One of the things that comes up in a joint venture like this would be that when the JV starts asking for resources such as capital calls, or the accounts go over owner contributions over time, is how sustainable the current split is. AMD faced this with its Globalfoundries spinoff and split ownership with ATIC. As long as the specter of tripping some of the last covenants of the prior cross-licensing agreements with Intel remained, AMD had to maintain at least some semblance of control. However, capital calls for GF inevitably diluted AMD's share since it couldn't contribute on the level of Abu Dhabi's investment fund. AMD made it clear they would be looking for ways to divest the remainder of their holding, and once an agreement with Intel was made the final sliver was sold off. A joint venture has an AMD with historically limited investment as the controlling party, and then an Intel whose partnership provides the enormous budget and manufacturing contributions? How long would AMD's inferior investment keep it in control, or why would Intel agree to give all those things if while AMD coasts by calling all the shots? One related event was AMD's loss of most of its Jaguar team, with a similar sequence. The other party was mostly Samsung, although as a competitive headache I'm not sure it's threatened AMD directly yet. It did mean that AMD's decision to focus its efforts on one CPU design was not just a decision based on outside factors, as the choice to do otherwise was effectively removed. Could you clarify the Demers statement? Did you mean he should have never left? I recall he went to Qualcomm in 2012. One additional wrinkle to the blame game for Read is that there were at some rumors concerning the cutting of R&D started back with interim CEO Seifert, though Read obviously had the choice of changing things if he didn't agree.