Intel cuts its workforce by 11% as it releases Q1 financial results

Intel announced its first-quarter 2016 financial results today. The company made $2.6 billion in operating income on $13.7 billion in revenue. Profits were unchanged compared to this time last year, but the company grew its revenue by 7% compared to the year-ago quarter. Net income remained flat at $2 billion, and gross margin fell 1.2 points to 59.3%. Here's a table of the company's results for easy reference:

  Q1 2016 Q1 2015 Change
Revenue $13.7 billion $12.8 billion up 7%
Operating income $2.6 billion $2.6 billion flat
Net income $2.0 billion $2.0 billion flat
Gross margin 59.3% 60.5% down 1.2 points

The company said that it'll be eliminating as many as 12,000 positions worldwide—or 11% of its workforce—by mid-2017 as it transitions from "a PC company to one that powers the cloud and billions of smart, connected computing devices," according to a separate press release. Intel says its growth is coming primarily from its data center and Internet of Things businesses. Those divisions created $2.2 billion in new revenue, accounted for 40% of the company's revenue overall, and delivered the majority of Intel's operating profit last year. The company says growth in those areas is largely making up for the shrinking PC market.

On a division-by-division basis, the Client Computing Group took in $7.5 billion in revenue, up 2% from this time last year. The company says its platform volumes (a figure that accounts for both processors and chipsets) fell 15%, but average selling prices (or ASPs) of its platforms were up 19%. Desktop platform volumes fell 4%, but desktop platform ASPs rose 6%. Notebook platform volumes fell 2% and ASPs were flat. Tablet volumes fell 44%, but the company says ASPs in this segment rose "significantly."

The Data Center Group generated $4 billion in revenue, up 9% compared to this time last year. Platform volumes grew 13%, but data center platform ASPs fell 3%, a figure the company attributes to growth in its networking and storage products. The Internet of Things group took in $651 million, an increase of 22% year-over-year, while the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group took in $557 million for a 6% year-on-year decrease. 

For the second quarter, Intel expects $13.5 billion in revenue, plus or minus $500 million. The company projects non-GAAP gross margin in the quarter to be 61%, plus or minus "a couple of points." Intel says it'll communicate news of its workforce reduction to most of its affected employees over the next 60 days.

Comments closed
    • moose17145
    • 3 years ago

    Yep… I am one of the 12,000… they are closing over 30 smaller locations around country. Including mine.

    They had some big wigs come in today to explain to us why they are doing it and fed us a bunch of bullsh*t…

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    I’ve always said that AMD should have thought of keeping up with Intel in the days of Barcelona up till Bulldozer. Back then, people were still eager to upgrade and R&D costs were probably lower, plus the market was still growing and AMD still had more cash to burn and they had more wiggle room. Today, R&D costs are probably higher, people have fewer reasons to upgrade in a shrinking market, and AMD is in a very precarious position — they can’t afford another flop.

    I think one of Zen’s leading engineers said they were given full freedom to do the best they can with Zen. What does this mean? That Hector and Dirk explicitly told Barcelona and Bulldozer engineers to not do their best and hold back? WTH, AMD. You guys made a conscious decision to fall behind?

    Even if Zen matches Intel in every benchmark and their accompanying chipsets cede nothing to Intel’s chipsets, there’s no guarantee Zen will be very successful. Intel can just rely on their strong distribution network and marketing department to push their CPUs harder. With more brand recognition (unlike AMD which has suffered tarnishing their brand for a while now as the budget, energy-hungry, slower products), most folks will just buy Intel unless they wanna try AMD. Again, even if AMD is every bit as good, real product is different from product perception and the uninformed (which probably outnumber AMD fans) will go with Intel, assuming, of course, many people are itching to upgrade, which isn’t the case anymore these days.

    So AMD, I applaud you guys for finally deciding to compete, but you guys really should’ve done this during the K8 days and made Barcelona and Bulldozer blockbusters.

      • DarkMikaru
      • 3 years ago

      Sad but true.

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    Intel can take my money, it it sells the 22 core Xeon as an i5, at i5 pricelevel, and with at least the same single thread performance than his best i7 has today.

    Otherwise, keep firing people, and I keep my decade old i7.

    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 3 years ago

    “Internet of things” = “less workforce for things”

    • Meadows
    • 3 years ago

    “They earned $2 billion and they’re still firing people”, I hear you comment. That’s the everyman’s thinking and doesn’t take into account what corporations focus on. Intel isn’t concerned with whether they can buy their ramen, pay the rent, and still have spare change left over at the end of the quarter. They want what every corporation wants: either grow, or accrue more potential to grow. According to this report, they failed in that endeavour.

    Their revenue had increased slightly but somehow their net income was still the same. I assume the board considered this a warning and want to do whatever they can to keep it from turning into a trend. Because it could very well turn into a trend unchecked for a corporation this size, and if it did, that could last for years.

    So, I guess I can understand intel’s action in itself but I’m not sure if it had to be of this magnitude.

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    What’s crazy is that the layoffs are more than AMDs total employee count, and still leave Intel with over 10x more people after, lol. From that lens, it sometimes seems remarkable that AMD competed at all, even if they’re not doing so hot now.

    • ludi
    • 3 years ago

    Good news, everyone!

    You’re all fired!

      • Mr Bill
      • 3 years ago

      “Sir we need to fire 12,000. I thought perhaps one of the smaller companies… [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0mO6UY6uTg<]"Fire One Million"[/url<]

    • TurtlePerson2
    • 3 years ago

    I’ll be curious to see where these cuts are actually made. This could be a recognition that transistor scaling is almost dead. If the cuts are primarily on the process side, it could indicate that Intel no longer plans to push into deeper submicron technologies at the same pace.

    Keep in mind that Intel has already officially abandoned “Tick-Tock,” so this could be a side effect of that. The people who worked on Tick may be the ones to be let go, while those that work on Tock may face smaller cuts.

    • tipoo
    • 3 years ago

    What’s crazy to me is the company everyone used to call the 900lb gorilla of the silicon world, and still is, watched mobile explode for an entire decade now, and still only made minor inroads towards entering the market. The Atoms they produce for phones are just-ok competitors to ARM SoCs of a few years ago.

    I think ultramobile spaces are where their x86 decode + ucode ROM die area and power draw start to really show up and hurt them. On huge cores they were trivial, on tiny cores they take quite a lot of the floorplan.

    [url<]http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/08/29/amd_jaguar_core_floor_plan.jpg[/url<]

      • blastdoor
      • 3 years ago

      It does seem kind of crazy.

      But here’s a hypothesis…. Intel could have made Atom competitive and could have taken a large share of the market but they chose not to in order to defend high margins on their existing products.

      I think Intel learned its lesson with the Celeron A — never release a low-margin CPU that can be tweaked by enthusiasts (or Chinese entrepreneurs) to compete with your high margin products. That means Atom had to be fundamentally crippled compared to Core. There’s no way that Intel was going to make Atom remotely capable of competing with Core. The margins of Core had to be defended at all costs, including the cost of ceding the entire mobile market.

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        I think that was probably part of their train of thought, though with PCs declining and mobile not going anywhere it probably wasn’t the right one. Defending margins is fine, but a good phone processor still wouldn’t replace a laptop or desktop for those that wanted more performance.

