarian solidarity, which directly contradicted Nazi principles.
• Political Rhetoric: In “Mein Kampf,” Hitler explicitly attacked communism, associating it with Jewish Bolshevism, a term he used to link communism with Jewish influence, thereby promoting antisemitism. He argued that communism was part of a Jewish plot to undermine Germany and other nations.
• Practical Actions: Hitler and the Nazi party actively fought against communist groups in Germany. Once in power, the Nazis outlawed the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) shortly after the Reichstag Fire in 1933, using it as a pretext to arrest communist leaders and suppress the party.
• Foreign Policy: Hitler’s foreign policy also reflected his anti-communist stance. His invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Operation Barbarossa, was not only an attempt to gain “Lebensraum” (living space) for Germans but also a crusade against what he saw as the embodiment of communism.
• Propaganda: Nazi propaganda continuously depicted communists as subversive, anti-German, and part of a broader conspiracy against the nation, which was used to justify harsh measures against them.

In summary, Hitler’s opposition to communism was both ideological and strategic, serving as a core component of his political agenda and propaganda.

When asked why Musk agreed with Weidel, Grok responded with the following:

Elon Musk’s agreement with Alice Weidel’s claim that Adolf Hitler was a communist appears to be rooted in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of historical facts. Here’s a breakdown based on the available context:

1. Misinterpretation of “National Socialism”:

Weidel and Musk seem to focus on the “Socialist” aspect of the Nazi Party’s name, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). However, despite the name, the Nazis were fundamentally anti-communist and anti-socialist in practice. Their socialism was more about national unity and control rather than the traditional socialist principles of workers’ rights and collective ownership.

2. Echo Chamber Effect on Social Media:
   There’s a trend where social media can amplify fringe views or misconceptions. Posts on X (formerly Twitter) indicate that this conversation was part of a broader discussion where Weidel made this claim, and Musk did not challenge it, possibly indicating an endorsement or at least a lack of correction. This might reflect Musk’s engagement with or exposure to a certain political narrative without a deep dive into historical nuance.
3. Political Strategy or Misinformation:
   Weidel, as a leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right party, might use such claims to distance her party from historical associations with Nazism by redefining Hitler’s political stance. By labeling Hitler as a “communist,” it could serve a strategy to frame the AfD as “anti-Nazi” by contrasting their conservative, libertarian ideals against what they call “Hitler’s communism.” This tactic could appeal to those who seek to reject the far-right label while simultaneously spreading misinformation.
4. Historical Revisionism:
   The assertion that Hitler was a communist contradicts well-documented historical facts. Hitler was openly anti-communist, as seen in his actions, writings, and policies. His regime persecuted communists, socialists, and trade unionists. This narrative could be part of a broader historical revisionism where complex historical figures are oversimplified or misrepresented for political gain.
5. Lack of Historical Context:
   Musk’s agreement might also reflect a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject or an over-simplification of complex ideological histories. His public endorsements and interactions seem to be more about engaging with current political discourse rather than providing a scholarly analysis of historical figures.

In conclusion, Musk’s agreement with Weidel’s claim appears to be based on a significant misrepresentation of history, possibly influenced by current political narratives or a lack of in-depth understanding of the ideological nuances of the Nazi regime. This stance diverges sharply from the historical consensus that Hitler was a fascist dictator who was vehemently opposed to communism.

Musk’s Response Underscores the Risk to His Companies

Musk’s response and engagement with Weidel underscores the growing risks associated with the executive’s increasingly controversial stance on issues.

Musk’s handling of the Twitter purchase, defaulting on leases, refusing to honor severance agreements, banning journalists who disagree with him from X (despite claiming to be a free speech advocate), and much more has contributed to Tesla’s “consideration score” cratering in recent years.

Market intelligence firm Caliber monitors brands’ consideration scores, based on a variety of factors. According to the firm, Tesla’s score dropped from 70% in 2021 to a mere 31% in 2024.

“It’s very likely that Musk himself is contributing to the reputational downfall,” said Caliber CEO Shahar Silbershatz.

It’s a safe bet that Musk agreeing with the leader of a political party with ties to neo-Nazism is not going to help his companies, a point Grok itself makes:

Elon Musk’s alignment with Alice Weidel, particularly in light of her party’s (Alternative for Germany or AfD) ties to neo-Nazism, could indeed have repercussions for his companies.

Google is currently dealing with the fallout from its court loss in the antitrust case the DOJ brought against the company, in which the court decided Google is an illegal search monopolist. The DOJ is pursuing aggressive remedies, including forcing Google to sell Chrome, restrict its ability to engage in search deals, prohibit it from collaborating or investing in AI firms, and possibly force the company to divest itself of Android as well. In addition to its antitrust loss, Google is facing court cases and regulatory pressure on any number of issues.

According to CNBC, Pichai address the company’s issues in a meeting with employees last week, saying “the stakes are high.”

“I think 2025 will be critical,” Pichai said. “I think it’s really important we internalize the urgency of this moment, and need to move faster as a company. The stakes are high. These are disruptive moments. In 2025, we need to be relentlessly focused on unlocking the benefits of this technology and solve real user problems.”

“It’s not lost on me that we are facing scrutiny across the world,” Pichai added. “It comes with our size and success. It’s part of a broader trend where tech is now impacting society at scale. So more than ever, through this moment, we have to make sure we don’t get distracted.”

Google has promised to appeal its antitrust loss, filing its counterproposal and calling out the DOJ for what it says is “interventionist agenda.”

If Pichai’s statement is any indication, it seems Google is gearing up for 2025 to be the year it fights for its life on multiple front.

Intel surprised the industry when it announced that CEO Pat Gelsinger was retiring. Although the company and Gelsinger put a positive spin on it, reports soon indicated that Gelsinger was given a choice of being fired or retiring, making his retirement nothing short of an ouster. In the days since, critics and industry experts have been trying to piece together what happened and where the breakdown between Gelsinger and Intel occurred.

