Intel to Cut 12,000 Jobs, Forecast Misses Amid PC Blight

Post by Splines » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:28 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #87

theandrewbailey wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News like this out of the blue is strange. I was pretty sure that the post-PC era was a sham. It still is, right?

I think we're in a post-PC era. Yes, I spend my work days on a laptop. But most of my personal computing happens on an iPhone or an iPad. I think that PCs (and laptops) will increasingly become "things we do work on" and smartphones and tablets will become "things we consume stuff on". A lot of PC sales, I think, were coming from people buying them for personal use to consume stuff. That market is changing.

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

ranci wrote: post #93

dntrkv wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you pick and choose stocks, you can tell any story you want. Intel cutting its workforce is more of a reflection on the state of the PC market rather than the US economy as a whole. I'm not saying the market is overvalued or not, but this is in no way indicative of that.

If they can't sell computers in the digital age where software has taken over everything, you can think whatever you want but that does reflect poorly on the economy. Yes, many factors are at play. It is still a terrible sign.

Post by ranci » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

osweiller wrote: post #119

ranci wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't sell computers in the digital age where software has taken over everything, you can think whatever you want but that does reflect poorly on the economy. Yes, many factors are at play. It is still a terrible sign.

More computers are being sold than ever before. The market is absolutely saturated with computing devices. And aside from the intense competition Intel is facing, they're suffering the same issue that the GPU makers face -- I once upgraded yearly because the gains made it worthwhile. Now I upgrade pretty much only when something fails. It is absolutely picking a narrative.

Post by dismal2 » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #136

dismal2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quote from zerohedge: Instead of using the same tax rate as a year ago, when it had an effective tax rate of 25.5%, this quarter the tax rate was down 7.1% to just 18.4%. Had INTC used the historical tax rate, it would have, surprise, missed. Worse, INTC just cut its outlook, predicting revenue of $13.5 billion, plus or minus $500 million, for the Q2, about $700MM below consensus estimates.

So Intel is dodging taxes as well now?

Post by robertelder » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

mark-r wrote: post #138

robertelder wrote: post #38

I'm not sure how much of an effect this would have, but from a consumer's point of view, there isn't as much of a reason to buy a new PC every few years anymore. The laptop I'm using right now was purchased in 2011, and the prices in stores now are very comparable to what I paid back then. I've made up my mind to buy a new one a few times, but then when I go to the store, it just isn't worth it.

Moore's law may become irrelevant long before it becomes invalid. Without rapid increases in usable computing power, the reasons for upgrading have largely disappeared. In particular the chips at the top of the profit margin curve, where Intel loves to play, are much less compelling. Intel might eventually find itself in the same shoes Kodak did - when your primary business dries up, there's unlikely to be a follow-o…