        The other part is, they just don’t have the architecture on hand to complete with ARM, and building on IA-32 and x86-64 isn’t really the way to go for the mobile sector but with Atom that’s the way they’ve went.

        They might have been better off building on their RISC based i960 (although I believe a lawsuit with DEC might have stymied that)

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 3 years ago

    Perhaps if they released actual upgrades to existing CPU products on the consumer side, people might find a reason to upgrade more than once every 5-10 years. Intel made the CPU upgrade into a rare upgrade when it used to be something we upgraded every other year.

    And instead of righting that wrong, they’re doubling down on it based on the assumption that because no one upgrades, it’s the way it must be.

    Nope. Just the way you made it, Intel.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Nope. Just the way you made it, [s<]Intel[/s<] [u<]physics[/u<].[/quote<] FTFY. Believe me, back in the day it was people accusing Intel of forcing us all onto an upgrade treadmill by releasing faster parts that "required" upgrades. Now that the terrible upgrade treadmill has slowed down to a leisurely stroll there's something new to complain about.

        • w76
        • 3 years ago

        The physics excuse always irritates me, there’s no physics problem stopping them from adding cores like we see in the mobile market. Difference with the mobile market? Absolutely cut-throat brutal competition in the ARM world. There’s several popular applications plenty of people use PCs for that could leverage more cores already; video and photo editing being the most common. Anandtech has shown high utilization for a lot of Android apps. So, there’s no software impediment and no physics impediment (they’ll throw a billion cores at deep-pocketed Xeon customers), it’s just that no one is forcing Intel to go that route.

          • MathMan
          • 3 years ago

          Maybe it irritates you, but it’s no less true.

          The reason mobile chips improved the way they did is because the started from a performance level that was pitiful compared to a desktop PC, with very simple CPU.

          Recent mobile SOCs are only now acquiring the kind of advanced CPU features that desktop CPUs have had over a decade, and tbeir performance improvements will start leveling off just the same.

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      It is because law of physics and computing have caught up. Intel already knows and are just adapting to the time. We are already in the “Twilight” years of digital computing. The mainstream desktop market is no longer lucrative. The masses prefer small, portable platforms for most of their computing needs. Gaming is either being done on gaming consoles or overpowered “Laptop” tier chips. That’s leaves prosumer and enterprise markets being the only demographic that still have a demand for more computing prowess.

      • Stonebender
      • 3 years ago

      Or maybe it’s because all the low hanging fruit has been plucked. What’s the thought here, that Intel could release more powerful CPUs but isn’t? Lol, ok.

      • maxxcool
      • 3 years ago

      Your gripe is with software, not the hardware. Outside of transcoding and folding my cpu cores are NEVER more than 50% utilized for my usage profile.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        Yep the simple fact is most people don’t need faster CPUs. Bloatware/malware/AV and slow HDDs are the things that are noticeably slowing down people’s PCs. CPUs haven’t been a bottleneck for “normal users” for many years now.

        Gaming is the closest thing to being mainstream that actually benefits from a faster CPU, but even that is often more limited by slow GPUs/IGPs than the CPU.

        I think Intel’s approach to try to bring good performance to smaller power envelopes/devices was a good strategy given the market conditions right now. It just doesn’t seem to be happening fast enough. ARM is already firmly entrenched in those markets, and less and less people require a full blown Microsoft OS.

        Of course I’d love to see faster CPUs as a gamer and someone who does video encoding, but I realize I am not representative of the market as a whole.

    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Not surprising really.

    Intel has always been heavily dependent on Microsoft as part of the effective “Wintel monopoly”.

    Last few years Microsoft have really dropped the ball, irritated users, distanced developers, and generally just spinning their wheels in the consumer space whilst Android and iOS devour the consumer sector from all sides. I don’t know what the stats are but I’d be willing to bet that over 50% of general users have switched from an Wintel laptop/desktop to a tablet/smartTV or just use their phone for browsing/email/media consumption now.

      • adisor19
      • 3 years ago

      This. This is exactly my observations from 2011 and up. MS messed up badly with Windows 8/8.1 and to a certain extent Windows 10. Nobody likes Metro apps and the flat ugly look. There is no killer app inherent in these new windows versions. I know plenty of people that toot the plunge to 10 with the free upgrade are are regretting it.

      MS’s only savior for the time being is the enterprise market that will sustain them for a while. But that market is ripe for the taking. BYOD is making inroads and the Windows monopoly is slowly weakening. Microsoft is slowly going to the the way of IBM in the worst case or the way of Apple in the best scenario. My bet is on the former.

      Adi

        • Flatland_Spider
        • 3 years ago

        MS missed badly on Mobile. Sure tablets were their idea, but their execution was horrible. Even with Surface they still haven’t fixed the problems, and I’m not sure they have an idea on how to fix the problems. When Apple and Google locked up 90% of the mobile market, MS was done. Everything started being cross platform via the web and suddenly the OS didn’t matter.

        MS’s future is reliant on being a general software company and cloud provider. Azure is their biggest growth center right now, and porting MSSQL and VS tools to Linux shows they are dedicated to selling software rather then a platform.

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 3 years ago

      External services has been the domain of Unix-like operating systems for a long time, and external services has been where all of the growth has been. It also didn’t hurt that Unix-like operating systems are lighter on resources, which translated into cheaper and easier to find hosting in years past, and they are easier to customize for the task at hand.

      Windows Server only ever made sense for internal services that integrated with fleets of desktops or laptops. It could be used for external services, but the stack was fiddly, expensive, and being a niche, the tools aren’t great.

    • kuttan
    • 3 years ago

    This is more likely due to Intel anticipating AMDs Zen CPU launch. If Zen proves to be successful Intel will certainly lose some market share resulting decline in already flat quarterly profits.

      • Solean
      • 3 years ago

      I hope Zen will kickass just for competition’s and consumers’ sake.

      • NTMBK
      • 3 years ago

      If Intel were that worried about Zen, they would be doubling down on CPU R&D, not cutting staff.

        • kuttan
        • 3 years ago

        More R&D not always results the better . We all witnessed the Athlon 64 FX success costing AMD a fraction of Intel in R&D expenses. Similar events can be seen in almost every products for example some Chinese smartphone startup companies were able to offer competitive phones which were as good as that of some multi billion dollar smartphone vendors phones with billions of dollars worth of money spend on their R&D, still the small startup companies were able to beat such big established companies.

        More R&D means you need to price your products higher which may not always be possible for the product market or for competitive reasons. It is foolish to blindly say the more you spend in R&D the more success you earn.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        Or else they have already concluded that price will be the determining factor, not product.

        • Stonebender
        • 3 years ago

        These cuts aren’t going to be coming from any division that does R&D or production of CPUs.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      You think after making a lot of money, seeing a competitor coming, their first instinct would be to chop off their left hand?

      AMD is an afterthought to them I’m sure, this is simply a response to the global decline in new PC sales.

      • Kretschmer
      • 3 years ago

      Zen will not prove to be successful.

      I remember the Bulldozer hype.

        • kuttan
        • 3 years ago

        So you don’t remember Athlon FX at all ??

