Slashdot Mirror


Intel Confirms Major Layoff: 12,000 Worldwide, 11 Percent of Workforce (ieee.org)

Tekla Perry writes: It's all about the cloud and the Internet of Things, says Intel explaining the planned layoffs, which will affect some 12,000 employees. Intel CEO Brian Krzanich promises in an email today to employees, that the "transition" will be handled with the "utmost dignity and respect." According to IEEE Spectrum, "Intel Corp. today announced that it would cut some 12,000 jobs -- that's 11 percent of its total workforce -- by mid-2017, with the majority of those affected getting the bad news within the next two months. In a press release, the company said the 'restructuring initiative' would 'accelerate its evolution from a PC company to one that powers the cloud and the billions of smart, connected computing devices,' and that the company would be increasing its investments in 'data center, IoT memory, and connectivity businesses.'"

238 comments

  1. Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I never really understood what it is, but I knew it was up to no good.

    We can't say we weren't warned.

    1. Re:Damn cloud by chipschap · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah, the cloud, yes. I just knew this had to have something to do with global warming.

    2. Re: Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I blame AMD. And hip-hop.

    3. Re:Damn cloud by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Being that normal PC's with fast CPU were expensive systems. Because they needed fast CPU for the 5% chance you need them. The cloud allows Cheaper slower processors on the PC that can handle 95% of the processing, and have a pool of servers handling the 5% request in bulk.

      So you can buy a cheaper PC and get more overall processing done.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3438/4593531893_f67a757fa1.jpg

    5. Re:Damn cloud by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you can buy a cheaper PC and get more overall processing done.

      Unless you need that processing done locally for one reason or another, or else the prices being charged by "the cloud" were exorbitant or required subscriptions that essentially cause you to pay for unused cycles.

      I'm not yet convinced this is actually the reasoning behind this trend. I suspect PCs are "fast enough" for the majority of the market, and the minority that requires faster PCs is going to end up paying more or possibly be starved.

    6. Re:Damn cloud by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Funny

      Everything is about climate change. If you don't think so, that just proves you don't properly understand the topic.

    7. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My experience says you are correct. Sometimes "the cloud" is handy but often as not such decisions are management led with no real justification other than buzzword compliance.

    8. Re:Damn cloud by Hentes · · Score: 2

      If "the cloud" meant that costumers pay less, Intel wouldn't be switching to it.

    9. Re:Damn cloud by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only PC's but Servers as well.

      I have a set of 5 year old IBM servers that run dual Xeon 2.9ghz processors with 4 cores each and there is ZERO reason to replace them. In fact I just picked up a pair of identical barely used units for parts for under $190 each off of ebay and replaced the SAS drives with cheap SATA SSD drives on the backup unit for testing to dramatically increase disk access speeds. (Yes my SAS raid controller happily manages SATA SSD drives)

      I could spend another $10K to replace the two or simply spend $2000 and keep them going for another 5 years just fine. the 10,000Base T network interface is faster than we will need, and the SAN works just fine.

      Intel has not made a processor worth upgrading to for over 5 years and the current gen stuff is less than 20% better than the older so there is no reason at all to even toy with upgrading. My new lenovo laptop is actually SLOWER than the old one it replaced, the 6th gen intel i7 processors are complete crap.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Working with a Microsoft-stack company, I can tell you that certain things in the cloud (read: Azure) are actually a damned bargain, for your sanity even if not for your wallet.

      BizTalk, for example. For a low-to-mid-range package, BizTalk on Azure is approximately $350/month. For a BizTalk server, licensing is $55000/processor for older versions and $45000/pair-of-cores for newer versions. And if you've signed up for "software assurance", you get screwed on the older versions with new-version prices after 3 years, so heaven help you if you bought the most cores you could pack into a single-CPU system 3 years ago (true story, BTW). And the Azure version comes with the bonus that you don't have to actually administer it. You just manage your applications and ports and let some other poor sucker deal with the insanity behind those scenes.

      But pray you never need to use BizTalk. Pray.

    11. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah being nickeled and dimed for every cycle.. no thanks.

    12. Re:Damn cloud by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      If "the cloud" meant that costumers pay less, Intel wouldn't be switching to it.

      ah! so that's why my last Intel sales rep's email started out with "trick or treat!". now I get it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aren't you the guy who told someone who lives in Miami, they should know more about the weather there ?

    14. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderated down for being a stalker

    15. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "properly understand"
      "Well, you do understand, but you don't _properly_ understand. Information is about more than facts you know." - A person who detests being wrong.

    16. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the improved reliability of electronics in general that is the cause of it. In the 1970s, good quality equipment had a MTBF (60% failures) of 3000 hours. By the 1990s, it was 30,000 hours. Today, it is 300,000 hours - which is half a century. So the majority of electronic goods never fail and rather gets recycled after 5 to 7 years. In addition, things keep getting smaller and for many people a cell phone/tablet is now sufficient. That shrank the market for new personal computing devices to about 25% of what it used to be twenty years ago.

    17. Re:Damn cloud by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, president of IBM 1943

      Amazon, Azure, iCloud, and a few others

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    18. Re: Damn cloud by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Fight hip-hop with tick-tock!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Damn cloud by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Unless you need that processing done locally for one reason or another, or else the prices being charged by "the cloud" were exorbitant or required subscriptions that essentially cause you to pay for unused cycles.

