You've convinced me that firing over 10% of your workforce at the same time is a sign of doing extremely well. Time to buy Blackberry stock!
That was sarcasm.death_hawk wrote: ↑Can't tell if trolling.
There's a difference between churn which would mean they get replaced vs permanent cuts.
Even when gaming, with so many games written for consoles and ported to the PC, a fast CPU simply isn't needed to run them. My i7 is at least three years old, and barely ticking over in most games.
The biggest problem about this argument is that consumer CPUs are a drop in a bucket compared to server CPUs both in volume and price.zod wrote: ↑ 1) Many people are transitioning from computers/laptops to tablets/phones. Many of those portable devices don't use intel processors.
2) People that use computers/laptops are upgrading less often. CPU's got really powerful. Unless your gaming, computers can last a really long time now. People upgrading less often means lower sales.
Firing someone is not that difficult, write them up three times then say goodby. Had to do it a few times. They can litigate after wards but it would be a tough battle for them. I doubt these lay offs are performance related. If they are it's likely the poor performance of upper management.board123 wrote: ↑Another way to look at it is that Intel became too bloated from a corporate perspective, and a layoff is the easiest way to get rid of the poor performers. Contrary to how it's commonly depicted in the media, it's actually very difficult to fire somebody from a corporation. You don't simply say "You're fired. Pack your stuff and go home." Firing somebody is a long and arduous process, and it's usually impossible. Laying somebody off, on the other hand, requires no justification at all and you can target whoever you like. Yes, you'll need to pay the severance, but at least you can get rid of whoever you like.
The only problem is that, because the organization is bloated, nobody knows who the poor performers are. Or at least the people in charge of the hit list for the layoff don't know. This leads to good employees losing their jobs because whoever made the list didn't know who's good and who's bad. This happens more often than not, and is the reason why layoffs rarely lead to improvements in workforce efficiency. Yes, they become leaner on the balance sheet, but it's unhealthy for the long-term.
You're just prolonging their agony and emptying your wallet at the same time, who would have thought US Robotics/3Com would have gone down the drain back in 1995 or RIM in 2010 ?