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          Every successful processor in AMD’s history has been a result of either outright buying a non-AMD processor company (For the K6 series which was designed by NexGen and rebadged) or acquiring non-AMD talent to build the processor (K7 and original Athlon 64).

          Phenom and Bulldozer? Nobody from outside of AMD on those parts.

          That makes Zen interesting: They brought back Jim Keller who did work on x86-64 but who, despite the propaganda, did not design the K8 processors that actually shipped and were sold on the market. He’s just one guy though and the first time on the merry go round he was part of AMD’s poaching campaign of DEC employees that basically reimplemented the existing Alpha chips in x86 form for the K8. In the interim, Keller only worked on embedded & mobile parts.

            • NTMBK
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]In the interim, Keller only worked on embedded & mobile parts.[/quote<] Yes, he "only" worked on the most impressive new CPU design of recent times. 😉 It's too early to say either way- Zen could be a Bulldozer or it could be a K8. Wait and see!

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]Yes, he "only" worked on the most impressive new CPU design of recent times. 😉 [/quote<] Which is? He had zippo to do with any recent Apple SoC that is being dishonestly overhyped as being better than Skylake BTW. His last real contribution was to the A5 parts that were OK but nothing spectacular.

            • kuttan
            • 3 years ago

            So Intel acquired Zero companies and keep making CPUs as and when Intel debut in 1968 ?? Poor troll. All most every tech companies out their acquired other companies to expand their business strength.

          • ludi
          • 3 years ago

          I vaguely remember owning an Athlon FX-55…ten years ago.

          • maxxcool
          • 3 years ago

          We sure do. And back then this site favored AMD over Netburst and it’s Prescott (Presschot) prodigy.

          However.. We are fickle little monsters we enthusiasts. We put our money where the performance lies and therein is your issue. Even with a *PERFECT* 30% increase in all the performance markers you will find the sales volume will still not support AMD future endeavors simply because they successfully birthed/spun 1 edition of ZEN.. and sold it to a mere few thousand hardcore Enthusiasts.

          We, the dear readers of this site make less than 1% of AMDs revenue.. and less than .1% of Intel’s (rough guess by volume.. looks at Chuck for numbers.). We are *not* the targets of ZEN’s usage case. HP, dell, ACER, Facebook and Amazon/EC2 are AMD’s targets. Keep that in mind on release day when reading the mixed benchmarks that put It on par with 3 year old Intel silicon (which will be a GOOD thing).

          It will be a right move for AMD. But forecasting financial doom based on 1 successful iteration? … hardly.

          edit last sentence.

            • Waco
            • 3 years ago

            Honestly, if AMD continues to price their server chips similarly low compared to Intel, and Zen doesn’t suck, I’ll be buying them for things running DB2. I freakin’ love the Opteron 4386 chips in my TSM servers, they eat transactions for breakfast at FAR less cost than the equivalent Intel chip.

            • maxxcool
            • 3 years ago

            And that’s What I expect if successful. The full 32-zen-core-on-a-card+memory module they promoted last year screams dense blade deployment on the cheap.

            • Waco
            • 3 years ago

            If the power consumption is good, sure. I expect it won’t compare in terms of efficiency, which tends to be a dominating factor for large-scale deployments (like blade servers, etc).

            I’d love to be surprised though Bulldozer tamed my expectations. 😛

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            On one hand, I expect that Intel will win on efficiency, but on the other hand, AMD did design a 32-core chip, so clearly they want to sell in the dense market. Hmmm. One possibility is that AMD is aiming specifically at power efficiency, hoping to be a better deal in a range of mobile and dense server deployments. If they give up the potential to compete with Intel at the top of the mhz spectrum by designing a somewhat smaller processor, maybe they can pull it off. Oversized Jag indeed.

      • maxxcool
      • 3 years ago

      Soooo.. you think Intel fires 12,000 people because they can’t compete … well, I do wish you luck with that opinion.

    • Klimax
    • 3 years ago

    I wonder where they will cut. That will determine outcome.

    • Solean
    • 3 years ago

    Why do people from the West complain about these layoffs?

    This is Capitalism. And Capitalism won the Cold War.
    Communism has fallen. Rejoice!

    If you can hire an Eastern European or an Asian to work for 1000$ a month, and more or less do the same work at the same quality than an American, does it make sense to pay the American 5000$ a month (double that in senior position)?

    I just don’t get all the whining from the westerners, who during the Cold War gave it their best to stick it to the commies in the East.
    The West has won! (the right to move factories and businesses to commie China and soviet Eastern Europe).

      • Krogoth
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]This is Capitalism. And Capitalism won the Cold War. Communism has fallen. Rejoice! [/quote<] This is a gross oversimplification.

        • Solean
        • 3 years ago

        Hadn’t the Cold War ended and hadn’t Communism proven as a failure, would factories in the West be closed and reopen in the East?

        I think too many westerners, believe they are somehow entitled to a decent (100,000$+ a year gross) living.

        That’s not a very capitalistic mindset. That type of thinking is what brought down Communism (among other things).

        Westerners just need to accept that, sooner or later their jobs will be outsourced. Most of them anyway.
        _____________

        I believe that competition is healthy. Communism provided a competitor to the West. Today, there is no real, ideologic, paradigm-shifting threat, competitor.

        The elites in the West today think they just don’t have anything to prove to their citizenry. Hence, globalism and outsourcing.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          Cold War already came back. The names for some of the players just changed.

          USA and a large number of other NATO-aligned countries don’t practice pure capitalism. They operate with various takes on mixed market models.

            • blastdoor
            • 3 years ago

            That is correct.

            But it is also the case that there are many people (for example, the oligarchs that fund the republican party and the lackeys who curry their favor) who attribute the success of the west to “pure capitalism,” and they would totally agree (without irony) that it is appropriate for jobs to move from the high cost west to the low cost east. In that sense, Solean’s snark is spot on.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            Leave the R&P out of it, especially with blatantly ignorant crap about the republican party while you are all oiled up to take it for Hillary.

            • blastdoor
            • 3 years ago

            I didn’t start the R&P — you just don’t like R&P you don’t agree with.

            And I can always tell when you know you’re on shaky ground and your desperately trying to convince yourself you’re right about something — your posts become belligerent, tasteless, and devoid of any substance. You’re such an easy mark.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            Want to hear something belligerent and tasteless [not to mention smarmy, condescending, and bigoted by somebody who clearly only cares about one side of a story]?

            Here goes:
            [quote<] But it is also the case that there are many people (for example, the oligarchs that fund the republican party and the lackeys who curry their favor) [/quote<]

            • blastdoor
            • 3 years ago

            So… there are oligarchs that fund the Republican party, that’s a fact.

            There are lackeys who curry their favor, that’s a fact.

            But this:

            [quote<] especially with blatantly ignorant crap about the republican party while you are all oiled up to take it for Hillary[/quote<] is devoid of facts (or even attempts to make factual statements). It's just tasteless insults. But I totally believe that you are incapable of distinguishing the difference. In your mind, it's totally fine for you to make disgusting innuendo about crude acts that has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but it is *horrible* for someone else to make a substantive statement/accusation that challenges your worldview. That's just how you think. It's who you are. Sad. edit -- btw, there was a substantive argument you could have made. You could have pointed out that there are wealthy people who fund Clinton, and you could have suggested/asserted that there are also people who curry their favor. That might have been something worth saying. But of course you just can't quite manage that.

