Is Intel the Tech Industry's Version of the 2024 New York Giants?

As a lifelong New York Giants fan, enduring the 2024 season has been nothing short of painful. The low point came last weekend when the Giants lost to the mediocre New Orleans Saints due to a botched field goal in the final seconds.

In the frustration that followed, a curious thought struck me: Could present-day Intel be the tech industry’s equivalent of the 2024 Giants? At first glance, it might sound absurd, but the parallels are striking.

Both the New York Giants in professional football and Intel in technology were once dominant forces, celebrated for their achievements and defining their respective eras. Yet, in recent years, both have been under intense scrutiny for lackluster performance and questionable decision-making.

For the Giants, the decline goes beyond poor on-field performance. The team hasn’t reached the Super Bowl since 2012, and management compounded their woes before this season by extending a long-term contract to the inconsistent “franchise” quarterback Daniel Jones while letting star running back Saquon Barkley sign with divisional rival Philadelphia Eagles. Predictably, Barkley is now having a record-breaking season, adding salt to the wound.

Similarly, Intel has faced its own struggles in the tech world. Over the years, it has lost ground in the PC market, completely missed the smartphone revolution after declining Apple’s request for silicon for the original iPhone, and lagged behind in adopting Arm-based architectures for mobile devices and laptops. These missteps have cost the company market share and prestige, leaving fans and investors skeptical about its future.

Both organizations are grappling with widespread doubt about their ability to turn things around. However, upon closer inspection, Intel’s challenges differ fundamentally from the Giants’ and are being addressed in a manner that suggests the company is charting a more strategic path toward recovery.

Giant Issues

The New York Giants, a storied NFL franchise with four Super Bowl titles to their name, entered the 2024 season under immense pressure.

In recent years, the team has been plagued by inconsistent performances, questionable coaching decisions, and ineffective player development. In an NFL increasingly defined by innovative play-calling and analytics-driven strategies, the Giants have struggled to adapt.

Despite occasional glimpses of promise, the team has largely failed to capitalize on its opportunities, leaving fans disheartened and analysts skeptical about their future. For season ticket holders like me, the frustration has only grown as hope continues to fade.

Difficulties Facing Intel

Intel was once the uncontested leader in the semiconductor industry, dominating the market and setting the standard for chip innovation and performance. However, a series of disruptions in the 2020s has shaken its dominance. The rise of competitors like AMD and Nvidia, coupled with advanced manufacturing breakthroughs by Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC), forced Intel to confront its vulnerabilities.

At the heart of Intel’s struggles lies its delay in adopting advanced manufacturing nodes. Prolonged issues with its 10nm and 7nm processes caused Intel to lose market share in key areas, while TSMC and Samsung surged ahead with cutting-edge 5nm and 3nm technologies. These challenges were compounded by the growing adoption of Arm-based architectures, particularly in AI and mobile applications, where Intel’s x86 architecture has fallen behind.

While both the New York Giants and Intel face significant hurdles, their responses differ drastically. The Giants have often appeared directionless, cycling through quarterbacks and coaches in search of quick fixes. This lack of a clear, long-term strategy has eroded confidence among fans and analysts alike, casting doubt on the franchise’s future.

In contrast, Intel has taken decisive steps to address its challenges. Under CEO Pat Gelsinger, the company has launched an ambitious plan to reclaim its leadership in the semiconductor industry.

At the center of this effort is Intel’s IDM 2.0 strategy, which aims to modernize its manufacturing processes and expand its role as a foundry for third-party clients. This approach positions Intel to compete directly with TSMC and Samsung as both a chip designer and manufacturing powerhouse.

Furthermore, Intel has intensified its focus on emerging technologies. From developing specialized chips for data centers to investing in AI-specific hardware like the Gaudi AI accelerators, the company is proactively preparing for the next wave of computing innovation. Unlike the Giants, Intel’s actions reflect an organization willing to confront its missteps while shaping the future rather than merely reacting to it.

Shifts in Culture and Leadership

An organization’s ability to navigate challenges often hinges on the strength of its leadership. For the Giants, constant turnover among coaching staff and a front office that frequently seems disconnected from the team’s needs have made it difficult to establish stable leadership. This inconsistency has created a lack of direction and identity on the field—a problem that becomes painfully evident when watching their string of losses over recent seasons.

Intel, by contrast, has benefited from more cohesive leadership since Pat Gelsinger’s return. Gelsinger has focused on reviving Intel’s engineering-driven roots while fostering a culture of innovation and accountability. His tenure has been marked by ambitious goals and a willingness to take calculated risks, a sharp departure from the Giants’ more hesitant and reactive approach.

The Double-Edged Sword of Legacy

Both the Giants and Intel are weighed down by the weight of their histories. The Giants’ proud legacy amplifies the disappointment of their recent struggles. With such a storied past, fans find it hard to reconcile the team’s current challenges with its past triumphs.

Similarly, Intel faces the burden of being a trailblazer in its field. As a technology innovator, the stakes of its missteps are higher, and its mistakes are magnified. However, Intel’s history also offers significant advantages, including a deep well of technical expertise, strong industry relationships, and an enduring reputation, particularly among legacy PC manufacturers like HP, Dell, and Lenovo. These assets position Intel to leverage its past successes and drive future growth.

Extended Future for Intel

One of the key differences between Intel and the Giants lies in the timelines of their respective industries. NFL teams operate on an annual cycle, with fortunes often swinging wildly based on the outcome of a single season. Failures quickly become front-page news, and the immediacy of these setbacks makes it difficult for teams like the Giants to recover in the short term.

