One thing that I think this article misses is a way in which Intel explains it's business internally. The author kind of presents it as "You have CPU design companies, CPU design companies use companies like TSMC to fab the chips, but Intel does it in house and this is a competitive advantage". This is not how Intel explains it's business internally historically. Historically it's the other way around, Intel is a manufacturing company that happens to design CPUs to drive demand.

Also, I think that the thing about their chip design not being a relevant strategic advantage is wrong. The reason they lost the mobile market is to a large extent because their chip design was bad.

The other thing to mention of course is that strategically breaking the foundry off from the rest of the Intel business lines Intel up to basically dump their foundry the way AMD did. Strategically, Intel's foundry pays a massive cost (a) by canabilising the profit of the product group - you now have an internal allocation of costs/profits that don't functionally exist, and (b) competitors don't like to use your foundry, because you're likely to be their biggest competitor and have in the past used foundry customers as terrible acquisition targets.