        • blastdoor
        • 3 years ago

        I think it’s actually a totally accurate description of the libertarian view of capitalism. The Koch brothers and other oligarchs would agree completely.

        It’s not an accurate view of Roosevelt / Keynesian capitalism, though, and that’s what actually won the Cold War. If it weren’t for those guys, the world might have gone commie before WW2.

        • Flatland_Spider
        • 3 years ago

        Shhh…. This fits on a bumper sticker and undermines labor.

        A’hem…

        All hail the great capitalists! The Job Creators who benevolently bestow jobs on us poor sods, and if we are dismissed or replaced with cheap labor overseas, it is because we have offended them and been unworthy of their graces! Amen!

        Now genuflect towards Wall Street and repeat 10x. 😛

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Your comment has literally nothing to do with this all.

      • albundy
      • 3 years ago

      Not really. They started with capitalism as its foundation, but that is long gone now. Now its totally all corporatism.

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    massive profits plus massive layoffs = massively overstating revenue? glad the IRS didnt trigger an audit. they are so useful these days.

    • ratdog
    • 3 years ago

    a news posting from
    [url<]http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/19/intel-lays-off-12000-people-after-lobbying-for-more-foreign-workers/[/url<] reports... will they eliminate h-1b visa positions, or just citizen positions???

      • Flying Fox
      • 3 years ago

      If they are sneaky like IBM, they would eliminate everything here while hiring in their overseas “technology centers”. This time though the overall headcount did drop, so they have to announce it upfront. IBM has been doing the shift while not tripping the mandatory announcement threshold.

    • WhatMeWorry
    • 3 years ago

    I can understand reducing employees if you are losing money or operating in the red, but since Intel’s growth, earnings, etc. is basically unchanged (or as they call it “flat”), shouldn’t their headcount remain unchanged as well?

      • NovusBogus
      • 3 years ago

      Depends on the situation. Companies don’t pay their employees because it’s funny, they pay their employees because they need the employees to do something for them. So if whatever those 12000 employees did is no longer something Intel needs and they’ve not got anything else for them to be working on in the near future, yeah there’s gonna be layoffs. On the other hand, if the projects are still there and the work just got passed off to contractors or H1-B wageslaves, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time a tech company pulled a fast one.

        • torquer
        • 3 years ago

        Nail on the head. Companies do not exist to create jobs. Companies exist to create profits. When adding jobs = added profit, they hire. When shedding jobs = added profit, they lay off.

          • WhatMeWorry
          • 3 years ago

          What I’m trying to say is that if Intel’s growth has been flat, then why wasn’t those 12,000 laid off the previous earnings report. This implies that they kept on 12K people needlessly. Or that they over-hire with the expectation of of a certain amount of growth.

          And I do with people would start using the more appropriate term “Free Markets” rather than “Capitalism”.

            • NovusBogus
            • 3 years ago

            For the typical organization it’s a combination of door #2 and it takes a long time for anything to filter though the system, good or bad.

            • torquer
            • 3 years ago

            When companies are in growth phases they get very undisciplined about hiring and taking on new projects. The sad thing is those are the first jobs to go when they need to appease the shareholders

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            It could also be that they simply don’t have as many new projects on the horizon. Maybe their very clever engineers just don’t see a lot of things left to squeeze out. Once the product can’t improve all that much, the next thing to address is the cost of doing business, either to maximize profits, or because you know lower cost competitors will arrive.

            If CPUs are stagnant, competitors [i<]will arrive[/i<]. Maybe its ARM, maybe its PPC, maybe its SPARC, maybe its x86 from AMD. But they [i<]will arrive[/i<] if Intel can't keep raising the bar.

        • moose17145
        • 3 years ago

        That is what is happening to my position. They had big wigs come in from the top into the office to today to say they are shutting down my entire plant.

        They are sending our jobs to India and Plano Texas. They are scrapping multiple support teams which are flat model teams and able to handle any call from Tier 1 to Tier 3 in a single call no matter who you get in favor of a Tiered system where the first tier guy basically cant fix anything but the most absolute simple of problems. I am can tell you right now know the products our office supports and the customers that we have… that is NOT going to go over well.

      • Ifalna
      • 3 years ago

      The economy no longer serves man, as it was originally intended.
      Man now serves the economy as a throw away good to be used up and be replaced at corporate convenience.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        It helps a lot to live in a country that provides solid social services.

          • Ifalna
          • 3 years ago

          Aye. I’m very happy that I wasn’t born in the US. ^^

    • Ronald
    • 3 years ago

    It’s not in the news post and any of the comments so far, but Intel CFO Stacy Smith will be transitioning to a new role:

    [url<]http://blogs.wsj.com/cfo/2016/04/19/intel-boosts-cfo-stacy-smith-to-new-role/[/url<] [url<]http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000510947[/url<]

    • MarkG509
    • 3 years ago

    Ut-oh, following in IBM’s footprints, they said the magic words “non-GAAP”. That’s like telling the people on the Titanic, while rearranging the deck chairs, to stay calm and go back to your bunks.

      • NovusBogus
      • 3 years ago

      I have to admit, I lol’d pretty hard in light of what happened to my company’s stock price about a year after we got on the non-GAAP bandwagon. Cheap wine stings when it gets in one’s upper nasal cavity…

        • MarkG509
        • 3 years ago

        But not quite as much as Orange Juice. 🙂

    • superjawes
    • 3 years ago

    Misleading headline. The wording in the title makes it sound like 12,000 people lost their jobs today, but the reality is that the cuts won’t be complete until mid-2017, so a little more than a year from now.

    That still isn’t good for those people, but at least they know that changes are coming and can line up new job. It also means that your standard attrition will likely end up being counted among the 12,000 head reduction. On top of that, Intel may have the option to add positions if it grows in other areas, making the overall change less than 12,000.

      • Stonebender
      • 3 years ago

      They’re already adding positions. The Ronler Acres campus is adding headcount like crazy.

    • NTMBK
    • 3 years ago

    Terrible news for any employees affected. 🙁 I hope they all find new jobs fast.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      I imagine that wouldn’t be much of a problem for an engineer good enough to make Intel.

        • MathMan
        • 3 years ago

        Well…

        Not that the Intel doesn’t have an army of excellent engineers, but, in the valley, Intel is just as well known to be a very inefficient work environment where things gets solved by throwning a few extra bodies at the problem.

        It’s a great place to work towards your retirement, where the lights switch off automatically in the evening. Etc.

        Not saying that’s a bad thing, but it’s not necessarily the place where an aggressive company would start looking for new recruits.

        • slowriot
        • 3 years ago

        Do you really think most of these people are engineers? I don’t.

    • the
    • 3 years ago

    Ugh, firing people just to appease those in Wall Street. They’re still profitable, just not profitable enough for their greedy corporate overlords.

