When giants stumble
Why even market leaders can lose their edge and how companies can stay resilient
Stability in business is an illusion. Even the most established companies are constantly at risk of losing their footing.
Take Intel. For decades, Intel was the undisputed leader in computer chips. Its logo was on almost every PC, its profits were enormous, and its market share looked unshakable. Yet, within just a few years, cracks began to show. The Economist recently published an interesting article about this.
As recently as 2019 Intel controlled 84% of the global market for PC chips and 94% for servers. By 2024 those figures had fallen to 69% and 62%, respectively. — The Economist
So what went wrong?
The short answer: execution, competition, and shifting technology.
Intel suffered repeated delays in rolling out its next generation of manufacturing processes. That may sound technical, but in chipmaking, being a step behind can mean years of lost ground. Rivals took advantage.
AMD offered faster and more efficient processors.
Nvidia captured the booming market for graphics chips and AI computing.
And TSMC, the Taiwanese chip manufacturer, became the go-to partner for many of the industry’s most innovative companies—undermining Intel’s old model of designing and manufacturing everything itself.
The bigger lesson
Intel’s story is striking, but it’s not unique.
Think of Nokia, once the world’s biggest phone maker. Or Kodak, which practically invented photography. Or BlackBerry, the “must-have” phone for business.
Each looked untouchable at its peak, and each lost ground faster than anyone thought possible. The pattern is clear: dominance today is no guarantee of safety tomorrow.
What this means for decision-making
This matters beyond the tech world. Market leadership often hides risks. When numbers look strong, companies can start believing their position is secure.
Finance teams see robust margins, strategists see market share, and leaders see little reason to panic.
That’s when the danger is highest.
Good decision-making means constantly asking uncomfortable questions:
What if our biggest competitor moves faster than we expect?
What if demand shifts in a direction we’re not prepared for?
What if the “safe” bets we rely on turn risky?
Building resilience in practice
Asking questions is only the start. Resilient companies don’t just analyze. They act. A few proven ways to stay prepared:
Diversify bets: Don’t rely on a single product or revenue stream. Nvidia was once “just” a gaming chip company; by moving into AI, it created a second growth engine.
Invest in flexibility: Companies that outsource part of their production or keep flexible supply chains can adapt faster when markets shift. That’s one reason TSMC became so powerful. It gave others an alternative to Intel’s rigid model.
Keep innovation alive in good times: Strong profits often tempt leaders to cut back on risky projects. But the companies that endure are those that keep experimenting while things look rosy. Amazon famously invested in cloud computing long before it was clear it would pay off.
Maintain financial buffers: Having healthy margins and cash reserves allows companies to absorb shocks and buy time to adapt.
The essence of resilience is balance: enjoy the upside of today while quietly preparing for the uncertainty of tomorrow.
The takeaway
Intel’s struggles are a reminder that even giants stumble. If Intel can lose ground in just a few years, any company can. The real risk isn’t falling behind; it’s assuming you never could.
So here’s a question worth reflecting on: How often do you challenge the assumptions behind your current success?



I think Ben Thompson's take on Intel is pretty good... they missed the mobile opportunity and their current failures were decades in the making. Here's a recent article, but he's been writing about it since 2013: https://stratechery.com/2025/apple-and-the-ghosts-of-companies-past/
💯!! There's an argument that some companies start feeling comfortable and become risk averse... I won't go into the pseudoscientific psychology behind the argument, but I'm guessing you know it better than I do 😉