Intel is Dying

I've heard from insider who said intel always had a policy of performance reviews geared towards the churn over of about 7% of their employees each year through performance reviews. Either you're average or on top or you're out. I guess they're laying off a bit more than this time.

Wow, one of nine employees will be cut.

Blackberry will have an influx of applications now.

Would Bob Noyce or Gordon Moore be proud of Intel's current situation ?

The mayor of Silicon Valley and founder of Intel, Robert Noyce with Gordon Moore of Moore's law

They are not dying. They are canning workers since it's teh best way to cut costs and raise share prices. If AMD can survive on life support for a decade, with terminal cancer and two heart attacks, Intel will be fine.

mr_raider wrote: ↑They are not dying. They are canning workers since it's teh best way to cut costs and raise share prices. If AMD can survive on life support for a decade, with terminal cancer and two heart attacks, Intel will be fine.

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!

Can't tell if trolling.

death_hawk wrote: ↑Can't tell if trolling.

That was sarcasm.

rageking wrote: ↑I've heard from insider who said intel always had a policy of performance reviews geared towards the churn over of about 7% of their employees each year through performance reviews. Either you're average or on top or you're out. I guess they're laying off a bit more than this time.

There's a difference between churn which would mean they get replaced vs permanent cuts.

LOL Intel is dying. Sure they are. And since that's the case I'm sure we're all going to be using abacuses and go back to handwriting letters in the next 10 years

evoviii wrote: ↑There's a difference between churn which would mean they get replaced vs permanent cuts.

Well, no corporations will ever admit that they churn employees, since then it'll un-justify their layoff of the existing people.

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.

I sort of makes sense. Intel specializes in computer cpu's. The two major things going on are:

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.

AMD isn't up to much... so hopefully Intel keeps trucking.

zod wrote: ↑Unless your gaming, computers can last a really long time now.

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.

Microsoft have killed the demand for gaming CPUs by pushing gamers to consoles, and killed the demand for PC upgrades by pushing a tablet interface with embedded spyware on the desktop market. It's no wonder Intel is looking at other markets.

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.

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.

boyohboy wrote: ↑Well, no corporations will ever admit that they churn employees, since then it'll un-justify their layoff of the existing people.

I think Goldman Sachs is known for cutting the bottom 5% or 10%. It's well known and accepted and published in the media.

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.

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.

I will be buying an i7 6700k shortly to help alleviate their problems. My heart is with you intel.

Dpack22 wrote: ↑I will be buying an i7 6700k shortly to help alleviate their problems. My heart is with you intel.

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 ?
Microsoft is the other candidate in the same boat !