      The nascent sharing economy has one very obvious application: sharing unused CPU cycles of people's desktop computers for processing. It's so much easier to distribute units of processing to other machines than to share your car or a room in your flat. It's just a matter proper software. The extant solutions focus on highly specialized tasks like certain scientific workloads, but the principle is universal. If we can't have Plan 9, at least we could get some level of resource virtualization this way.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:Damn cloud by alexgieg · · Score: 2

      there is ZERO reason to replace them

      Current CPU technology handles almost all user cases perfectly nowadays, so I blame lack of general-AI research on that, as that would need hardware many orders of magnitude more powerful than what's currently available. But since software has basically stagnated, hardware caught up to it and things are now in equilibrium. No wonder then CPU makers are in trouble, and shortly GPU makers will be too.

      Now, when GAI becomes real and in need of truly powerful hardware to be useful, when we see that throwing hardware at the problem to begin again improving performance, then we'll see a renaissance of the entire sector. Until then it'll be basically marginally faster, marginally more power efficient, and marginally smaller components, including "smart toaster"-level SoCs that make our lives marginally more convenient, but nothing really significant to talk about.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    21. Re:Damn cloud by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What if it means the cost is 30% lower, and Intel can charge 30% less and have more consumers and make the same profit margin? That stabilizes Intel's business and opens up for consumers to buy more products. This is why cars still cost an average 56% of the annual income, yet they come with anti-lock brakes, satellite radio, independent suspension, EFI, and all kinds of other shit that wasn't on a similarly-expensive car in 1950: the cost came down, the price came down, and they sold you more things in the package.

      That's basically how consumers ever afford new things.

    22. Re:Damn cloud by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Moderated down for being a stalker

      Sorry - I was just trying to get an answer to a question I've been asking for a week now. Thank you for your mod.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:Damn cloud by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The big cost of chipmaking is R&D, not per unit manufacturing, and the cloud won't reduce that by much. That's a one time cost that Intel has to pay no matter what, which is why it's in their best interest to try and extract as much money as they can from the technology they spent so much on developing.

    24. Re:Damn cloud by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      For a BizTalk server, licensing is $55000/processor for older versions and $45000/pair-of-cores for newer versions. And if you've signed up for "software assurance", you get screwed on the older versions with new-version prices after 3 years, so heaven help you if you bought the most cores you could pack into a single-CPU system 3 years ago (true story, BTW).

      In other news, Microsoft apparently hates AMD (since Intel chips tend to have a smaller number of faster cores while AMD chips tend to have a larger number of slower ones).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:Damn cloud by mattventura · · Score: 1

      In theory, sure. Put more load on the server so the client can be thinner.

      In reality, what happens is they bloat up the client side with tons of useless javascript, so both the server and the client need more horsepower.

    26. Re: Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their cost is 30% lower and charge 30% lower, they make less profit. They need to keep the lower costs to themselves to increase profits.

      Savings is rarely passed on to the customer.

    27. Re:Damn cloud by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Between the capacitor plague and the various problems related to lead-free solder there's no way modern consumer electronics has anywhere near a 300,000 hour MTBF. Add in planned obsolesce in the forms of things like non-replaceable batteries and most stuff really isn't designed for or will last more than a few years.

      Granted, we probably could build something that'll last half a century if we wanted, but stuff just isn't built that way anymore.

    28. Re:Damn cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...have more consumers..."

      I believe THAT is the main problem.

  2. Layoffs in the Valley... by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's odd that as Intel and AMD have shed workers -- they put the "Silicon" in Valley after all -- absolutely useless companies like LinkedIn are sprawling all over Sunnyvale. I understand why a company needs a large workforce to make microprocessors with nanometer thick wires, but I have no idea why you need thousands of people to run a website.

    Maybe investors are just dumb....?

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Four reasons

      1)Scale. Scale is hard. Its not a solved problem. It takes a lot of people to make things run at scale.

      2)You only see the tip of the iceberg. The algorithms for advertising, selecting what stories get shown, etc are 10x the size of code you see on the website.

      3)Non-engineering. Want to monetize that website? You need salesmen, marketers, and the support staff to provide software, HR services, etc for all of them.

      4)Speed. While you can't speed up small projects by adding more people, you can work on two projects at once by adding more. That's what they're trying to do. A team of one could write everything, given a few centuries. If you want it all delivered in a year, that takes people.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's because the prospect of exponential revenue growth, no matter how illusory or profitless, holds much more sway with investors than an established behemoth that prints money but whose best growth days are behind it.

    3. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by AlphaBro · · Score: 1

      It's all just "tech" to them.

    4. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't worry! These layoffs will be replaced with plenty of new jobs for H1B folks!

      So I guess it will all work out for the best . . . in the end . . .

      . . . maybe . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by AlphaBro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe this is an earnest comparison to one of the world's biggest chip makers. Please tell me you're trolling.

    6. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't believe this is an earnest comparison to one of the world's biggest chip makers. Please tell me you're trolling.