The Manufacturing Question

One of the hallmarks of Gelsinger’s attempt to turn Intel around was his emphasis on reinvigorating the company’s in-house manufacturing, something that sets it apart from much of the industry, as it both designs and builds its own chips.

Unfortunately, in recent years, Intel’s manufacturing has fallen behind its competitors, especially TSMC. The company even had to outsource some of its manufacturing to TSMC, an embarrassing state of affairs for a company that was once king of the semiconductor industry.

Gelsinger’s tenure marked a return to the company’s focus on manufacturing, with the executive even blaming previous CEOs for losing the “maniacal” focus on manufacturing the company once had. A major component of Gelsinger’s focus on manufacturing was an attempt to position Intel as a TSMC competitor in the field of custom foundry services for other companies, with hopes to win over the likes of Apple, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Amazon, and others.

Despite Gelsinger’s efforts, Intel’s foundry business bled money at an alarming rate. The company ultimately announced plans to separate its foundry business as an independent subsidiary, although the funds Intel accepted from the US CHIPS Act limit the terms of any such spinoff.

The Theory

One of the leading theories pertaining to Gelsinger’s ouster is that Intel’s board may have wanted to pursue a more aggressive spinoff than the CEO wanted—especially when considering how focused he was on returning Intel to its former manufacturing glory.

Recent comments by Holthaus and Zinser seem to confirm this theory.

“Pragmatically, do I think it makes sense that they’re completely separated and there’s no tie?” Holthaus said of Intel’s product and manufacturing divisions, per Reuters. “I don’t think so. But someone will decide that.”

“That’s going to happen,” Zinsner said, speaking of the ongoing separation of the foundry’s business and process operations. “Does it ever fully separate? That’s an open question for another day.”

Intel Has a Problem Extending Beyond the Top Job

The more details emerge from Intel post-Gelsinger, the more it becomes apparent the company has issues that extend beyond who holds the top spot at the company.

The company’s board of directors has had a shocking lack of experience in the semiconductor industry, at least until just recently. The company appointed Eric Meurice, former CEO of ASML Holding, and Steve Sanghi, interim CEO of Microchip Technology to the board in early December.

The lack of experience in the semiconductor industry among the company’s board is a critical weak point that likely played a significant role in where Intel is today. That lack of experience likely contributed to poor decisions that saw the company squander its manufacturing and technological lead and may have been a factor in the board growing tired of quarterly losses as Gelsinger rebuilt the company’s manufacturing.

While it’s true that Intel suffered some of the worst quarterly losses in its history, rebuilding a company’s manufacturing process is an expensive endeavor, but an endeavor Intel must see through if it wants to regain its former glory.

The stakes are especially high now, with the incoming Trump administration promising steep tariffs on foreign imports. Intel is uniquely positioned to once again become the leading semiconductor manufacturer, both for its own chips and for those of its competitors, giving companies an American-owned option for their manufacturing needs.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely the current board of directors has the fortitude to see the company through the expensive, difficult return to its roots, prioritizing short-term profit over long-term gain.

Intel Needs a Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs’ return to Apple is legendary, an account that will be taught in business school for decades to come. Like Intel, Apple had all the ingredients necessary to be a computing powerhouse, but it needed a strong leader who could help the company return to its roots.

Apple, much like Intel, increasingly appears to have an exceptionally ineffective board that has directly contributed to the company’s current situation. In fact, the only redeeming decisions the board helped make were bringing Jobs back, giving him the role of interim CEO, and agreeing to his terms—and that’s where it gets interesting.

One of Jobs’ terms for taking on the role was the authority to remove board members and restaff the board with individuals who would be a force for good within Apple, which he set about doing. The rest is history, with Apple under Jobs going on to achieve levels of greatness previously unimaginable.

A leader like Steve Jobs is exactly what Intel needs: a leader who isn’t afraid to shake things up, including cleaning out the board of directors and restaffing it with individuals who understand the industry and can be a force for good.

Until that happens, Intel’s fortunes will continue to go from bad to worse, and any CEO the company hires will be as hamstrung as Gelsinger was.

Sijbrandij has been fighting cancer for some time. Although his prognosis is promising, GitLab’s founder says it’s time for him to focus on his treatment and recovery.

“I am very pleased to welcome Bill to the role of CEO at GitLab. I believe his passion for software, commitment to customers, and strong track record make him the right person to lead the company going forward,” said Sid Sijbrandij. “What started as a collaboration tool for developers is now the leading AI-powered DevSecOps platform. I am confident GitLab is well-positioned for continued success in the next phase of our journey. This is the right time to focus on my cancer treatment and health. My treatments are going well, my cancer is not metastatic, and I’m working towards making a full recovery.”

Staples previously served as CEO of New Relic, a company specializing in helping companies achieve full-stack observability of their projects. During his tenure in the role, Staples helped drive revenue and profits for the company.

“For the past twelve years, Sid and the team have established GitLab as the most comprehensive AI-powered DevSecOps platform that developers love, and enterprises around the world rely on for software innovation,” said Bill Staples, CEO, GitLab. “I am honored and excited to lead the company into this next chapter and to help our customers and partners accelerate innovation and deliver business value.”

The board of directors expressed its support of Staples taking over for Sijbrandij.

“I’d like to thank Sid for his vision and leadership throughout the last decade. Over that time, GitLab has grown to be a market-leading DevSecOps company which now serves more than 10,000 customers with over $750M in run-rate revenue,” said Godfrey Sullivan, lead independent director, GitLab board of directors. “Looking ahead, the board and I could not be happier to welcome Bill to the role of GitLab CEO. His track record of bringing teams together, experience scaling enterprise software organizations, and focus on innovation makes him the right person to lead the company.”

GitLab has become increasingly important, especially since Microsoft’s purchase of rival GitHub. As Microsoft has integrated its Copilot AI into GitHub, some developers have looked for an alternative, with GitLab the logical choice.

Thompson’s murder on December 4 sent shockwaves throughout the industry, as well as the nation as a whole. The murder, carried out as an assassination-style hit, was widely believed to be a response to the health insurance industry’s longstanding practice of denying customers care, with horror stories of people dying because they couldn’t get the care they had paid for via years and decades of insurance premiums.

