I think Intels move makes sense on intuitive level, but the role of CEO can be anything between marketing face, biggest owners flex on their wealth and a lead director.<br><br>It remains to be seen what actual change follows from bringing leading engineer to this position, if the wish is to see them lead engineering. After all, the board, the owners and their interests still stay the same and are what CEOs role is restricted, authorised and defined by.<br><br>So the true issue still is what the rich, self-centred and greedy owners feel like is best for  their personal gain. Do they want a fresh brand for marketing, or do they commit towards costly and possibly risky focus and investment in developing future technology and production. That remains to be seen, and either way Intel seems to have quite a pile of overdue homework, meaning the pay-off should be expected to be somewhat delayed.<br><br>And before someone points towards Intel's current research they picked up from their marketing: technology companies constantly are "brewing something big" and "committed to development". That doesn't mean any of those projects are funded like they are expected to be the new driver for sales. And often the most flashy ones, the ones you can't distinguish from fishy go-fund-me-campaings, most likely exist purely to satisfy fanboys and more importantly investors. Sure Intel has a lot of that going on. However empty hype won't get their processors competitive against AMD, let alone ARM.