      • w76
      • 3 years ago

      It’s a companies job to be efficient at what they do, not be a labor sponge. To use more people than necessary is illustrated by a Nobel prize winning economist’ response to a third world government stooge explaining he had construction crews use shovels instead of modern mechanized equipment to keep employment high. He asked, “why not use spoons?” You’re asking Intel to do a high-tech equivalent.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 3 years ago

        Typical western economist, not considering any other factors that the poor hapless third world government stooge had to consider.

          • blastdoor
          • 3 years ago

          Hey now, there are a lot of western economists with a variety of views. The saltwater guys would be much more understanding of the perspective of the policymaker in the developing country. Its the freshwater guys who live in a fantasy land.

            • Ninjitsu
            • 3 years ago

            You’re probably right, apologies. Too much generalisation on my part!

            • blastdoor
            • 3 years ago

            No worries — very understandable

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        What happens once all the money has been (efficiently) pumped into the higher echelons? The Gini index for economic inequity is at its highest in the US for nearly 100 years, and much worse than any other Western country.

        Do they wipe the pieces off the Monopoly board and start again? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • The Egg
    • 3 years ago

    If I were Intel, I’d be preparing to go after livingroom boxes hard. Either by make their own devices, or start courting the likes of Roku, Apple, Google, and Tivo.

    With the FCC [url=http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/fcc-votes-to-unlock-the-cable-box-over-republican-opposition/<]voting to unlock the cable box[/url<], it will be a field of huge growth in the coming years, and when folks want DVR functions as well, the extra CPU power could be useful versus ARM chips.

      • just brew it!
      • 3 years ago

      …because unlocking the cable box went so well [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD<]the first time around[/url<], 2 decades ago? DVR is already on the way out. Streaming is the future. Even if you have DVR-like functionality, it will involve minimal local storage/processing. All the heavy lifting is done with hardware decode anyway, and that doesn't care whether the thing controlling it is x86, ARM, or MIPS.

        • Zyphos
        • 3 years ago

        I’d say DVR is not on the way out, though it is evolving. I’m a cord-cutter with a UHF/VHF antenna, multiple HD HomeRun devices and Windows Media Center on W7. I’m also looking at Linux/RaspPi options. I also have Netflix and Amazon Prime [Video] to supplement shows/movies that I can’t get over the air.

        Perhaps DVR looks like it is on the way out since we are “off the grid” in a sense. No cable companies to report subscribers+devices, Microsoft has moved on to some kind of convergent MCE solution fox the Xbox, and I don’t know how Nielsen ever factored in DVR for viewship.

        • The Egg
        • 3 years ago

        [quote=”just brew it!”<]...because unlocking the cable box went so well the first time around, 2 decades ago?[/quote<] I'm not sure you can compare the two eras. This time around we already have significant competition from alternate services (Netflix, Hulu, Sling, YouTube, etc), as well as some huge names with streaming boxes already in the market. What we don't have, is very much as far as Live Streaming (sports and such), or anything that interfaces directly with a cable/sat connection (some small exceptions such as HDHomeRun). Since we don't know what kind of encryption or encoding will be used (especially for 4k, which I don't believe anyone is offering yet for broadcast TV), I see potential for a chipmaker like Intel to corner the market with a slightly specialized chip. Intel could also make something that pairs-up with their NUCs for extra features, or make a special version of the NUC with set-top-box features. Basically, I just see an area which will have huge future growth, and think they should give it a really long look to see how they can get in on the deal.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, if I were Intel i’d totally go after the lowest-margin market I could think of, too. Good call.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 3 years ago

        Didn’t they already do that with the Quark for the microcontroller market? Or I misunderstand Quark market area?

        • The Egg
        • 3 years ago

        It’s a product which uses CPUs, in a market poised to have explosive growth. They’d be crazy not to look into it.

      • thermistor
      • 3 years ago

      I use a cable M-card and a HdHomerun to pipe digital signals through my router.

      I hug my Intel J1900-based solution running Windows 7 with Media Center, practically on a daily basis. It’s got tiny power draw, HTPC grade graphics, and peaks at 2.4 GHz or so. I can either watch/pause/record cable TV content or go right to the internets for Netflix and other stuff. It even doubles as a Steambox (limited to PCIe X1 though, but drives a GTX 550ti just fine).

      Intel is already next to the TV, whether its a NUC or a roll-your-own. I have heard they identify set-top as a niche they’d like to serve more. Don’t know what that would look like though.

      • w76
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t know… If a household goes from renting 1 DVR to buying 1 DVR, that household still represents a quantity demanded of 1 DVR. The difference is just in how it’s provided.

      • torquer
      • 3 years ago

      They were going to do that. I even interviewed to be a NOC manager for the TV division. Granted it was a combo of hardware and services, but they sold it all to Verizon who promptly killed it and fired everyone.

      Never gonna happen now.

    • TwoEars
    • 3 years ago

    2 billion net income and still firing people, harsh.

      • anotherengineer
      • 3 years ago

      Indeed!!

      Especially when you consider that’s 2000 Million in a single quarter. So about 8000 Million a year profit.

      If that’s how ethical and responsible shareholders are, it should only take a few more decades before most of North America is one big skid row.

      I mean in 1980 this was considered a “record” year.
      [url<]http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/history-1980-annual-report.html[/url<] Hmmm I'm by no means an accountant, but 1980 on pg.3 says a record year with 96.7 million for the year in net income. Using an inflation tool for today's dollars gives $96,700,000 of 1980 dollars would be worth: $281,104,651.16 in 2015 But they are on track to make $8,000,000,000.00, so about 28.5 times more profit than the "record" year of 1980. Seems like we are going backwards to a few super rich and a ton of peasants. Scary times. I guess now-a-days 1 Trillion wouldn't be enough profit.

        • torquer
        • 3 years ago

        Companies do not exist to create jobs. Ethical and responsible shareholders ensure that company leadership is acting in their best interests, which involves a return on their investment.

        Its only a recent phenomenon by the Western Left to assume that companies exist to provide the “service” of employment to as many as possible and that profit is inherently immoral when it does not support this “service.”

          • shank15217
          • 3 years ago

          You’re right, I’m sure Intel would have fired Andy Grove if he didn’t die. After all what use is a 79 year old fart. Considering this is a tech company laying off 11,000 people means losign a lot of talent. A possible short term gain for a long term loss. But you know what do share holders care, many are short term investors waiting to sell. Also these companies promise a lot of ‘jobs’ for tax breaks, and now they are backing out after taking those breaks.

            • w76
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]. But you know what do share holders care, many are short term investors waiting to sell.[/quote<] Facts are inconvenient. 67% of Intel stock is held by mutual funds (which means individual retirement accounts) and institutional investors, the latter of which is likely primarily pension plans or third parties acting on behalf of them. (For example, my company is owned by a private equity company, who themselves exist almost exclusively to serve a firemans pension fund)

            • shank15217
            • 3 years ago

            Just because it a mutual fund in a tax sheltered account doesn’t mean much. Most stocks are packaged in mutual funds, whats your point?

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          Of course companies are not created to make people have jobs. Let’s not kid ourselves with celebrity talk. We all know why companies exist.

            • torquer
            • 3 years ago

            Re read these comments. Clearly we don’t all know that.