Journalist Ken Klippenstein pointed to screenshots of responses to Thompson’s last LinkedIn post as examples of the alleged hypocrisy of the insurance industry, and UnitedHealth in particular.

Interestingly, as first spotted by Futurism, a class-action lawsuit against UnitedHealth shows just how culpable the company may be for customers who were denied coverage. The lawsuit accusing the company of deploying an AI models “to wrongfully deny elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare Advantage Plans by overriding their treating physicians’ determinations as to medically necessary care based on an AI model that Defendants know has a 90% error rate.”

Despite the high error rate, Defendants continue to systemically deny claims using their flawed AI model because they know that only a tiny minority of policyholders (roughly 0.2%) will appeal denied claims, and the vast majority will either pay out-ofpocket costs or forgo the remainder of their prescribed post-acute care. Defendants bank on the patients’ impaired conditions, lack of knowledge, and lack of resources to appeal the erroneous AI-powered decisions.

The fraudulent scheme affords Defendants a clear financial windfall in the form of policy premiums without having to pay for promised care, while the elderly are prematurely kicked out of care facilities nationwide or forced to deplete family savings to continue receiving necessary medical care, all because an AI model ‘disagrees’ with their real live doctors’ determinations.

The lawsuit then goes on to point out the alleged hypocrisy between what UnitedHealth touts as their goal, versus how they actually treat customers.

Defendants state that their “mission” is “to help people live healthier lives and make the health system work better for everyone.”4 In reality, Defendants systematically deploy an AI algorithm to prematurely and in bad faith discontinue payment for healthcare services for elderly individuals with serious diseases and injuries. These healthcare services are known as post-acute care.

Defendants’ AI Model, known as “nH Predict,” determines Medicare Advantage patients’ coverage criteria in post-acute care settings with rigid and unrealistic predictions for recovery.5 Relying on the nH Predict AI Model, Defendants purport to predict how much care an elderly patient ‘should’ require, but overrides real doctors’ determinations as to the amount of care a patient in fact requires to recover. As such, Defendants make coverage determinations not based on individual patient’s needs, but based on the outputs of the nH Predict AI Model, resulting in the inappropriate denial of necessary care prescribed by the patients’ doctors. Defendants’ implementation of the nH Predict AI Model resulted in a significant increase in the number of post-acute care coverage denials.

AI Without Oversight or Context

While the use of AI in the insurance industry is common, and can be used to provide valuable insights, UnitedHealth is accused of using it in a way that fails to take into account the unique circumstances of individual patients, and pushes for outcomes that are unrealistic at best, impossible at worst. As a result, patients begin to receive payment denials much sooner than they should, leaving them to either pay out-of-pocket or forego needed treatment.

Defendants wrongfully delegate their obligation to evaluate and investigate claims to the nH Predict AI Model. The nH Predict AI Model spits out generic recommendations that fail to adjust for a patient’s individual circumstances and conflict with basic rules on what Medicare Advantage plans must cover.

Upon information and belief, the nH Predict AI Model applies rigid criteria from which Defendants’ employees are instructed not to deviate. The employees who deviate from the nH Predict AI Model prediction are disciplined and terminated, regardless of whether the additional care for a patient is justified.

Under Medicare Advantage Plans, patients who have a three-day hospital stay are typically entitled to up to 100 days in a nursing home. With the use of the nH Predict AI Model, Defendants cut off payment in a fraction of that time. Patients rarely stay in a nursing home more than 14 days before they start receiving payment denials.

Upon information and belief, the outcome reports generated by nH Predict are rarely, if ever, communicated with patients or their doctors. When patients and doctors request their nH Predict reports, Defendants’ employees deny their requests and tell them that the information is proprietary.

Thompson’s Murder a Turning Point

While violence and murder are never the answer, Thompson’s murder appears poised to be a major turning point for the industry, one in which CEOs and executives fear real-world and very personal consequences to seemingly removed, abstract decisions they make that nonetheless impact people’s lives.

Already, some health insurance companies are removing information about their executives from their websites, in a move designed to prevent another Thompson-style murder.

Similarly, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield reversed a deeply unpopular decision to cut off payment for surgical anesthetics at the moment predefined limits for a given surgery were reached. In other words, if a surgery is estimated to take three hours, but complications force it to take an hour longer, the insurance company would only pay for the original three hours of anesthesia, leaving the patient to foot the bill for the rest. Fortunately, the backlash from the announcement was severe enough to force Anthem to backtrack, but it’s telling the company thought it could get away with such a policy in the first place.

The entire UnitedHealth/Thompson debacle illustrates why there needs to be better regulation to force insurance companies to treat their customers as human beings and provide the coverage those customers are paying for. The company’s use of AI also illustrates the need for companies to ensure they use AI models in an ethical and legal manner.

Tesla shareholders voted in favor of a compensation package for CEO Elon Musk that could be as much as $56 billion, depending on various performance factors. The package was already shot down by Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, following a shareholder lawsuit that challenged the deal.

After shareholders voiced their support of the package once again, Chancellor McCormick reaffirmed her decision, according to AP News.

Chancellor McCormick Takes Aim At the Attorneys

In addition to shutting down Musk’s compensation package, Chancellor McCormick also denied a fee request by Musk and Tesla lawyers, in the amount of more than $5 billion in Tesla stock. Instead, the judge said the attorneys were owed $345 million.

“In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote.

“The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick continued. She added that the $345 million she granted was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.”

Questions of Control

The decision has raised multiple issues about who should be in control of corporate decisions, with Musk making clear he believes the judge is overreaching.

“Shareholders should control company votes, not judges,” he wrote on X.

Nonetheless, Chancellor McCormick defended her decision, saying that company’s directors lacked the freedom to make a responsible decision, given that Musk is the founder, CEO, and largest Tesla shareholder.

“The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in her opinion.

“Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added.