      Intel does not even have an advertising platform. Why would they need so many scientists and engineers? /sarcasm

    7. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the prospect of exponential revenue growth, no matter how illusory or profitless, holds much more sway with investors than an established behemoth that prints money but whose best growth days are behind it.

      Best days behind it? Intel had record-breaking revenue and profit last year. I suppose that's technically "behind it", but they're not exactly dwindling

    8. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He said "growth days" and is 100% correct. Investors want exponential revenue growth even if the company loses money and will be dead in 10 years. Investors are stupid.

    9. Re: Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep and the management team at the corporate level is hell bent on leather to try and gain the attention of said investors. Fell went private to keep these kind of investors from driving the company into the ground quarter after quarter so they can put a few more dollars in the small investors pockets while the company ends up losing in the long run. If you want to run a company for the long term, stop playing the short game. Sure, restructuring works for collapsing org charts that have grown out of proportion, but every person that's cut is a cut to workforce morale and a loss to tribal knowledge.

    10. Re: Layoffs in the Valley... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      They should have just used MongoDB

    11. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how gratuitously unproductive industry has become.

    12. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the first signs of a recession.
      One of the greatest companies, in the world...

      Just today Bloomberg said the latest job numbers had signs of recession.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/early-warning-signs-of-recession-flash-faintly-in-u-s-jobs-data

      It's brutal out there in the US, just brutal.

    13. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Investors want exponential revenue growth

      if only there was somewhere they could get help with their addiction.

    14. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, the GP is just off base. LinkedIn may be expanding, but Intel has literally 10x the employees and 20x the revenue of LinkedIn. So it's a dumb comparison.

      But parent is spot on as to "why you need thousands of people to run a website". It's just an honest assessment. If you serve 100M monthly active users, and you have to make money off it, you're going to need a few thousand employees. The complexity is huge. I have never worked there but I'll bet they have some very clever people working on some very hard problems, just because you *have* to solve some very hard problems to exist at that scale. And they'll have thousands of skilled mediocre employees working on mediocre problems, and thousands of unskilled employees working on mundane problems, because that's just the reality of a large company, and that's true at Intel too. Do you think LinkedIn doesn't deserve to be headquartered in Mountain View just because all you think they do is "run a website"? They can afford it, and they need to hire engineers, so it makes sense for them.

      It's also not as if Silicon Valley is this magical place where only silicon chip manufacturers and computer scientists work. There are tons of non-technical jobs here, from the offices of companies in other industries like retailers or car companies to startups in the non technical space like food or equipment, to the vast number of local small businesses. There's plenty of room for semi-technical companies too - and all big companies are semi-technical in the sense that it takes lots and lots of nontechnical employees to run a tech company as well as all the engineers. I recently joined one of the big tech companies that you probably wouldn't dispute being called that, and of the 100 or so people at orientation, only 20 odd were SWEs, and maybe 10 systems programmers.

    15. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about chip makers? The exact same logic applies to a factory making crisps. People fail to realise that basic business is not easy and any sizeable company, even one doing something perceived by some to be of no value will have the same type and number of departments to keep them going.

    16. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      1)Scale. Scale is hard. Its not a solved problem. It takes a lot of people to make things run at scale.

      For services, that just sounds like insufficient automation. Expect progress in the future.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      How many people do you think Intel really need to run those robotic factories, beyond the one pressing the "start" button?

      How many at Intel you think are involved in marketing, sales and support?

    18. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intel employee here.

      While your sentiment is true for your stereotypical IT outscoring firm, I have been involved in the interview process for multiple candidates and I can say to you that Intel actually uses H1-B's the way they are intended to be used. H1-B's at Intel are paid equally to US citizens... in fact they are MORE EXPENSIVE because every H1-B we hire is immediately sponsored for a green card. Intel hires a law firm to naturalize the worker + spouse + children, which can easily turn in to a >$20k expense, as well as being a multi-year process. This is on top of the fee required to acquire the H1-B visa.

      Actually (in my personal experience) because of the added expense H1-Bs are held to a slightly higher standard during the interview process compared to someone who already has the right to work in the US because of the added work/expense to hire them. To be frank usually we just hire good candidates when we find them regardless of where they came from because finding people who are good at the low level engineering work we do is difficult.

    19. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by pz · · Score: 1

      5) Customer service. From my experience with a medium-sized web site, CS takes up easily 1/3 of the workforce.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    20. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Tons. I was replying to the "why do you need thousands of people to run a website" part. Fuck, intel has factories- that alone is hundreds to low thousands per factory. Of course intel has 10x the number of people linkedin has, because they need 10x.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    21. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Probably. I did early webservices at Amazon in 2005. At the time they had amazing tools for the industry. These days the generally available ones put those tools to shame. The problem is that someone has to solve the problems a first time, then a second time, then a third time to see what the shape of a generic solution might be. And since these are competitive advantages (and since they're usually customized to a particular company) they don't get open sourced very fast. So expect progress, but its the type where things will get better over a long period of time.

        Also recognize that scale problems differ by magnitude- the problems facebook has are far different from the problems linkedin has. The correct answer on one scale is not necessarily the correct one on the next- in fact it may become the bottleneck.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    22. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Investors are stupid.