          • Northtag
          • 3 years ago

          Have you ever heard the term “job creators”?

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            No, but it’s probably coined by some marketing or recruitment guy.

            • Northtag
            • 3 years ago

            Doubtlessly so, but just definitively not from anyone on the “Western left”.

            • Spunjji
            • 3 years ago

            Some people call those guys “Republicans” 😉

            • torquer
            • 3 years ago

            Whether coincidentally or intentionally, you’re missing my point. Creating jobs is a great thing, its just not the sole purpose for a company’s existence nor the single measure of its success.

          • TwoEars
          • 3 years ago

          You’re making the assumption that those 12.000 people didn’t contribute anything of value. The relationship between a company and its employees is supposed to be symbiotic, not parasitic. If you believe that a company exists merely to use its employees and then spit them out you’ve been listening too much to Gordon Gekko.

            • w76
            • 3 years ago

            That’s rose colored glasses, looking at decades where mass layoffs are probably actually more common and larger in size than they have been in more recent years.

            A lot of you guys are simply incorrectly assigning roles to companies that exist elsewhere. Companies have one job, that’s to do what they do (provide a product or service) efficiently. If you’re looking for fulfillment, happiness, other soft emotional BS that as I guy I don’t want to talk about, those things are to be found in the family, in friends, and community. For other services communities decide they want in a certain manner (like public parks with no cost to enter, no advertising, etc), there’s government.

            We don’t want companies in government, we don’t want government manufacturing things, and you don’t want either of them in your private life. Separation is key.

            • TwoEars
            • 3 years ago

            I’m not sure it’s so much rose colored glasses as it is glasses which aren’t decidedly cut-throat american. If you go to Europe or Japan laying people off like this when you’re making that kind of revenue is seriously frowned upon. You’re talking about people who might have been loyal to the company for a very long time and made it what it is today, the more measured approach would be to try to find them new jobs inside of the organization.

            • w76
            • 3 years ago

            Japan? Europe? Do you keep up on economics at all? Japan’s central bank is in the final stages of desperately warding off economic apocalypse (negative interest rates, printing money at a clip that already has the central bank owning a huge share of the extremely large public debt), and part of the universal consensus among economists is that part of Japan’s problem is zombie firms propped up by easy credit and lenient banks and politicians that don’t want to see people lose jobs, so inefficient money-pits stay open. They then soak up labor talent and bank credit that could’ve gone to healthier, more dynamic companies.

            As for Europe, similar situation in a lot of countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, France), where the common refrain repeated off the record for the last 20+ years by politicians is “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it,” at least if you’ve been bothering to keep up on the issues and not repeat whatever facebook memes are saying these days. Commonly attributed to Jean-Claude Juncker, but off the record politicians have been quoted in the press from most European countries echoing that.

            I’ll point out Wikileaks leaked something some years back too where even the Socialists in France were fretting among themselves they were on the abyss if they didn’t enact some reforms.

            As for your more measured approach, that happens all the time if you read the article and some other comments. They’re already adding staff elsewhere.

            • TwoEars
            • 3 years ago

            Don’t get the government and central banks involved in this. This is Intel. Intel decided to fire 12.000 people because they could. A company with that size, and that net income, should be able to find new jobs for its employees.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            So your position is that a sufficiently large company is obligated to be socialist?

            Some companies, like Amazon, constantly re-invest everything in themselves and conquest everything in sight. That works because of their leadership and culture, which I gather is actually not nice to be part of. Also you can see a company like nVidia, they seem to take on unexpected or risky projects, and stick to it, due to single minded leadership and the culture that has built up around it.

            If Intel lacks that leadership and culture, I think that focusing on their specialty is a reasonable behavior. Those people, if they could not contribute to the objective, and in the absence of driven expansionist leadership and culture, had no reason to be there.

            • TwoEars
            • 3 years ago

            Let’s say you’re working in a large kitchen, and let’s say you notice that there is no need for that many people to make hamburgers since people seem to be tired of hamburgers. You do however notice that there seems to be a lot of demand for pizza, so you might need some more people to make pizza. Do you:

            A) Take half the people who were making hamburgers and train them to make pizza instead
            B) Fire half the people making hamburgers and then hire and train new people to make pizza

            I really don’t see how option A is socialist, but I do see how option B is being a sociopath dick. But maybe that’s how americans like to do business?

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            If you find yourself arguing about whether its ethical for a company to hire and fire employees, its a sign that you are living in a poorly-run country.

            • TwoEars
            • 3 years ago

            Now you’re just being insulting.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            Corporations should be socialist and governments should be, what, profit-seeking?

            • TwoEars
            • 3 years ago

            Since you insist on mixing up the government in this I would make the argument that the US government could use a little profit-seeking.

            [url<]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url<]

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            There’s some work to do there, no doubt about it.

            • Stonebender
            • 3 years ago

            Lets look at a different example. For whatever reason, you find that you have more people working in marketing than you need. At the same time you are short on process engineers. Can you retrain those marketing people? No, you can’t.

            Aside from that, Intel generally does a very good job finding people new jobs. Remember when Fab20 shut down about six years ago? There was all this doom and gloom about thousands of people getting laid off. You know what? Almost all of those people found new jobs within Intel.

            • Spunjji
            • 3 years ago

            Some of us think there’s this thing called a “middle ground” between sunshine-and-unicorn-farts and firing 11% of your workforce when you’re still making more money than you did the year before.

            • w76
            • 3 years ago

            I’d argue that middle ground is already the US. Go a ways to the left, you get France and Italy and their crushing youth unemployment and feeble economies. Go a ways to the right, and you get the incredible prosperity of Singapore or Hong Kong — but at the cost of technocratic autocracy. Northern Europe, the US, Australia; we thread a pretty fine needle.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            You can also go left of the US and have a perfectly fine country like you see in north Europe.

            • Tirk
            • 3 years ago

            Interesting analysis as you’ve just accused pure capitalism of causing the autocracy we feared from the fear-mongering analysis of the communist threat; and the opposite where government has more control of the economy (Socialism of which people switched terms and incorrectly called communism) providing more freedoms and social equality.

            Not to say your analysis is wrong, but you should look more closely at the conclusion if your intent was to defend keeping a more capitalistic society.

            The irony that people fail to notice when looking at the supposed ominous communist threat (leftist) is that while claiming Communist countries like China killed millions of people they fail to account for the historical fact that after the Communists (Social leftists that called themselves communist) took over China the population doubled, life expectancy increased, social inequality decreased, and all of that is historically recorded as fact. And yet we portray China’s communism as being disastrous. The only time that trend has historically changed under the PRC is when China became more CAPITALIST! Lets not forget that the Tienanmen incident was during the time AFTER the capitalist faction took over under Deng Xiaoping. Social inequality, massive wage and wealth gaps, indentured servitude, have all increased as China has moved to an ever increasing capitalistic economy.

            I do personally think that capitalism has a place in society to provide a mechanism for rewarding individual achievement but it needs to be highly controlled by society to mitigate the many ills it causes that are shown historically over and over.