Frank Yeary, interim executive chair of the board, touted Gelsinger’s efforts to revitalize the company’s manufacturing process, while at the same time acknowledging that much remains to do.

“On behalf of the board, I want to thank Pat for his many years of service and dedication to Intel across a long career in technology leadership,” Year said. “Pat spent his formative years at Intel, then returned at a critical time for the company in 2021. As a leader, Pat helped launch and revitalize process manufacturing by investing in state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing, while working tirelessly to drive innovation throughout the company.

“While we have made significant progress in regaining manufacturing competitiveness and building the capabilities to be a world-class foundry, we know that we have much more work to do at the company and are committed to restoring investor confidence,” Year continued. “As a board, we know first and foremost that we must put our product group at the center of all we do. Our customers demand this from us, and we will deliver for them. With MJ’s permanent elevation to CEO of Intel Products along with her interim co-CEO role of Intel, we are ensuring the product group will have the resources needed to deliver for our customers. Ultimately, returning to process leadership is central to product leadership, and we will remain focused on that mission while driving greater efficiency and improved profitability.”

Gelsinger, who’s retirement is effective December 1, said being CEO of the company was the honor of his lifetime.

“Leading Intel has been the honor of my lifetime – this group of people is among the best and the brightest in the business, and I’m honored to call each and every one a colleague. Today is, of course, bittersweet as this company has been my life for the bulk of my working career. I can look back with pride at all that we have accomplished together. It has been a challenging year for all of us as we have made tough but necessary decisions to position Intel for the current market dynamics. I am forever grateful for the many colleagues around the world who I have worked with as part of the Intel family.”

A Series of Missteps

Gelsinger was tapped to replace Bob Swan as CEO of the beleaguered chipmaker in early 2021, with the hope that his strong engineering background would help the company return to its manufacturing roots and regain its past glory.

At the time, Gelsinger was vocal in his belief that past CEOs had lost their way, and promised to bring back the “maniacal” focus on manufacturing that made the company such a powerhouse in past years.

In some ways, Gelsinger succeeded with his mandate. Under his leadership, the company invested billions to build out its manufacturing capabilities, setting up new factories and foundries around the world. The company also became the poster child for a resurgence of US-based manufacturing, receiving billions from the CHIPS ACT, aimed at bolstering US semiconductor manufacturing.

Nonetheless, under his tenure, Intel also experienced devastating layoffs, and some of the worst quarterly results in company history. The company has seen some of its top engineers leave, many to join rivals or start their own chip firms.

Throughout its troubles, Gelsinger has often been dismissive of rivals, especially ARM and AMD. Gelsinger has been notoriously dismissive of ARM’s potential to upend the industry.

And overall, I think what you’re seeing is the industry is excited around the AIPC. And as I declared this generation of AIPC at our Innovation Conference a couple of months ago, we’re seeing that materialize and customers, competitors seeing excitement around that. ARM and Windows client alternatives, generally, they’ve been relegated to pretty insignificant roles in the PC business.

Despite that confident proclamation, ARM has continued to grow as a threat to Intel’s dominance, with Microsoft even launching its Windows Copilot PCs on ARM architecture first.

Similarly, Gelsinger has been quick to dismiss AMD, despite the smaller company consistently beating Intel technologically.

“Alder Lake, all of sudden, boom! We are back in the game! AMD in the rearview mirror in clients, and never again will they be in the windshield,” Gelsinger said in early 2022.

A Mixed Legacy

To add insult to injury, Intel’s fortunes under Gelsinger have fallen so low that Qualcomm expressed interest in buying the company, either in whole or in part. Reports indicated that Intel leadership was open to the deal, seeing it as a viable option to help turn the company around.

The fact that Intel is even seen as a potential takeover target, let alone that the company’s leadership would be open to the possibility, is a stark milestone that illustrates just how far it has fallen from its glory days.

While Gelsinger has done much to revitalize the company’s manufacturing, there’s no denying that his tenure as CEO will be marked by a mixed legacy, one that left the company more vulnerable than it has ever been in its long and storied history.

AI is in the process of revolutionizing countless industries, with many companies using it to automate repetitive tasks and free up employees to focus on more important things. Unfortunately, according to a report by SThree, many professionals are losing hours of productivity because their companies have yet to make the jump.

STEM professionals are losing nearly six hours each week due to insufficient AI support. This productivity gap isn’t just a minor hiccup; it’s a significant barrier to growth and innovation.

Many employees place the blame squarely on CEOs, with 63% blaming their bosses “digital illiteracy,” saying it holds up adoption of AI technology that could improve their workflow.

63% of respondents who advocate for tech upgrades believe these aren’t adopted due to leadership’s digital illiteracy, and 48% say leadership fails to grasp the productivity benefits.

Unsurprisingly, employees fear their companies are falling behind, with only a very small minority seeing their ideas and recommendations for new technology being adopted.

A startling 49% of respondents feel their companies are trailing their peers in AI implementation. Even more concerning, only 11% of employees who proposed new technologies saw their ideas come to fruition.

“Amid rapid technological advancements, companies must embrace transformation to stay competitive,” said SThree CEO Timo Lehne. “Our latest How the STEM world works study reveals that embracing AI and fostering a trusting work environment are key to unlocking productivity and innovation. Let’s lead with understanding and support for our workforce in this ongoing journey. Read our How the STEM world works study for more insights.”

SThree’s report is worth a read, and sheds insight into the gap that exists between CEOs, as well as other executives, and the employees who stand to benefit from a forward-thinking approach.

At the center of this evolution is Sam Altman, the CEO who survived a coup in late 2023. The move to oust Altman came from concerns within the organization’s board that he was drifting too far from OpenAI’s core values. While the coup failed within days, Altman has since consolidated power, restructuring the leadership team and driving the company toward commercial goals. Former Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Mira Murati’s recent exit, alongside key researchers like Ilya Sutskever, illustrates the broader unrest within the organization.

Catch our chat on the chaos at OpenAI as profits take priority!