      What? They're stupid for artificially inflating the stock price and making a massive profit? No. They're morally bankrupt. That's very, very difference. Never attribute to stupidity what is clearly due to malice. You can tell it's not stupidity when it comes packaged with success.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember "Intel Inside" on just about every premade computer I've ever seen in school, administration, work, etc. Pretty effective advertising platform.

    24. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same thing. They are stupid because they are trading in long term consequences for payday today. All the shit they are doing will eventually bite them in the ass.

    25. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's the same thing. They are stupid because they are trading in long term consequences for payday today. All the shit they are doing will eventually bite them in the ass.

      No, the shit they are doing will eventually bite you in the ass. They will have the money to retire to the last nice spots on earth and it's unlikely that it will become terribly unpleasant before most of them die, since most of them are wrinkly old white men with short life expectancies due to their lifestyles.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by phorm · · Score: 1

      "You need salesmen, marketers"

      I think this is pretty much the real reason. A lot of these sites don't offer a lot of value except what's pumped up by marketing/sales folks. They don't PRODUCE anything, yet get insane valuations, at least until the next bubble bursts.

    27. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      I live near 5 Intel campuses and know a lot of people who work at the fabs and are chip developers. There is a lot more going on than just a person pressing a start button.

    28. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      Etra expense to hire an H1-B's, Counter claim 20K$ is nothing compared to the relocation expenses you might have to pay for a good US employee.

      The H1-B & L-1 visa programs are nothing more than a program to premamently undercut US wages.

      How high could wages they really go (2x, 3x) without these visa programs torpedoing US tech career opportunities? Hint, look at ~1997, H1-B caused the tech crash, then the follow on real estate bubble & crash, etc. We've paid a very high price, (trillions ecomonic wise), for these disruptive visa programs.

    29. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and No. Doing high tech hardware is indeed hard. Far harder than "selling crisps" because the soft skills are there but the tech skills are well beyond crisps. And abandoning the latter once you've done it is a "one way trip".

    30. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Intel managed to establish their brand for the consumer market just in time for the Pentium FDIV bug.

    31. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      There's a smug presentation out there from LinkedIn about their use of cfengine and how it enables them to admin 90,000 systems with 6 people. What was not stated is what exactly those 6 people do, I suspect it's a fairly narrow set of things -- given the Silly Valley wont to silo people -- and that many others contribute.

    32. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'll help the housing market since they won't be buying houses and starting families since they only stick around for 5 years.

      Renter's Paradise.

    33. Re:Layoffs in the Valley... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you care to read the statement, most of the cuts will not be in US.

  3. "It's all about the cloud and Internet of Things" by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cloud = Their core market (desktop+server CPUs) is in a deep consolidation phase where future purchases will be made by a relatively few number of large cloud players and total unit volumes will be drastically lower.

    Internet of Things = Intel is being forced to chase razor-thin margins just to have a new market to soak up their excess semiconductor production capacity.

  4. Who needs employees when you have diversity? by PseudoCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $300 Million because Diversity(TM) http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/...

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    1. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can use dogwhistles too.

      Race realist.

    2. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Chief Diversity Officer is a genuine position at Intel.

      Not making even a single judgement call, but is some unanticipated overhead, right?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re: Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol no shit as Aerosmith says Dude, looks like a dude.

    4. Re: Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking morons.

      White and Asian men built Silicon Valley.

      Guess who's going to destroy it?

    5. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Intel's bottom line last year was over $11bn. So a one off hit of £300m a few years ago is hardly likely to be the straw that broke the camel's back. And diversity isn't expensive, certainly not expensive enough to cause 12,000 layoffs.

      This is just Intel realizing that the market is going to shrink and acting before it is forced to, so that it can do it in an orderly fashion. They are still hiring in other areas.

      Diversity has just become the default boogyman, followed by H1B and unions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Sure.

      It just occurred to me when I RTA that this might represent a larger problem that modern western companies have in competing with China, Inc.

      There are seemingly many constraints (environmental regulations, fair wage & benefit issues, lawsuits, et al) that whittle away at any imagined western competitive advantage.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus at first I thought that was a picture of 2 women, then I thought it was half of Megan Treanor.

    8. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's rude and uncalled for. Still bitter over your Pentium D?

    9. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diversity is a socially accepted way to bring down wages. Do you think all these mega corporations would do this just for social justice?
      If they hire women and minorities, suddenly they saved 30% on the wages. As a nice side-effect this puts long time employees like me well above the group average, so there is a good excuse for not giving raises while increasing the expectations.
      This only works of course, if rolled out industry wide (as otherwise "white male" employees would quickly jump ship), so this is what they are doing.

    10. Re:Who needs employees when you have diversity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meritocracy. In other news, China is taking over the world. I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords. I can slave loyally in the underground sugar mines. etc.

  5. Who to blame? by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    12,000 jobs is a lot. I know we want to blame somebody. Anybody. Who is responsible? Liberals? Conservatives? Trump? Sanders? Obama? At the end of the day, people are not buying as many PCs as they used to. What now? Who can we blame for that? Steve Jobs? He's dead. We gotta find somebody to blame, damn it. There may be some blame deserved by Intel leadership for not seeing this coming, many years ago and doing something constructive about it. It is a good thing this did not happen during the recession years. Or these people would have a harder time finding jobs. As it is, the economy and the job market is doing reasonably well. So there is hope that these Intel engineers will be able to find new places of employment soon.

