Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 484 posts

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#231

Post by foobiekr »

bell-cot wrote: post #33

Reports elsewhere ( https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/10/repor... ) suggest that the layoffs might be a bit concentrated in the Sales & Marketing departments. Is it just me, or do some other folks also smell "corporate bloat, which better management would not have allowed to happen"?

Their GPU group seems to have some minimal success. The CPUs are still great but obviously process issues dominate.

The rest of intel is a shambles. The networking group in particular is an industry joke.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#232

Post by lame-robot-hoax »

arroz wrote: post #224

Intel is laying off so they can increase their profit margin from 45% back to 60% so investors are happy? Am I reading this correctly?

Is Intel meant to be a jobs program? Should they just hire and retain people they don’t need…just to keep them employed? Should they hire me to twiddle my thumbs for $100k a year just because they can afford to?

Increasing productivity is a good thing actually.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#233

Post by unwind »

colechristensen wrote: post #229
KptMarchewa wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of doomer prediction would be more interesting if we did not live in time period with historically high employment rates.

>historically high employment rates People will believe any statistic that aligns with their mindset. Unemployment rates are at historical lows within a small margin, it's been 50 years since unemployment has been lower (i.e. something like 60% of Americans have not seen lower unemployment in their whole lives), and since the WWII war economy that they've been significantly lower (i.e. almost nobody alive).

Historically high employment rates == historically low unemployment rates, right?

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#234

Post by pedrocr »

hedgehog wrote: post #210
pclmulqdq wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2) Missed too many ticks and replaced them with tocks. Fell far behind because of ridiculous tilt-at-windmill folly around Itanium and other architectural decisions that absolutely didn't pay off. Ended up taking way too long to get further down on process size. I applied to Intel's architecture group in 2015, and when I asked one interviewer "does Intel have a strategy if TSMC catches up on process tech?" I was le…

The fab business is very sensitive to scale, with enough money and discipline you can mostly make your own luck. TSMC does way more volume than Intel and they have a very aggressive customer (Apple) that can help work out early quirks and guarantee orders on new nodes before they're economical for anyone else. I don't know what a turn around might look like but it's a tough problem.

> TSMC does way more volume than Intel

Do you have a source for this? The only one I found says Intel is 2x TSMC:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/883715/microprocessor-ma...

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#235

Post by jimmygrapes »

colechristensen wrote: post #229
KptMarchewa wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of doomer prediction would be more interesting if we did not live in time period with historically high employment rates.

>historically high employment rates People will believe any statistic that aligns with their mindset. Unemployment rates are at historical lows within a small margin, it's been 50 years since unemployment has been lower (i.e. something like 60% of Americans have not seen lower unemployment in their whole lives), and since the WWII war economy that they've been significantly lower (i.e. almost nobody alive).

What's the difference between historically high employment rates and historically low unemployment rates?

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#236

Post by yalogin »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #32

I think this is the first major layoff announcement at a big, established tech firm I've heard this year that is anywhere near this size. I mean, there have been loads of "couple hundred" employee layoffs, and certainly a lot of hiring slowdown/freezes, but again, haven't seen anything else near this big, and the layoffs previously seem to have been concentrated in unprofitable VC-funded companies. I know Tesla laid…

I am not sure if Intel counts though. They have had challenges for the last several years during the bull market, which they failed to address, now they are taking advantage of the bear market to cull numbers. If we see someone who did not have these very visible weaknesses cutting numbers that would be a sign, not Intel. Though I agree Intel is huge and them laying off people still is a big deal.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#237

Post by acchow »

chongli wrote: post #67
disillusioned wrote: post #30

Isn't this just a culmination of nearly a decade of unforced errors and mismanaged strategy? I'm a complete outsider but I see a couple of fundamental huge misses by Intel over the past 10 or so years: 1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch. 2) Missed too many ticks and re…

Completely missed the boat on mobile I think their main error was short-termism. They were addicted to high margin (workstation/server) devices. They had no interest in the low margins of mobile devices. They could not imagine how low-power devices would take over the world.

Intel also doubled down on x86. Apple, in contrast, is creating the ARM future by designing their own chips, x86-to-Arm emulation layer, and compiler toolchains

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#238

Post by ZoomerCretin »

lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #232
arroz wrote: post #224

Intel is laying off so they can increase their profit margin from 45% back to 60% so investors are happy? Am I reading this correctly?

Is Intel meant to be a jobs program? Should they just hire and retain people they don’t need…just to keep them employed? Should they hire me to twiddle my thumbs for $100k a year just because they can afford to? Increasing productivity is a good thing actually.

Those are people. Each one could have a family with kids. Don't be so callous.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#239

Post by 01100011 »

SevenNation wrote: post #63

Can't read the article, but for context Intel's share price never recovered from the "dot com" bubble of 2000: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/?symbol=INTC It's one of a few large companies with that distinction. Shares now offer a (relatively) regal 5.3% dividend yield and a price/earnings ratio just above 5. Of course, as profits dwindle, both metrics will be recalibrated downward. This seems relevant because dur…

I believe this shows total returns for Intel(i.e. including dividends):

https://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?INTC

The picture is better, but not great. Folks who bought at the peak of the bubble would have needed to hold for about 18 years to break even.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#240

Post by throwawaygal7 »

colechristensen wrote: post #229
KptMarchewa wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of doomer prediction would be more interesting if we did not live in time period with historically high employment rates.

>historically high employment rates People will believe any statistic that aligns with their mindset. Unemployment rates are at historical lows within a small margin, it's been 50 years since unemployment has been lower (i.e. something like 60% of Americans have not seen lower unemployment in their whole lives), and since the WWII war economy that they've been significantly lower (i.e. almost nobody alive).

Havent the calculations changed ?
Post reply on HN