Intel is making a bigger push to win outside chipmaking customers, but there’s a stubborn perception problem holding it back: the company is trying to be both a manufacturing partner and a direct competitor at the same time.
That tension was highlighted by David Yoffie, a former Intel board member, who argues that major chip designers may hesitate to commit their most important products to Intel Foundry. His reasoning is straightforward: companies like NVIDIA, AMD, and Qualcomm build their business on proprietary designs and tightly guarded engineering methods—their “secret sauce.” Handing that over to a manufacturer that also sells competing products can feel risky, even if there are contracts and safeguards in place.
Yoffie’s view is that this concern could limit how much business those firms are willing to give Intel, especially when it comes to high-volume, core chips. His proposed solution is structural: separate Intel’s product side from its foundry operations more clearly, potentially through a formal breakup. In his opinion, a cleaner separation would make Intel Foundry far more credible as a neutral manufacturing partner and improve its odds of landing major long-term commitments.
This debate gained momentum after Intel went through a turbulent transition year that included Pat Gelsinger’s departure. Under CEO Lip-Bu Tan—known for decisive, turnaround-style leadership—Intel has sought to stabilize and rebuild confidence in its manufacturing roadmap. At one point, there was pressure to spin off the foundry business, but that idea was set aside as Tan backed Intel’s ability to restore momentum without taking such a dramatic step.
At the same time, outside interest appears to be growing around Intel’s upcoming process technologies, including 18A and the next-generation 14A node. Reports have suggested that some major chip companies are at least exploring Intel as a manufacturing option, influenced by limited capacity elsewhere and the wider industry push to expand advanced chip production in the United States.
Intel’s leadership has also signaled it understands the issue and is preparing for multiple paths forward. Intel executive John Pitzer said the company is taking steps to create “optionality,” driven in part by what external customers want to see: more separation between the foundry business and the rest of Intel. According to Pitzer, Intel Foundry already has its own advisory board, and the company is moving toward making it its own legal entity. He added that if Tan and the board ultimately decide a spinoff creates value, Intel would move quickly.
For fabless chip companies—the designers who outsource manufacturing—security and confidentiality are non-negotiable. They don’t just care about preventing leaks; they also worry about subtle, indirect knowledge transfer that can happen when a manufacturer works with multiple rivals. That’s why the conflict-of-interest question matters so much for Intel: to win the biggest customers, Intel Foundry has to prove it operates with strong, enforceable independence.
The next chapter will be shaped by execution. Intel is heading toward 18A mass production while preparing for 14A, and both are seen as critical milestones. If Intel hits its manufacturing targets and convinces the market its foundry operations can be trusted as a neutral partner, the company could significantly strengthen its position in the global semiconductor supply chain. If not, the same “partner vs. competitor” concern could continue to slow its ability to attract the highest-value foundry customers.