            Now your statement does talk of your belief in walking the middle ground but the U.S. and Australia have to sway a lot more to the left to be in the middle and contain the ills of capitalism. Social inequality, massive wage and wealth gaps, indentured servitude, have all increased in the U.S. and Australia recently please research it. Fear-mongering has blinded us from the facts for far too long. Do a quick search of China’s historical population if you think I’m misrepresenting the facts, it will be the first of many eye openers I hope.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            I certainly would not volunteer to live in China or Russia, either now or at any point in their past. Run away screaming. Socialist/mafia dictatorships in recent times, empires previously.

            However I think a great many Americans are [i<]also[/i<] living a worse life than need be, just imagine taking US capitalism and connecting that to a government with robust social programs. Its been done, just not on such a large scale as the US.

            • Tirk
            • 3 years ago

            I used China as an extreme example of misinformation clouding perception. I didn’t ask anyone to move there, although up to 600,000 expats have decided to live in China despite your poor opinion of them. Its weird you mention the past, as they had an empire at the same time as almost every other major country in the world, so you wouldn’t have had much choice not living in one.

            What you call Socialist dictatorship is much more nuanced than you might think and is far from being run by a singular dictator. While many controls in the government are held by the Communist Party of China they have a national congress that 830 seats of the 2,987 seats ARE NOT held by the CPC. The election of officials is based off a tier system. The best description of it tends to be a heavily bureaucratic representative republic. Compare it directly to the chaos that is India’s government which I would argue is far more corrupt and less representative and you’ll begin to recognize why a country of 1.3 billion people, 4 times the population of the U.S., is so stable. I heavily believe reforms NEED to take place in China to stem the rapid disparity in wealth due to the injection of capitalism and transparency in the government’s actions needs to increase so that the bureaucracy can increasingly become more representative. But every metric show’s that China is above the curve compared to the world average in quality of life for its people. I would love to suddenly see 1.3 billion people in China have the same quality of life as the 5.2 million in Norway, and I think someday it will, but not by following in the path of the U.S.’s capitalistic elite.

            Now these two posts are far from the subject of the article, but bear in mind it is a response to other’s posts that derailed from the article in the first place.

            Now if you’ve read this far, thank you for your indulgence but please do not take my word for any of this. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, look up these facts and statistics from as many sources as you can find and you’ll find the rhetoric often pushed in popular media and U.S. politics to have very little substance when it comes to the truth.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            I do respect China’s ability to out-perform India, but I do not regard their government structure as especially enlightened nor their recent past as especially enviable. If they can smoothly transform into something fairly democratic over the coming decades, [b<]then[/b<] they can claim to have pulled off one of the greatest achievements of any civilization, ever. A bit early to be too proud though. So far its just been the easy stuff, the cheap growth phase. Lets see how good they really are, lets see them [i<]reform[/i<].

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            Perhaps you can say Intel was not very creative about using the money they have at hand, but having people do useless things is stupid. It could very well be the case that any project Intel applied those people to was unlikely to give much return on the investment. Perhaps the investors would rather have that money and go put it someplace more useful.

            • torquer
            • 3 years ago

            I’m not making any assumptions. I’m stating fact. Corporate success is not tied to the number of employees.

            I’m not even saying its right or wrong, just that it is. The sun does not exist to create life, yet it does. It also creates skin cancer. It is not a moral question, it is the nature of the thing.

            Companies can certainly do immoral things, and everyone is free to pass whatever judgment they wish on any company for any act. However, if you measure their success by the number of people they hire, you likely don’t own stock in them.

            Every system has its harsh realities.

      • jokinin
      • 3 years ago

      welcome to capitalism, where money is never enough, and employees don’t have any kind of rights.
      At least in Europe, workers still have some rights, although less than some years ago.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        I’ve heard that one of the strengths of certain Scandinavian countries is a flexible labor market, with it being the government that has the job of feeling sorry for people, not companies. There are some unions around though.

        • torquer
        • 3 years ago

        When their systems begin to collapse due to unsustainable spending and an unproductive workforce, thats what happens.

        Is it any wonder that Spain has some of the lowest worker productivity in the world yet grants multi-hour siestas during the workday?

          • jokinin
          • 3 years ago

          Well I think those more advanced european countries don’t spend enough money. For example Germany has primary budget surplus, and they do have some nice social policies and public services. And it’s not like Finland, Sweden or Norway have low productivity and not spend a lot of money ond public services.
          I don’t see why spending money on social policies can make workers unproductive. In my opinion, public, free and universal education and health services should be granted in any country. It is the only way that people can have all the same chances to develop their full potential.It is an investment, rather than a spending.
          As for Spain, the siesta thing is becoming more of a past topic than a reality. What happens is that daily schedule ends too late, and I agree that people should finish their jobs earlies, like 5 to 6 pm, not 8 to 9. Although I must say that southern european countries climate is very different from the northern ones, and form june to september it gets very hot (we had 10 day+ heat wave last year with 40º+ temps last year). So without air conditioner it is very hard to do something productive, it is just too hot.

      • blastdoor
      • 3 years ago

      I agree with the people pointing out that this is what firms do, and that the purpose of firms is to maximize profits, not provide jobs for the sake of providing jobs. That is an accurate description of the concept of a firm in a western (especially US) economy.

      I also agree that it is totally natural and expected that my dog would try to eat the s*** of my cat.

      But I do not regard either of these activities as unambiguously positive in all circumstances.

      In the case of the dog, I believe intervention on the part of household government (i.e., me) is in the best interests of everyone in the household. The dog has its own food — it does not need to eat cat s*** — and so I interfere with the dog’s natural instincts and stop it from eating s***.

      In the case of the firm, I believe intervention on the part of government is also appropriate. In that case, I think that firms should be allowed to hire and fire as they see fit, but that a very robust safety net should exist to help workers deal with the uncertainty and disruption in their lives that comes from layoffs.

      • slowriot
      • 3 years ago

      Maybe.

      I have yet to encounter a corporation who isn’t over flowing with thousands of employees who do nothing but browse Facebook, Reddit, etc. all day between pointless meetings and insane amounts of “breaks.” Or worse, the type of person who has no useful skills or knowledge to add to a project but insists on involving themselves in everything. This latter type especially gets into management and really screw things up.

      I left a tech giant a few months ago who was, and still are, actively laying off thousands and thousands of employees. And even when the office I worked with had maybe 1/5 of the people now as it did when I first joined… many of those remaining people managed to still do NOTHING all day and our service delivery still remained pretty much the same. Why? Because fact of the matter was that a handful of significant individuals were doing 90%+ of the work and would have done it regardless (and in some cases better) that their team shrunk from 25 to 5. Many times the impediment from delivering something better to our customers was the own stupidity we added to the pipeline by keeping people around.

      I feel a lot of people have a job simply because we as a society have decided people “need” jobs. I’d like to think “Well maybe that was just your experience there” but then it strikes me that I worked with dozens of fortune 500 companies who largely seemed to also be afflicted by the same issues.

    • just brew it!
    • 3 years ago

    Sounds like they are moving to de-emphasize desktop PC processors, and focus on the embedded and enterprise segments. This does not bode well for PC enthusiasts.

    On the bright side, this may give AMD a little breathing room, assuming Zen doesn’t completely suck.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]On the bright side, this may give AMD a little breathing room, assuming Zen doesn't completely suck.[/quote<] If the entire PC market is declining, expect AMD to contract Ebola when Intel sneezes.