In contrast, the tech sector, particularly in semiconductor development, operates on a much longer timeline. It can take years for the effects of strategic decisions to fully materialize, with development cycles often spanning a decade.

This longer horizon gives Intel more time to achieve its goals and recover from challenges. While Intel’s issues have unfolded more gradually—providing opportunities for course correction and incremental progress—Wall Street’s patience is limited. Investors grow anxious when there are no clear signs of improvement, such as market share growth or revenue increases.

Intel’s Path Forward

Despite its recent struggles, Intel is not a company content with stagnation. The company is positioning itself for a long-term rebound through its IDM 2.0 strategy, ambitious AI initiatives, and renewed commitment to silicon excellence.

Some critics argue that Intel may never reclaim its former dominance in the semiconductor industry, given the complexity of its issues. Delays in manufacturing have allowed competitors like AMD and Nvidia to capture market share, further widening the gap as Intel prepares for its 18A production phase.

Additionally, Intel’s foundry business has faced difficulties in attracting clients, hindering its recovery efforts. Pat Gelsinger’s resignation underscores the need for strong leadership and innovative thinking after his tenure saw a significant drop in Intel’s stock value. Restoring investor confidence and industry stature will require strategic restructuring and a renewed focus on execution—challenges that will be complicated by internal resistance to whoever assumes the leadership role.

It’s easy to forget that many analysts initially greeted Gelsinger’s return in 2021 with optimism, believing his familiarity with Intel, deep understanding of the silicon industry, customer-focused approach, and visionary mindset were the key to turning the company around.

However, under his leadership, Intel faced several setbacks, including delays in manufacturing improvements and growing competition from rivals like AMD and Nvidia. As a result, Intel’s stock value took a significant hit, losing nearly $150 billion in market capitalization.

While some argue that Gelsinger simply needed more time to execute his plan, Intel’s board reached a different conclusion, deciding that a dramatic shift in direction—beginning with a new CEO—was necessary.

Despite the challenges, the comparison between Intel and the 2024 New York Giants falls short in important ways. While both organizations are navigating tough times, Intel’s strategy demonstrates a level of vision and adaptability that the Giants have yet to exhibit. Intel is not just fighting to stay relevant; it’s laying the groundwork for a future that will solidify its leadership in the tech industry. If Intel is a giant, it is reinventing itself rather than fading into decline, which is essential for its continued growth.

There are reasons for optimism about Intel’s future. Its Lunar Lake family of processors is showing promising performance and battery life, even competing favorably with Apple Silicon and Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Elite solutions for laptops.

High Stakes for Intel’s Next CEO

Intel’s incoming CEO will face one of the toughest corporate turnaround challenges in tech history. The company will need to make significant cuts, with the 15,000 layoffs earlier this year just the beginning of what will likely be deeper reductions.

Intel remains committed to its foundry strategy, which will require years of investment before any substantial returns can be realized. In a post-Biden Administration environment, the company may no longer be able to count on federal support for its foundry business. Additionally, some customers may be hesitant to embrace Intel’s “church and state” approach—manufacturing non-Intel chips in its own factories.

The company’s future success will heavily depend on its new leader. I believe Intel should hire an outsider—someone who hasn’t been influenced by legacy personnel who may have developed a survival mindset and be reluctant to take bold risks. The new CEO will undoubtedly be one of the most closely watched tech hires of 2025, and their leadership will offer vital clues about Intel’s path forward.

This CEO will also inherit a management team that has weathered multiple rounds of cuts and may be resistant to the deep changes Intel needs to make. Legacy management, likely in "survival mode," may struggle to take the necessary risks for the company’s future.

As for the Giants, I regret to say that my optimism has all but vanished. For the first time in my 46 years as a season ticket holder, having spent over $200,000 during that time, I’m seriously considering giving up my tickets. Perhaps it’s time to switch things up—maybe I'll spend the rest of the season playing Madden 2025 on my Xbox One, saving myself from watching Big Blue suffer week after week.

FAQ's

What is Intel doing in the future?

To meet the accelerating global demand for semiconductors and advance our IDM 2.0 strategy, we are expanding our manufacturing capacity, starting with approximately a $20 billion fab investment in Arizona and New Mexico, a more than $20 billion fab investment in Ohio, and plans to invest as much as 80 billion euros in the European Union over the next decade along the entire semiconductor value chain.

What is the Intel situation in 2024?

2024 - Intel unveils a plan to invest $100 billion across four U.S. states to build and expand factories, after securing federal grants and loans aimed at bolstering U.S. chip manufacturing. 2024 - Intel cuts 17,500 jobs, suspends dividend and embarks on a turnaround of its money-losing manufacturing business.

Who is replacing Intel?

Nvidia (NVDA) will replace Intel (INTC) in the Dow Jones Industrial Average index (^DJI).

Where will Intel be in 5 years?

Based on Intel's 2023 earnings of $1.05 per share, its bottom line could jump to $5.07 per share at the end of 2028. Multiplying the projected earnings with Intel's five-year average forward earnings multiple of 14.5 indicates a stock price of $73 after five years, which would be a 135% increase from current levels.

Is AMD better than Intel?

AMD chips generally come with more cores overall for the price. AMD chips generally have more cache, which can be great for gaming and other high-performance activities. AMD chips come with better onboard graphics chips, but the new Intel generations are closing this gap quickly.