Leadership Shifts Post-Coup

The failed attempt to remove Sam Altman from OpenAI’s helm was a turning point in the company’s recent history. When the board initially ousted Altman, it was seen as an internal revolt driven by concerns over transparency and decision-making. Former CTO Mira Murati and co-founder Ilya Sutskever reportedly raised concerns over Altman’s leadership style, describing him as pitting executives against each other. “Altman’s leadership had become divisive,” an insider revealed, adding that “he had lost the trust of those most committed to the mission of safe AI.”

However, the decision to oust Altman backfired almost immediately. Within days, as investors and employees rallied behind Altman, Murati and Sutskever reversed their positions, calling for Altman’s reinstatement. While the immediate coup ended with Altman back in control, the tension didn’t dissipate. In the months following, the company saw a string of high-profile departures, including Sutskever and safety researcher Jan Leike, both critical of the company’s evolving priorities.

Murati’s sudden departure in late September 2024 was another shock to the system. Known for her technical prowess and operational leadership, Murati’s exit signaled a deeper shift in OpenAI’s corporate culture. Altman acknowledged the abrupt nature of her resignation but framed it as part of a natural transition for a company in rapid growth mode: “I won’t pretend it’s natural for this to be so abrupt,” he said in a company-wide message, “but we are not a normal company.”

The Shift from Research to Profit

At its core, OpenAI was founded on principles of AI safety, research, and transparency. When Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and others launched OpenAI in 2015, it was heralded as a nonprofit organization with a clear mission: “Our goal is to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.” But as OpenAI’s ambitions and the scale of its research grew, so did its need for funding.

In 2019, OpenAI transitioned to a capped-profit model, creating a for-profit subsidiary to attract the billions of dollars required for advanced AI development. With investors like Microsoft pumping in billions, the stakes—and the expectations—skyrocketed. Yet the hybrid structure of a nonprofit overseeing a profit-driven arm created tension. According to former researcher Jeffrey Wu, who worked on models like GPT-2 and GPT-3, “Restructuring around a core for-profit entity formalizes what outsiders have known for some time: OpenAI is seeking to profit in an industry that has received an enormous influx of investment in the last few years.”

This shift culminated in recent reports that OpenAI would restructure into a full-fledged for-profit company, allowing investors to reap unlimited returns. “This is a complete break from the original ethos of the organization,” commented Sarah Kreps, director of Cornell’s Tech Policy Institute. She added that the move signaled a departure from OpenAI’s “founding emphasis on safety, transparency, and an aim of not concentrating power.”

Rushed Product Launches and Safety Concerns

One of the most contentious points within OpenAI has been the balance between rapid commercialization and AI safety. The company has developed a reputation for rushing product launches to outpace competitors like Google and Anthropic. One former employee described the internal culture as increasingly “product-first,” noting that safety protocols are sometimes bypassed in the rush to deploy new AI models. A key example is the launch of GPT-4o, an AI model released earlier this year.

Safety staffers working on GPT-4o were reportedly given just nine days to complete safety checks before launch—a deadline some found impossible to meet. “We were pulling 20-hour days,” said one safety researcher, “but there was no way we could properly assess the risks in such a short time frame.” After the launch, concerns were raised about the model’s ability to create persuasive content, which could potentially lead users toward dangerous behaviors. Yet, the company pressed forward, citing competitive pressures.

This focus on rapid product cycles has worried many within the AI safety community. Jan Leike, who left OpenAI to join competitor Anthropic, remarked in a statement: “Over the past years, safety culture and processes have taken a back seat to shiny products.” These concerns are echoed by others, who fear that OpenAI’s focus on commercializing AI tools, like its widely-used ChatGPT, may come at the expense of longer-term safety initiatives.

The Financial Pressure Behind OpenAI’s Transformation

OpenAI’s rapid shift toward commercialization is driven in part by the enormous financial pressure the company faces. With billions of dollars invested by Microsoft, Thrive, Apple, and other entities, OpenAI has been burning through capital as it scales up its models. Current estimates suggest OpenAI is losing billions annually despite projected revenues of around $4 billion. “We can’t sustain this level of growth without significant investment,” Altman reportedly told staff in an internal meeting.

The latest funding round, expected to close at $6.5 billion, values the company at a staggering $150 billion. Yet even with that influx of cash, OpenAI is expected to shift toward a more traditional for-profit model, potentially going public within the next few years. “There’s simply no other way to attract the level of capital we need to compete in this space,” a senior executive told Fortune.

But with this shift comes a significant risk. OpenAI’s original nonprofit foundation will likely be reduced to a minority stakeholder, and with it, the company’s mission of developing AI in the public interest could fade. “If you remove the profit cap, you’re fundamentally changing the nature of the organization,” said Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee. “This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s an ethical one.”

A Leadership Crisis

As OpenAI transitions into its next phase, one thing remains clear: the leadership crisis has only deepened. In addition to the departures of key figures like Murati and Sutskever, the company is grappling with internal discontent. President Greg Brockman, a long-time Altman ally, has taken a sabbatical, and other senior researchers have defected to competitors like Anthropic.

“When I think about OpenAI, I think about Greg, and I think about Ilya,” said one former employee. “With no Ilya, it’s a different company. With no Greg, it’s a very different company.” Even Altman has acknowledged the challenges of retaining top talent, but he remains optimistic about the company’s future: “I hope OpenAI will be stronger for it, as we are for all of our transitions,” he said during a recent appearance in Italy.

OpenAI’s transformation may be inevitable given the scale of its ambitions, but the costs—both ethical and operational—are mounting. For investors, this shift may bring financial returns, but for those who joined the company with the goal of advancing AGI for the benefit of humanity, it feels like a betrayal. As one former researcher put it, “We were supposed to be building the future—now it just feels like another tech company chasing profits.”

OpenAI’s journey from a nonprofit AI research lab to a profit-driven tech giant reflects broader tensions in the tech industry as companies seek to balance innovation, safety, and financial returns. Sam Altman’s leadership has brought the company to the forefront of AI development, but at what cost? With key figures departing, safety concerns growing, and the company’s mission shifting, the question remains: What is the future of OpenAI? Will it continue to lead the AI revolution, or has it lost sight of its original purpose?

