Intel, once king of microchips, is now far behind competitors

"It turns out the same thing can happen in technology companies that get monopolies, like IBM or Xerox. If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful.

So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product.

They have no conception of the craftsmanship that's required to take a good idea and turn it into a good product. And they really have no feeling in their hearts, usually, about wanting to really help the customers."

- In his words, it was “an embarrassing thing to say” → In his phrases, it was “an embarrassing thing to say”.

- The prowess of the machines trusted whether or not they had an “Intel inside”. → The prowess of the machines depended on whether they had an “Intel inside”.

- In contrast, fellow US rivals like Qualcomm, Nvidia and AMD, have either shed their manufacturing capacity or never had it in the first place. → In distinction, fellow US rivals like Qualcomm, Nvidia and AMD, have both shed their manufacturing capability or by no means had it within the first place.

…

There have been obvious problems, but don't count them out just yet.