> reduction of our overall workforce in Q4 by fewer than 4,000 jobs Interesting use of fewer .
seems like the same trick as behind labelling price as $99.9
Cisco workforce reductions
41–50 of 351 posts
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#42Cisco do not have real ai strategy . Routers are routers. Even their ai factory is yet another box just with label nvidia on it . No major investment needed.
All that observability tooling around is only benefiting ai wave . They can vibe re-write everything .
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#43Coinbase, CloudFlare, Cisco. Another round of layoffs at CrowdStrike would fit the pattern nicely.
Meta , ms ( soft ) , Google .
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#44"Executive Leadership Team" is such an interesting phrase. Never in several years inside Apple spanning Steve Jobs and Tim Cook heard any such condescending nonsense. I believe it's because they truly didn't think that way.
Tim Cook has referred to the “E-Team” in many earnings calls. I am guessing that consists of the SVPs who are above the horizontal line on https://www.apple.com/leadership/
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#45This type of thing should come along with a reduction of allowed H-1bs.
I think H1Bs are pretty much dead with the 100k fee.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#46My extremely cynical, but not yet proven wrong view:
Tech, more or less, has a group of investors centered around Silicon Valley. Not the only ones, but especially now, the most active. Generally, these folk have a lot of exposure to AI, and probably mostly believe the hype around it.
Which means they believe companies using AI should produce better results, which in the current market means short-term cash. So if a company doesn't do layoffs, no matter how well it is doing, it is seen as irresponsible and investment is withheld from it.
GitLab's announcement felt illustrative of this dynamic:
- The actual reductions were focused on simplifying org structure, nothing to do with AI
- They identified MORE work that was on their roadmap because of the way AI is changing software engineering
- They made sure to include a special section for investors
Seems to me they should have made the org changes in an unrelated announcement, and celebrated the opportunity for new work and the possible hiring that might be required to accomplish it all.
Like, GitLab is in an incredible position to moonshot the next generation of software. AI needs new substrate to work most effectively, and GitLab is the most popular "alternative" substrate to the fragile dinosaur that Github has become.
But AI needs to be seen as cutting costs above all else, so they can sell more of it everywhere, and this is what we get.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#47"Executive Leadership Team" is such an interesting phrase. Never in several years inside Apple spanning Steve Jobs and Tim Cook heard any such condescending nonsense. I believe it's because they truly didn't think that way.
Tim Cook has referred to the “E-Team” in many earnings calls. I am guessing that consists of the SVPs who are above the horizontal line on https://www.apple.com/leadership/
that's plausible, since i never listened to earnings calls, and since external communications might take different form than internal, i bet.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#48> We have important, impactful, and consequential work ahead writing so bad claude could do better
> It's not just impactful, it's consequential
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#49The casualness of mentioning record revenues in the same PR statement as laying off 4,000 people is fucked up on a new level. It used to be you were supposed to at least pretend you were forced into a layoff. But now it's like "Hey guys! It's time for our regularly scheduled layoff to juice profits! I got an extra $5M bonus for this!"
What’s really weird to me is they clearly wanted to convey to the Street that these layoffs were _not_ motivated by any of their financial results with the phrasing “fewer than 4,000”. But they conspicuously didn’t provide any other reason. No divisions closing down, no realignment of capital.
I wonder if someone in the C-suite simply decided that they had some rough percentage of underperformers on the payroll, but they can’t publicly call them performance based terminations without triggering a risk of lawsuits.
Re: Cisco workforce reductions
#50OMG, press the “read aloud” button. Brings me right back to to computer class in 1995!
sounds like a daft punk song !