        • just brew it!
        • 3 years ago

        A company the size of AMD doesn’t need as big of a market as Intel does for that market to still be worth pursuing. If Intel cedes part of even a shrinking desktop market to AMD, that’ll buy them some time. (Again, assuming Zen delivers.)

          • bfar
          • 3 years ago

          Perhaps Intel would be better off if they opened up licencing to make x86 desktop processors to some other smaller companies. That would leave them free to concentrate on the big markets, and they’d still have a revenue stream.

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Haha. I wonder if they’ll let AMD clone their chips again. But with AMD no longer owning fabs, where does that leave them? What do they actually make then? The box? Oh wait, they also have someone else print those.

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]The box? Oh wait, they also have someone else print those.[/quote<] Some of the metal FX boxes were even made from [url=http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013011301_AMD_FX-8000_CPU_series_What_is_under_the_lid_.html<]recycled tea tins[/url<] that had their outsides painted over. Classy!

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          What makes you think Intel will cede any market share to AMD? In a shrinking market Intel will have more reasons to not cede market share and sell as much stuff to make staying in that market worthwhile.

            • bfar
            • 3 years ago

            Because most of Intel’s other markets are growing. It would make sense to concentrate their resources in those areas.

            • ronch
            • 3 years ago

            Yes they will concentrate on those areas but they will not easily let go of the core markets they’ve always played in and which have played a very big role in making them what they are now.

      • strange_brew
      • 3 years ago

      Listening to the financial conference call … the CEO has mentioned “gaming” as a growth area twice already. Managment realizes that gamers buy the high-margin parts and they will want to capitalize on that. I expect more gaming-oriented products going foward, not less.

      Disclosure: I am (currently) an INTC employee that knows nothing about future layoffs or product launches.

        • torquer
        • 3 years ago

        Translation: We can charge more for Core i7s because we can.

          • Ninjitsu
          • 3 years ago

          That was how I read it as well!

        • bfar
        • 3 years ago

        That’s interesting. If they see it as a growth area then why do they not build more products specifically tailored for that market? The 6600k is arguably the only chip in their latest lineup that’s specifically aimed at the gaming crowd, and it isn’t even marketed that way.

          • NTMBK
          • 3 years ago

          Supposedly they are trying to target “competitive gaps” in their lineup: [url<]http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/19/intel-corporation-executive-tries-to-fix-competiti.aspx[/url<] I would not be surprised if we saw a Devil's Canyon style gaming targeted SKU in Kabylake.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          I think they are actually referring to Socket 2011 platform chips. The main reason being that the platform has PCIe lanes needed for CF/SLI solutions and more.

        • Krogoth
        • 3 years ago

        [quote<]Managment realizes that gamers buy the high-margin parts[/quote<] That's a small margin of PC gamers. The same crowd that opts for SLI/CF solutions.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 3 years ago

      AMD could have had breathing room for awhile now –Intel hasn’t had huge strides (IMO) since Sandy Bridge. It’s just an indicator of how far behind they really are.

      AMD has three areas they need to meet on. Performance. Price. Energy. Right now, they can’t do #1 without failing miserably on #3; even then, many of their CPUs get trounced by a recent Core i3 due to IPC. I like AMD, but starting around Core 2 Quad, AMD just got smacked down so hard, they’ve not come back since.

      I really hope Zen is a game-changer. Not holding my breath –but I really do.

        • just brew it!
        • 3 years ago

        [quote<]I really hope Zen is a game-changer. Not holding my breath --but I really do.[/quote<] That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I'm also worried that even if Zen itself is up to snuff, they'll fail on the platform (chipset) front. I guess we'll see in a few months.

          • NTMBK
          • 3 years ago

          The majority of “platform” is just PCIe these days- PCIe for GPUs, PCIe for storage. As long as they get a good PCIe controller integrated into the CPU, and motherboard manufacturers put decent NICs on the boards, they should be fine. Hopefully.

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            A lot of people will still be using SATA storage devices for the next few years, decent USB3 support is very important to support external devices, and the days where you could get away with having flaky power management support are gone. So there are at least 3 areas where they could still drop the ball in ways that will be painful for the end user.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            [quote<]flaky power management[/quote<] That's mostly an issue with third-party peripherals (GPUs, sound cards, mice, keyboard). Chipset platforms haven't had issues with power management provided that motherboard vendor didn't cut corners for a while now.

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            Regardless of whether it is “mostly” an issue with third-party peripherals, the fact remains that AMD platforms have historically seemed to have more issues in this area.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            Most of that dating back to the K8 era.

          • Krogoth
          • 3 years ago

          As long it has plenty of 3.0 PCIe lanes to throw around and a southbridge that covers the basics.

          AMD hasn’t have any glaring issues with their desktop platforms for a while now. Intel hasn’t done much with their desktop platforms through Sandy Bridge => Haswell. The biggest change in there was PCIe 3.0 support and “official” USB 3.0 support with 7 series chipsets. Skylake and 100 series chipset threw in more PCIe 3.0 lanes and DDR4 support.

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            Historically, their southbridges have tended to be slow and buggy when it comes to SATA and USB support. Heck, the AM3+ platform [i<]never[/i<] got native USB3 support...

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            AM3+ platform predates USB3 and PCIe 3.0 so that’s hardly a shock.

            SATA and USB support on AMD has been fine for almost a decade now. They might be slower on paper by a small margin but in practice that hardly makes a difference for overwhelming majority of the people out there. Intel USB and SATA controllers aren’t exactly trouble free either. *cough* 6 series *cough*.

            • just brew it!
            • 3 years ago

            Actually, no; AM3+ debuted about a year after USB3. Given product design cycles, it’s understandable that the first iteration did not include it; but IMO it really should’ve been added via a southbridge revision at some point.

            • Krogoth
            • 3 years ago

            AMD probably didn’t have the R&D budget for it and decided to rely on third-party controllers for their needs. Intel didn’t jump onto the USB3 bandwagon until 7 series came out and that was in 2012. USB3 was already out for a few years. The delay on Intel’s end was due to the fact that were on the fence to see if they could get “Light Peak” project working or not as a successor to USB.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 3 years ago

      Looks like Intel does not plan on using massive R&D to beat down AMD any time soon. So perhaps they figure Zen is not competitive, or perhaps they figure their best tactic against Zen will be price. Either way, no R&D boom.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      With Intel slowing down it may give AMD some opportunity to catch up, but that’s about it. You can bet Intel will do everything in their power to hold as much market share in that shrinking pie. And of course, there’s this historical trait of AMD to waste their opportunities.

      • blastdoor
      • 3 years ago

      Those layoffs might have more to do with sales and marketing than product development.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    Ouch about the employee cuts. That sucks pretty bad.
    The growth in revenues and in new areas outside of traditional PCs is a good long-term sign though.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Good long-term if you’re an INTC stockholder. Pretty bad news for everyone interested in PC hardware. I mean, it’s not like they’ve been doing anything wild—or even vaguely interesting—for desktop hardware at any point in the last five years or anything, but that only indicates it’s going to get worse.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This