This article includes quotes from social media posts, corporate blogs, and various news sources, including The Financial Times, The Verge, Vox, Fortune, and the Wall Street Journal.

Andy Greenaway, a seasoned creative leader in Asia, took to LinkedIn to voice his thoughts on the leadership shift. In his post, Greenaway didn’t mince words: “CHOOSE THE RIGHT LEADER (BECAUSE IF YOU CHOOSE THE WRONG ONE, YOU’RE SCREWED).” He pointed to Donahoe’s lack of experience in the apparel business as a primary reason for his failure to steer Nike toward continued growth. “Donahoe is an outsider who didn’t really have any knowledge or expertise in the apparel business,” Greenaway wrote, adding that the former CEO’s focus was more on financial metrics than on the culture and vision that made Nike a global leader.

Catch our take on why John Donahoe wasn’t the right fit for Nike and its brand:

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Under Donahoe’s stewardship, Nike’s stock took a significant hit, wiping out $28 billion of its value. Profit margins tumbled, which led many to question the brand’s long-term strategy. This decline was particularly troubling for a company that had consistently been a top performer in its industry, with a track record of cutting-edge product lines and innovative marketing campaigns. Nike’s allure, built on its “Just Do It” ethos, seemed to lose its edge under Donahoe.

One of Donahoe’s most controversial moves was slashing sales teams and reducing investment in research and development (R&D). Additionally, he shifted much of Nike’s focus from its traditional retail partners to its direct-to-consumer channels, a pivot that many industry experts argue didn’t play to Nike’s strengths. As Greenaway put it, “He shifted products from Nike’s retail partners to its own stores. He also laid off hundreds of marketers who had an intimate knowledge of Nike’s customers, intending to replace them with data-driven insights.”

Former Nike branding executive Massimo Giunco weighed in on the strategic shift, pointing out that Donahoe’s focus on cutting costs and ramping up digital sales ultimately diluted the brand’s purpose. “For the first time in Nike history, long-term vision wasn’t about sustainable growth anymore… it was about the supremacy of Direct To Consumer, led by digital.” Giunco’s remarks highlight the tension between Donahoe’s digital-centric vision and Nike’s roots in performance-driven product development.

Innovation Takes a Back Seat

One of the defining characteristics of Nike’s success has been its relentless focus on innovation, particularly in sports-specific products that resonate with athletes. Yet, under Donahoe’s leadership, product creation shifted from a performance-based focus to one centered on broad demographics. Instead of designing footwear and apparel for specific sports such as basketball, football, or tennis, Nike began producing generic products for men and women—more in line with fast-fashion brands like Zara or H&M. This change alienated some of Nike’s core consumers, especially athletes who have long been at the heart of the brand’s identity.

Hubert Rau, a business and marketing professor, echoed this sentiment in his LinkedIn comment: “Brands like On, Hoka, New Balance, and Lululemon are making a dent in Nike’s market share.” While Rau acknowledges that Nike still holds a dominant position, he argues that the company’s move toward generic product lines has opened the door for niche brands to gain ground. “The Swoosh aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, but the competition is more fierce than ever,” he added.

Stephen Drummond, a brand strategy consultant, was even more critical of the company’s leadership choices. “He was chosen by their board, and they chose to support those key decisions too. Boards too often duck responsibility for their own poor calls,” Drummond wrote, pointing to a broader systemic failure at Nike’s highest levels.

Financial Wizardry Over Purpose

At the core of Donahoe’s leadership was a focus on financial performance rather than brand vision. Many, like Greenaway, believe this approach was a fatal flaw. “Fundamentally, Donahoe was a number cruncher. He didn’t believe in brand, he didn’t believe in innovation, and he didn’t believe in partnerships,” Greenaway asserted in his post. The focus on cost-cutting and short-term gains, rather than long-term brand-building, seems to have backfired.

Pascal O’Neill, a strategic marketing advisor, offered a similar critique, stating, “When the culture of true Consumer Insights vs Consumer Needs will be re-established, these managers will be out of a job.” His comment underscores the growing frustration among brand strategists with leaders who prioritize data and analytics at the expense of authentic consumer engagement.

The sentiment was also echoed by Kate Neale, a creative partner and producer, who commented, “Bean counters’ objectives are different; they’re job is to record history, they don’t make it.” Neale’s words encapsulate the widespread perception that Donahoe’s emphasis on numbers ultimately stifled Nike’s ability to innovate and stay ahead of its competitors.

Lessons in Leadership

The fall of Donahoe at Nike is a stark reminder that even the most successful brands can falter if they lose sight of what made them great in the first place. As Andy Greenaway concluded in his post, “Donahoe has exited Nike with millions in his pocket, while Nike itself is billions out of pocket.” The disconnect between leadership and brand purpose, he argues, is a warning to companies everywhere: Choose your leaders carefully, or risk long-term damage.

In hindsight, Donahoe’s downfall might have been inevitable. As Richard Beaumont, a leadership expert, quipped, “Wonder if he got to keep his laptop.” While that remark may have been made in jest, it points to a broader truth—leadership at a brand like Nike is about more than just the bottom line. It’s about understanding and nurturing the culture, innovation, and legacy that made the company iconic.

Nike’s story under Donahoe serves as a cautionary tale for leaders across industries. In a world where competition is fierce and consumer loyalty is fragile, numbers matter—but they aren’t everything. Vision, purpose, and innovation remain critical to staying ahead in the game.

“Mario Draghi’s critique is accurate,” Musk wrote, emphasizing that a thorough review of the EU’s regulatory landscape could “eliminate unnecessary rules” and “revitalize growth.” In his view, regulations in Europe should follow the principle of “default legal, rather than default illegal,” a fundamental shift from the EU’s current practice of requiring companies to seek explicit permission for many activities.

