zlacker

>>fancy_+(OP)
Statements like

>I’ve directed our teams to define next-generation product families with clean and simple architectures

always make me skeptical. It's said as if teams were focusing on dirty & complicated architectures without a leader to push them in a different direction. It's a meaningless statement at the end of the day.

>>somehn+yt
Hypothetically what this means is that teams will now be able to design products that are designed for tomorrows markets, rather than continuing to design products that are fundamentally designed to be sold to existing customers in profitable segments. In other words, product teams don't have to satisfy existing requirements of existing customers. No more legacy consideration

In theory this this sounds great. Based on the descriptions I've heard of how Intel works internally, my confidence in this happening is about 0.12%.