    1. Re:Who to blame? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ARM Holdings plc

    2. Re:Who to blame? by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know we want to blame somebody. Anybody. Who is responsible?

      Third order responsibility goes to the sales people, that apparently can't land enough contracts to keep all their fabs running 24/7.

      Second order responsibility goes to the director of sales, who either hasnt replaced the bad eggs or hasn't provided enough staff to land contracts fast enough.

      First order responsibility goes to the executives, who havent replaced the director that has failed to maintain contractual demand for the companies existing capacity.

      There. That wasn't so hard. Its only hard when you complicate it unnecessarily with pretensive irrelevant hand waving bullshit.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd go further and blame the BBC, but possibly further and Clive Sinclair and Alan Sugar for being inept.

    4. Re:Who to blame? by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The companies that compete with Intel are Global Foundries, TSMC, Toshiba, Micron, Samsung, Texas Instruments, etc..

      Intel is a manufacturer. ARM is not.

      The manufacture of flash chips alone dwarfs any impact that ARM could possibly have.

      Inside my desktop:

      1 CPU
      1 GPU
      16 flash chips

      Inside a smart phone:
      1 CPU
      1 GPU
      1 ASIC
      4 or more flash chips.

      Picking up the pattern here? ..and we havent even gotten to RAM chips yet.

      If Intel is laying off so many, its because some of their fabs arent running 24/7. Intel has 16 fabs and maybe 3 of those (the most advanced) actually make CPU's. The rest bang out flash, ram, etc. Eventually the current "advanced" fabs wont be so advanced and will be making flash, ram, etc..

      Intel can also manufacturer ARM designs (and has so in the past) so that cannot be it. The fact that they are not producing ARM designs while simultaneously they are laying off workers.. that doesnt tell a 'beaten by ARM' story like you imagine. It instead tells a 'beaten by the other foundries' story.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:Who to blame? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're missing the forest for the trees. While it's true that ARM couldn't have become the success it has without contract foundries like TSMC, the core reason for ARM's success is because they've been the performance-per-watt leader for embedded solutions for a very long time, including the early days when Intel even licensed ARM's technology for their StrongARM chip.

      While ARM is a tiny company compared to Intel and likely always will be, they've had an enormous impact on Intel's inability to leverage their manufacturing and design prowess for the desktop->mobile inflection point that's been occurring for the past 7 years.

    6. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we blame executives and their outrageous salaries and bonuses?

      Why does this country continue under the delusion that it is OK for one person to continue making millions while laying off thousands of workers?

    7. Re:Who to blame? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You're missing the forest for the trees.

      The forest is the 16 foundries that Intel has, while its you that seems to be missing the forest and focusing on the few fabs that makes x86 chips.

      Yes, ARM has a nice low power CPU design. Yes Intel also designs CPU''s. These fact are irrelevant. You are missing the forest.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the end of the day, people are not buying as many PCs as they used to.

      Intel isn't laying people off because the company is in financial trouble. They had record-breaking revenues last year.

    9. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blame the year and money wasted on this rather than being focused on new markets and investments.

      http://fortune.com/2015/01/12/intel-diversity/

    10. Re:Who to blame? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're speaking as if the foundries provide Intel a unique competitive market position. In terms of the x86 market they certainly do (at least they used to) - the mobile market is another story. Those vertically-integrated foundries can be a capital nightmare. The arrangement works well when growth is strong but become a multi-billion dollar albatross when it doesn't. This is why nearly every company has become fabless; the contract fab model works better for all market participants, for the fabless companies because they avoid the capital investment and the fabs who get better utilization of their resources when the semiconductor product mix changes.

      As for the forest, you pointed out in your previous message how many more chips get put into a computer vs a mobile device. That's fine except for the fact that PC shipments for 2016 will probably be around 270 million, compared to a projected 1.5 billion smartphones. Add to that tablets, internet of things, microwaves, automobiles, etc.. etc.. etc..

    11. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Performance-per-watt leader was, is, and will be for some time the PowerPC. It just doesn't hit the low-power envelope that ARM's chips do.

      There's a reason ARM chips aren't found in most non-battery-powered embedded devices. Only those that are keeping strict hardware compatibility with a battery-powered ARM device do so. The rest use a PPC. There's a reason for that.

      Hardware compatibility with a cell-phone environment? Use ARM.
      Software compatibility with x86 (read: Windows)? Use Atom.
      Embedded without the above constraints? Use PPC. Because it kicks the other two's ass. Hard.

    12. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      because it isn't a delusion. someone who can make good strategic decisions is far more valuable than someone pushing buttons on mostly automated equipment.

    13. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, are you dense? People have been buying fewer PCs and laptops in favor of tablets and phones that run ARM chips. Intel's foray into the mobile space with Atom has been a complete disaster.

      Expect many of these layoffs to be from their mobile division.

    14. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really liked the PPC and had a higher up moto engineer tell me the exact same thing once. All of my computer engineering work has been in embedded and have never had to deal with x86. I was sorry to see them beat, life would have been much simpler but they (motorola), while good in engineering, were somewhat brain dead on the business side of things.

