Intel’s interim co-CEOs, Michelle Johnston Holthaus and David Zinsner, have opened the door to a possible spinoff of Intel’s foundry and manufacturing division, giving insight into Intel’s woes and Pat Gelsinger’s ouster.

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.