Draghi’s Report: A Call for Simplification

The public exchange follows the release of a report by Draghi, commissioned by the EU to analyze Europe’s future competitiveness. Draghi’s recommendations include streamlining existing rules, cutting bureaucratic overlap, and ensuring that European businesses are not burdened with excessive red tape. He suggests appointing a new “Commission Vice President for Simplification” to spearhead these efforts, signaling a shift towards a more business-friendly regulatory environment.

Mario Draghi’s critique is accurate.

A thorough review of EU regulations to eliminate unnecessary rules and streamline activity in Europe would revitalize growth and strengthen competitiveness.

Things should be default legal, rather than default illegal. https://t.co/NQQom5OYIS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2024

The proposal resonates with previous calls from member states such as France and Germany to ease the so-called “regulatory burden,” which they believe hampers European companies’ ability to compete on the global stage. Draghi’s report also echoes a broader sentiment across Europe that excessive regulation is throttling innovation, especially in key sectors such as technology and renewable energy.

Musk’s Frustration with EU Regulations

Musk’s own frustrations with the EU’s regulatory framework have been evident for some time. X, the platform he owns, is currently under investigation by the European Commission to assess its compliance with the bloc’s stringent content moderation rules under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Musk’s argument, as he has expressed in multiple forums, is that regulations should encourage innovation rather than serve as roadblocks.

“Things should be default legal, rather than default illegal,” Musk reiterated in his response to Draghi’s report, emphasizing that an overhaul of the EU’s regulatory environment would strengthen Europe’s competitiveness in the global economy.

Musk’s critique of EU regulations extends beyond social media. Tesla, the electric vehicle company he founded, has faced numerous regulatory hurdles in Europe, particularly in Germany, where the construction of its Gigafactory faced delays due to environmental regulations. These experiences have seemingly solidified Musk’s view that the EU’s regulatory system needs significant reform to foster innovation.

Broader Criticism and Support for Draghi’s Ideas

Musk’s praise for Draghi isn’t without its critics. Some have argued that Draghi’s proposals don’t go far enough in addressing the fundamental issues facing Europe’s regulatory system. Critics like economist Michele Geraci argue that while reducing bureaucracy is a step in the right direction, Europe’s deeper problem lies in the very structure of the EU, which often favors established businesses and stifles competition.

Geraci points out that the EU, in its effort to harmonize rules across its member states, has created a “meta system” that disproportionately benefits large corporations, particularly in sectors such as telecommunications and energy. “The EU’s regulatory framework often ends up protecting national champions at the expense of dynamism and innovation,” Geraci said, echoing Musk’s concerns about the negative impact of red tape on competition.

Supporters of Draghi’s vision, however, argue that cutting red tape is precisely what Europe needs to reclaim its competitive edge. They point to the rapid rise of China and the United States in technological innovation and suggest that Europe risks falling behind if it doesn’t adopt a more flexible regulatory approach. “The EU’s regulatory framework, while intended to harmonize and protect, often results in a bureaucratic quagmire that stifles innovation and economic dynamism,” said Claudio Sene, a European business expert.

The Future of EU Regulations

With Musk’s high-profile endorsement of Draghi’s report, pressure may mount on the European Commission to consider regulatory reform more seriously. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has already acknowledged Draghi’s recommendations, stating that the Commission is “eager to listen” to his views on improving Europe’s competitiveness. Whether or not these recommendations translate into concrete policy changes remains to be seen, but the debate over the EU’s regulatory future is clearly gaining momentum.

As Europe grapples with how to position itself in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, voices like Musk’s—who has a vested interest in seeing less red tape—are likely to play a growing role in shaping the discussion. Whether Draghi’s report will spur real change or simply fuel more debate, one thing is clear: the call to cut EU regulations has a powerful new advocate in Elon Musk.

For now, Musk’s message is unmistakable: Europe must adapt or risk being left behind. And in his view, that adaptation starts with a radical rethinking of the EU’s approach to regulation. “Regulations should exist to foster innovation, not hinder it,” Musk concluded.

Graham’s articulation of Founder Mode is more than just a buzzword; it is an ideology rooted in personal connection and vision, as exemplified by figures such as Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, and most recently, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky. In a recent Y Combinator event, Chesky’s talk went viral through Silicon Valley’s leadership circles. His central message? The advice given to him on how to run Airbnb as it grew was catastrophically wrong.

“Everyone told me to hire good people and let them do their jobs,” Chesky said, recalling how Airbnb, in its early days, followed the traditional managerial playbook. “But when I followed this advice, I almost lost control of my own company.” For Chesky, this traditional management model — where a CEO gives autonomy to their executives and steps back — wasn’t just ineffective; it was dangerous. “I realized that I had to be involved in every critical detail, or else things would fall apart.”

The Pitfalls of the Traditional Management Model

The core of Founder Mode’s rise stems from the failures of traditional management strategies when applied to innovative, high-growth companies. Conventional wisdom suggests that as companies scale, the role of the founder should evolve from hands-on leader to a delegator. This is often accompanied by hiring seasoned professionals to execute tasks, allowing the founder to focus on the big picture.

Brian Chesky’s experience with Airbnb highlights the pitfalls of this approach. “It sounded great in theory,” Chesky noted, “but in practice, what it led to was professional fakers taking charge. They knew how to talk the talk but not walk the walk. I had to step back in, roll up my sleeves, and get involved in the details.” The lesson Chesky learned — and which resonated with many founders in the room — was that delegation without oversight can be a recipe for disaster in the fast-paced world of tech startups.

Other tech icons, such as Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, have similarly espoused the importance of being deeply involved in the operations of their companies. Musk, who famously described himself as a “nano-manager,” often bypasses layers of management to engage directly with engineers and frontline employees. “I’m in the trenches with my team,” Musk has said on numerous occasions. “You can’t build something revolutionary by being distant.”

Paul Graham’s essay underscores the opinions voiced by many founders: the traditional management style, which treats parts of the company as modular units, doesn’t work for high-growth startups. “You tell your direct reports what to do and leave it to them to figure out how,” Graham wrote. “But in reality, this leads to a loss of control and direction.” Instead, what these founders discovered — sometimes painfully — is that their intimate knowledge of their company’s vision and operations is an irreplaceable asset.