    15. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having to lay off 10% of a company's workforce means the executives have already clearly failed to "make good strategic decisions".

    16. Re:Who to blame? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I've long thought this. I was making 75k/yr out of college (2015usd), but my work responsibilities were the same to less as what I was doing as an intern(@26k/yr). In fact, many of my more hard core engineering experiences. as in being responsible for unique and innovative product development were accomplished while I was in college. After graduation, I became another no name cog,

    17. Re: Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Niggers.

    18. Re:Who to blame? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      No matter how good a sales, if there is no demand (for lack technical need, for lack of economic need, for lack of money with customers, whatever) there are no sales. That could also be an issue. The market moving to mobile devices - smaller and fewer chips than a desktop or even laptop) may be yet another reason slowing sales.

    19. Re:Who to blame? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the core reason for ARM's success is because they've been the performance-per-watt leader for embedded solutions for a very long time, including the early days when Intel even licensed ARM's technology for their StrongARM chip.

      Which interestingly was the fastest ARM chip on the market at the time... and also the most power-hungry by far, resulting in piss-poor battery life for PocketPC devices at a time when they had no nonvolatile storage and if your battery died, so did your data. Microsoft+Intel teaming up to bring us overpriced garbage again.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Who to blame? by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      I'm no authority but I can think of a few things that might affect it.

      1) our workers aren't as good as they used to be, or maybe it's better to say they aren't as effective. There's no need for new hardware because software is becoming too simple in areas, and not pushing the limits fast enough in others. As an end user, the adobe line of products took a huge step backwards when they switched to their online versions of their software. Features that used to work fine, no longer worked. Things you really need to to your job (preview in after effects for example) removed because... "it's hard". Or, "the system doesn't work that way anymore." I'm watching Autodesk stagnate on a level I didn't think possible, charging big bucks for the same old tired shit. No decent new features, all wax and detailing. Game companies used to make things specifically for the PC which really pushed the need for a new graphics card or a new processor, but now it's all watered down to the mass production specs of the crappier console the game is also supported for. Skyrim (as fun as it was a times) was an ugly piece of shit compared to other games at the time, and it's not a surprise why. It was made to be console compatible.

      2) The money is in small one offs and mass compatibility, not in huge boundry pushing projects anymore. No huge projects, no need for processing power. (And given the crazy hours I've worked in my life in computer based fields, they had this shit coming. I'm not surprised people want to be able to work from a tablet and say fuck it.) It's not just computer hardware though, look at tvs. Who has a 4k tv? And if they do, who is making shows for it?

      I don't know, things feels way out of whack since I was a kid.

    21. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key reason to have your own fabs is not strong growth. Sure, it is really annoying if your growth is limited by a lack of capacity, as your competitors have rented the capacity in the fabs already. The real reason is access to cutting-edge technology. 100 nm fabs have sufficient capacity for everyone and their dog to produce whatever they want. The production processes are optimized, the demand limited. Sharing them indeed helps to offset this limited demand.

      But look at Intel's current-generation fabs. They're already fully booked; Intel wouldn't get a better utilization by renting out capacity. In fact, utilization drops when the production line has to be stopped to switch all masks. And at full utilization for high-demand products, the big capital investments are also highly lucrative.

      So the real problem here is that Intel's previous-generation fabs are competing with Intel's most modern fabs. Intel has no good use for them - producing even more Sandy Bridge processors would just compete with Haswell/Skylake.

    22. Re:Who to blame? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      It occurs to me that it might be reasonable to blame Intel management. Not for having to lay people off, or for the total number of layoffs, but the fact that they had to make so many at once. Laying off 12,000 people in a matter of months means that, several months ago, you were probably employing more people than you needed and should have already laid some of them off. Ideally you'd be laying people off every year so that you can scale your workforce "gradually" and not have to do these mass layoffs that get reported in the news (and win you bad press).

    23. Re:Who to blame? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      12,000 jobs isn't a lot in a 350,000,000 American population with 170,000,000 labor force in a 7,000,000,000 population world.

      The reduction of labor force per product made has important and highly-desirable impacts, unless you would rather spend twice as much of your money on the basic food and clothes you eat now, and buy half as much cool stuff while reducing your access to health care.

    24. Re:Who to blame? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What if there's a demand for 1 billion chips one year, and a demand for 1.5 billion chips the next year; but, in the second year, you've retooled on a new process you invented which requires 50% as many labor-hours to produce each processor, so you can make 1.5 billion chips with the same number of employees who made 0.75 billion chips last year?

      Answer: Your sales go up, and you lay off 25% of your workforce.

    25. Re:Who to blame? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      1) our workers aren't as good as they used to be, or maybe it's better to say they aren't as effective

      The exact opposite is true, and is the definition of technology.

    26. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Things with no economic or technical need (or no customers), but continue to exist because they keep getting money:

      -Rambus
      -Patent Trolls
      -Lobbyists
      -Offshore Holdings Companies

      [/ToungeInCheek]

    27. Re:Who to blame? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      they've had an enormous impact on Intel's inability to leverage their manufacturing and design prowess for the desktop->mobile inflection point that's been occurring for the past 7 years.

