That's the problem: Intel's 10nm and 7nm were on different teams being developed, so failure of 10nm shouldn't have impacted 7nm much, if at all. Or it could, if it would have been mismanaged by limiting or delaying development of 7nm because of the delays of 10nm, which seems a deliberate choice in a monopoly mindset (considering Intel's massive financial power) when expecting being able to extend 14nm for years without any competition.
There has been a lot of management restructuring since 2016 when the bad news during financial calls started becoming a regular thing, I contemplate those job replacements was to appease the shareholders. This often ends up in not appointing people with the real solutions for the problem but the people who can make the boldest claims believable. Companies are often ruined by the shareholders because they often don't understand the market their company is in.
Lets not forget how Intel released one
single low end SKU with 10nm in extremely limited quantities two-three years after it was supposed to be released. One can assume it wouldn't have released at all if AMD didn't put the release of competing 7nm CPUs in 2018-2019 on the roadmap in 2017.
Today this insight has been given:
We can't blame ambition for this, as AMD's ambition has been much larger in my opinion, with a much smaller company. If anything, Intel has the financial capacity and talent to achieve that ambition. Intel has the financial capacity for research, development and talent acquiring. That AMD leap-frogged Intel can only be explained by having become a mismanaged company that has lost the goal they are selling products from their sights.
You're mixing up a few things here. The 7nm delay is - at least as far as anyone outside of Intel knows - entirely unrelated to 10nm being late. Intel 7nm has never been delayed before this - probably partly due to not having public dates given for it, which is an obvious thing to avoid until the preceding node is at least near ready, after all. But regardless of this, the current 7nm delay is entirely unrelated to the lateness of 10nm.
There is of course still a relation between the two: developing a new node is a complex research and development process, which inevitably builds on previous research and development. The 7nm team thus needs knowledge, techniques, experience and equipment developed for and by the 10nm team, but also needs to build on this and improve on pretty much everything. If not, one could assume that Intel could just skip 10nm entirely and move on to 7nm, which given the projected 2016 launch of 10nm should then have begun development around 2015 or even earlier. Of course on this level 7nm has been delayed, as by that time nothing at all was ready, but those delays are long gone and happened before 7nm had any publicized timeframe. Of course the vast majority of this has been ready for years, as the 10nm delays of recent years haven't been due to equipment not being ready or anything like that - and likely the 7nm team has learnt a lot precisely from the reasons behind 10nm being delayed for so long.
I entirely agree that shareholders often have no clue whatsoever what is best for the companies they own, and that a lot of stupid decisions are made to appease them - but Intel's poor strategy and management can't directly be attributed to that. Rather, it seems to have been built on what is essentially the modus operandi for most contemporary corporations: prioritizing easy profits and cutting expenses wherever possible. (This of course disregards the decades-long experience that this approach inevitably drives companies into the ground as they shed everything that once made them leaders in their fields - it's a classic tactic of so-called vulture capitalism.) Intel saw themselves with a 30-50% IPC advantage, 5-year node advantage and massive efficiency advantage and thought "hey, let's just take it easy and rake in cash for a while." for a lot of their business - hence the years upon years of quad-cores and <10% IPC improvements. The thing is, this is not why 10nm failed. Intel 10nm was a massively ambitious node, which in itself is a goal that goes fundamentally against this thinking. Nor was it underfunded. It simply had a lot of issues due to trying to make a huge leap rather than an incremental development. 10nm was very clearly Intel's plan to cement their lead for another 5 years or more, and in no way a low priority. It just turned out to be much harder to achieve than they initially thought.
As for that lone 10nm SKU, it had absolutely nothing to do with AMD. It was launched purely to avoid a shareholder lawsuit, as Intel had previously promised that 10nm would "ship for revenue" in whatever year it appeared. This is down to US finance law, which allows shareholders to sue companies for making misleading promises about future products or performance. If Intel hadn't launched that single garbage SKU, they would have opened themselves up to potentially billions of dollars in payouts to shareholders due to making promises they couldn't keep.
As for AdoredTV, that channel is so full of garbage that I refuse to watch a single video from them, no matter its subject.
And lastly, you entirely misunderstood my point: I didn't say that the reason for Intel's woes is them being
generally ambitious (which is where your AMD comparison comes in), but very specifically due to the 10nm node being a very ambitious design. Intel's strategies outside of this have been conservative to the extreme - as much of a cause for their current woes as the node delays (a less conservative approach would have seen Ice Lake backported to 14nm long ago, which would have put them in a much better position). But you are arguing that given enough money and enough talent, anything is possible, which is a very naive stance. Intel's 10nm woes are sufficient proof of this, as there is no evidence of node development being underfunded or lacking in talent.
Time is also a necessity in the equation you're sketching up there: Given enough money, talent
and time (pretty much) anything is possible. Intel had the first two, but hit a series of major bumps in the road. Throwing more money at the problem would very likely not have changed anything.