The Essence of Founder Mode

At its core, Founder Mode is about maintaining control over the vision and execution of a company. Founders operating in this mode remain deeply involved in day-to-day operations, making decisions that go far beyond strategy. They stay connected with their teams at all levels, frequently engaging in what management literature would call “skip-level meetings” — meetings where the CEO interacts directly with employees several layers below their direct reports.

Steve Jobs, often cited as the archetype of the Founder Mode leader, was notorious for breaking traditional organizational norms at Apple. One of his most famous practices was hosting an annual retreat with what he considered the 100 most important people in the company. These individuals were not necessarily the highest-ranking executives, but those who Jobs believed had the greatest impact on Apple’s success. “It wasn’t about hierarchy,” said a former Apple executive. “It was about vision and execution. Steve knew that staying connected to those who were driving innovation was more important than adhering to an organizational chart.”

Founder Mode doesn’t equate to micromanagement, despite its close association with the term. Rather, it’s about being involved in areas that directly impact the company’s direction. As Paul Graham explains, “Founder Mode is a different way of running a company, where the CEO is involved not just with their direct reports, but in the detailed functioning of the company. It’s not about controlling every aspect, but about ensuring that the key elements align with the company’s vision.”

Breaking the Conventional Leadership Mold

This philosophy stands in stark contrast to the management styles advocated by business schools and professional managers. In business school, future leaders are taught to empower their teams, delegate effectively, and avoid micromanagement. These principles work well in stable, predictable environments, but in the ever-changing world of startups, they often fall short.

As Brian Chesky pointed out in his Y Combinator talk, “They teach you to trust your managers, but what happens when your managers don’t understand the product as deeply as you do? What happens when they’re making decisions that could compromise the vision you set out to build?” Chesky’s experience at Airbnb highlights a recurring issue among founders: the people hired to lead divisions often lack the founder’s deep understanding of the company’s mission and product.

Many founders, like Musk and Chesky, feel that professional managers, particularly those brought in from outside industries, lack the sense of ownership and vision that founders naturally possess. “Professional managers are skilled at managing up,” Graham wrote, “but they are often detached from the core product and customer experience. Founders, on the other hand, have an emotional connection to their companies that’s irreplaceable.”

The Risks of Founder Mode

While Founder Mode has garnered attention and praise for its ability to keep companies on track with their original vision, it’s not without its risks. Staying too involved in day-to-day operations can limit a company’s scalability. Founders who struggle to delegate can become bottlenecks, preventing teams from functioning efficiently. In extreme cases, this can lead to founder burnout, as CEOs spread themselves too thin trying to manage every detail.

Not every founder is equipped to thrive in Founder Mode. “Some founders mistake involvement for control,” said Henrik Torstensson, a veteran entrepreneur and venture capitalist. “You need to know when to step in and when to let go. Founders who micromanage every decision can stifle innovation and demotivate their teams.”

Additionally, while the success stories of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk are well-documented, not every founder achieves similar results. For every founder who successfully leads their company in Founder Mode, there are examples like Adam Neumann of WeWork or Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, where a hands-on approach led to overreach, poor decision-making, and ultimately, the downfall of the company. “Founder Mode can be a double-edged sword,” Torstensson warns. “The key is balance — knowing when to stay involved and when to trust your team.”

Redefining Leadership

Despite the risks, Founder Mode is redefining leadership approaches in Silicon Valley and beyond. With high-profile examples of its success and an increasing understanding of its nuances, Founder Mode offers a compelling alternative to traditional leadership models. “It’s not about rejecting professional management,” said Jared Friedman, a partner at Y Combinator. “It’s about understanding that the founder’s role is unique and that their involvement in the company’s direction can be a competitive advantage.”

Founders who embrace this leadership style are proving that they don’t need to follow the established playbook. Instead, by staying deeply involved in the operations of their companies, they can ensure that their vision is realized, even as their businesses scale.

As Paul Graham succinctly puts it, “Founder Mode is more complicated than Manager Mode. But it works better.” For founders navigating the complexities of high-growth startups, this approach may offer the best chance of maintaining their vision, scaling their companies, and ultimately, reshaping industries. Founder Mode, it seems, is here to stay, reshaping not just companies but also the future of leadership itself in Silicon Valley and far beyond.

Since returning to Intel and assuming the top job, Gelsinger has been working overtime to turn the troubled giant around and help it reclaim the crown as the world’s top chipmaker. Unfortunately, those efforts have struggled to gain traction, with Intel reporting devastating quarters, massive losses, and layoffs in the tens of thousands.

According to Bloomberg, the company is now considering the possibility of splitting off its foundry business, a cornerstone of Gelsinger’s strategy. Since the early days of his tenure as CEO, Gelsinger has banked on the company’s foundry business as a key element to competing with rivals, including TSMC. The CEO spoke openly of his goal to regain Apple as a foundry customer.

Apple is a customer, and I hope to make them a big foundry customer because today they’re wholly dependent on Taiwan Semiconductor. We want to present great options for them to leverage our foundry services, as well, just like we’re working with Qualcomm and Microsoft to leverage our foundry. We’re going to be delivering great technology, some things that can’t be done anywhere else in the world.

Despite Gelsinger’s optimism, Intel’s foundry business has struggled to deliver, in no small part because of how much different the business is from Intel’s historical strengths.

“Foundry is a service business,” Gelsinger reportedly said in 2023. “That isn’t the culture that Intel’s had.”

Intel’s foundry business has also been a seemingly bottomless pit, in terms of how much money it costs the company. In 2023 alone, the foundry business lost $7 billion, a substantial increase over 2022’s $5.2 billion.

We wrote in 2023 that Pat Gelsinger’s legacy was in danger, given Intel’s ongoing woes. If the company opts to spin off its foundry business, it will be the biggest proof yet that Intel is in far more trouble than Gelsinger will publicly admit.