      To be fair, the reputation of Intel's "design prowess" has never been that great.....they've won based on their manufacturing. So it's not particularly surprising that as manufacturing hits limits, other companies start to surpass Intel with better designs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Who to blame? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You're speaking as if the foundries provide Intel a unique competitive market position.

      No, I am speaking as if the foundries are what Intel does. Intel is a manufacturer.

      The vast majority of Intels employees manufacture and vast majority of its manufacturing is not cpu's. Now here we are, in a discussion about significant layoffs, and you keep on harping on that one factoid that is actually only meaningful for a small percentage of a small percentage of their labor force.

      Those vertically-integrated foundries can be a capital nightmare.

      Laughable bullshit. You are hand-waving.

      As for the forest, you pointed out in your previous message how many more chips get put into a computer vs a mobile device.

      No I didn't. You are showing how awfully ignorant you are by not understanding the point of the facts given to you.

      Cell phone:

      1 CPU - Might be an ARM design, might not be ARM design. 100% certain that someone other than ARM manufactured it.
      1 GPU - Can't be ARM. 100% certain that someone other than ARM designed and manufactured it. Might be Intel.
      4 Flash chips - Can't be ARM. 100% certain that someone other than ARM designed and manufactured it. Might be Intel.

      Thats not even getting into the chipsets, the ram, and so on.

      Stop thinking that your irrelevant factoid matters. Its dwarfed by reality.

      Now that its been explained to clearly to you, if you keep it up it makes you an intentionally dishonest fuck.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    29. Re:Who to blame? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      but, in the second year, you've retooled on a new process

      Fabs in the process of being retooled dont manufacture anything, do not need lots of employees, and it takes years to finish retooling. The layoffs in this sort of case happen when retooling begins, not when manufacturing finally continues.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    30. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking like a typical fresh grad troll. You need to keep your head out of your ass. Do you even work in the industry and know what the hell you're talking about?

      Intel's in the foundry business but that's not what they only do. Somebody needs to put this kid in his place.

      You speak like someone that has no idea that the industry is primary fabless, or what fabless means, or know that GPUs, CPUs and RAMs that you're putting in different categories are all part of the same fucking SOC device. You know on the same chip? Or have you been living in a cave in the last 1-2 decades and not know what goes into these devices? Or are you one of those software "engineers" who think he knows anything about hardware? What an idiot. New grads like you deserve to be laid off and never be hired again.

      Everybody that works in the industry knows that ARM is Intel's competitor. Jeez.

    31. Re:Who to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can blame Intel for not seeing what Steve Jobs was telling them when he approached them for a lower power, mobile friendly processor. Intel told him to "get stuffed" and then Jobs proceeded to fund Apple's ARM-based A-series processors which came to power all iOS devices. And then mobile took off and PCs declined, just as minicomputers and mainframe did before PCs.

      And by not listening to employees in the early 2000-2005 period who said exactly the same thing. There was a faction inside Intel that wanted to do exactly what Jobs wanted and steer Intel toward mobile back in the early 2000s. There was a battle royale about that inside Intel and these folks lost the battle. Many left Intel because their careers were damaged by the fight. x86 for desktop won the battle but has lost the war. (I have friends at Intel who either watched it happen or who were casualties).

      Mobile has replaced Desktop/Laptop in terms of economic value and product volume. The market size for PCs makes Wintel the tail of the mobile dog. There may be a role for x86 in data centers but even that's not a certainty (there are all sorts of economic experiments going on with ARM and other types of non-PC server technologies tuned to datacenter needs). ALL Wintel hardware vendors are having a VERY HARD TIME right now. Most have seen their sales decline by 10-15% CAGR for 6-8 years. Even low end vendors in Taiwan are hurting.

      IBM saw this coming - that's why they sold out their PC business to Lenovo early in the 2000s. Ever agile they correctly called it. Recently they did the same with their semiconductor business. Sadly this is more about the economical unviability of tech in the US at the moment - IBM's manufacturing talents were such that DOD would be devastated by this which is why Global Foundries was paid $1B cash plus assets to take IBM's semiconductor business - can't have the war machine grind to a halt because your singular critical supply chain evaporates.

      HP doubled-down when they had supplier problems in Asia that augured the same problems IBM anticipated. And then HP dipped their toe into mobile with the TouchPad only to discover they'd "lost the magic beans" to manufacture cheaply enough to compete in the new mobile (the TouchPad flew off the shelves at $100 - too bad the HP's Cost of Goods was just under $300). Now HP has split again - as anticipated by many. Odds are the consumer product group that makes the PCs and printers is going to have "a hard time" still. The other half, which mimics IBM in the B2B IT sector may have a chance - at least it's profitable and has prospects.

      And then you have Apple reaching capitalization greater than the entire combination of ALL Wintel, hardware and software combined! And Apple's Mac, though still the ONLY growing revenue source for Intel, still not large enough to cover the hemorrhaging for Intel. Plus Apple's ARM processors nipping at the heals of Intel's low end x86 offerings. Apple probably won't switch just yet - but Apple has a well established history of seamless processor swap-overs: 68K-to-PPC and PPC-to-x86 switches were pretty much painless for customers.

