I find this view limited. If we look at the most successful tech CEOs, they all personally drove the direction of products. Steve Jobs is an obvious example. Elon pushes the products of his companies so much that he even became a fellow of the National Academy of Engineering. Jeff Bezos was widely credited as the uber product manager in Amazon. Andrew Grove pushed Intel to sell their memory business and go all in on CPUs. Walton Jr. was famous for pushing IBM to go all in on electronic computers and later the mainframes. The list can go on and on. In contrary, we can see how mere cheerleading can lead to the demise of companies. Jeff Immelt as described in the book Lights Out can be such an example.
Revenue expectations, margins expectations, and investors are entirely different between the two.
This is why most founder CEOs tend to either get booted out or choose to keep their companies private as long as possible.
> Revenue expectations, margins expectations, and investors are entirely different between the two.
Yeah, it's hard. How the great CEOs achieve their successes are beyond me. I was just thinking that a great CEO needs to drive product changes.
Not significantly. Massive product and strategy pivots are rare because they can fail horribly (eg. For every turnaround like Apple there's a failure in execution like Yahoo)
> How the great CEOs achieve their successes are beyond me
Luck in most cases.
I've worked with plenty of CEOs and in most cases, most people at the C-Suite and SVP level of large organizations are comparable to each other skills and intellect wise.
Administration/mid-level management buy-in is also critical. C-Suite doesn't have much visibility into the lower levels of an organization (it's unrealistic), so management is their eyes and ears.
https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-says-amd-is-in-the-rearvie...
I own one, Arc isn't the best, but it's still able to compete with lower end Nvidia and AMD GPUs. They ended up having to mark them down pretty drastically though.
I actually owned an Intel Zenphone about 8 years ago. Aside from being absolutely massive, it was decent.
I think Intel got arrogant. Even today, with all the benchmarks showing Intel isn't any faster than AMD, Intel is still more expensive for PC builds.
Check Microcenter, at least in the US, the cheapest AMD bundle is 299 vs 399 for Intel.
They're lagging behind in every metric.
Intel indeed rested too long on their laurels from early 2000s. It's one of the most dangerous things for a company to do.
It can be. You've just noticed the fact that for publicly traded companies where the value of the stock exceeds the total value of the assets you actually get to put that difference on your books into categories like "Good will" or "Consumer confidence."
For companies struggling to create genuine year over year value this is a currently validated mechanism for faking it. The majority of companies do not need to do this. That companies operating in monopolized sectors often have to do it is what really should be scrutinized.