      And suddenly you have Microsoft being awfully accommodating and out of character with Apple. Basically the rule of marketing is if you are Top Dog, you NEVER acknowledge your competitors and NEVER cooperate with competitors. That's the "Alpha Strategy" of any market leader. The "Beta Strategy" is accommodation and deference. And that's pretty much what 1) Linux on Windows, 2) enabling Visual Studio to support for Mac Swift, 3) playing nice with standards, etc. is all about.

      One thing that's come out in recent years: Microsoft's product development has always been just as fragmented and confused as your average Open Source Software project thanks to the atavistic culture inside the company. This pretty much explains the lack of quality in historical Microsoft products. Has this changed? Apparently since Balmer left, yes. But now Microsoft h

    32. Re:Who to blame? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      While it's true that ARM couldn't have become the success it has without contract foundries like TSMC

      The whole of the electronics industry couldn't have become the success it has been without foundries like TSMC. It all started with MOSIS. How else would you evolve new designs so fast?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. I can see it if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can see it if it's the team and support making their stupid Atom CPUs. They've utterly failed as a line to do anything like break into the phone business, meanwhile their main "Core" CPU line has been squeezed down enough with the Y series to get into fanless tablets. Meaning there's neither rhyme nor reason to keep the Atom line around at all.

    1. Re:I can see it if... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      sigh

      Its not about chip designs. Its about production capacity vs demand.

      If a manufacturer is doing significant layoffs, its because their production capacity far exceeds the demand for it. You are waving your hands about a chip design you think isnt very good, that you don't see it in many products, but that is not a worthwhile measure at all as to whether or not they should continue making that design.

      Apparently you are so naive that you imagine that Intel just runs off millions of chips without them already being sold. I'm sure Intel makes little to nothing that isnt already sold before they make it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  7. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could? It's already watching you pee.

  8. Times and tech are changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Intel has to restructure. It's too bad that they couldn't move some of those employees over to the growing parts of the business. Intel's business is kind of a niche one. Where will those laid off employees go? AMD? Motorola? And that's assuming that they need people.

    And when Yahoo! starts their fire sale, there will be re-orgs there as well as layoffs and it will flood the market with even more tech people.

    There are some bad times coming to Silicon Valley.

    1. Re:Times and tech are changing by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Intel has to restructure. It's too bad that they couldn't move some of those employees over to the growing parts of the business. Intel's business is kind of a niche one. Where will those laid off employees go? AMD? Motorola? And that's assuming that they need people.

      And when Yahoo! starts their fire sale, there will be re-orgs there as well as layoffs and it will flood the market with even more tech people.

      There are some bad times coming to Silicon Valley.

      Not to sound like a cruel heartless asshole and sorry for the SV folks reading this but I have to ask the following? Do kids fresh out of school need to be pulling 70k a year??! Does someone with a bachelors degree only in computer science and has 5 years experience need to be paid $120,000 a year??!

      NO!

      What will happen is a price correction to more of $45k a year for college grads coding and 85k a year for senior programmers like it should be compared to other fields. IT is overvalued as financie majors start at onl $15/hr fresh out of college.

      What we have is a bubble. I may get an angry response and be modded down by someone who feels they should actually make 6 figures but you can kiss the ass of those who have masters degrees and 5 years experience in other fields and make just 65k a year. Seriously.

    2. Re:Times and tech are changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always join academia. A PhD and ten years of experience might get you up to $50K in one of the non-Tier-1-research universities, but you're more likely to be pulling $40K. You won't make a Tier-1 research job unless you have connections.

    3. Re:Times and tech are changing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to sound like a cruel heartless asshole and sorry for the SV folks reading this but I have to ask the following? Do kids fresh out of school need to be pulling 70k a year??! Does someone with a bachelors degree only in computer science and has 5 years experience need to be paid $120,000 a year??!

      Do the CEOs need to be pulling in 9 figures a year??!

      NO!

      Define need. If someone is contributing enough to profit then yes it's worth paying them $120,000 per year. And, while there's money to be made, there will be competition for good people which will push prices upm even if evil people try to illegally suppress wages.

      I may get an angry response and be modded down by someone who feels they should actually make 6 figures but you can kiss the ass of those who have masters degrees and 5 years experience in other fields and make just 65k a year.

      Some types of skill are worth more than others. Stop worrying about what others have that you do not and instead concentrate on what YOU have that makes YOU happy. Unless you are richer than your peers (and given the bitterness, it appears not), then there is nothing to be found in the former bath but misery. If you embrace the latter, you will be happier.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Times and tech are changing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not to sound like a cruel heartless asshole and sorry for the SV folks reading this but I have to ask the following? Do kids fresh out of school need to be pulling 70k a year??!

      They do if they want a place to live in the Silicon Valley.

      What will happen is a price correction to more of $45k a year for college grads coding

      So which busted-ass state that nobody wants to live in are you planning for this to happen in? You can't afford to live where tech is in California on $45k/year.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Times and tech are changing by oudzeeman · · Score: 1

      Most of the PhD CS profs. (tenured) I know (at local State school, def. not a tier-1 CS program) are making in the $85-120K range, although in some cases they have decades of experience. At least at this school the CS profs make more than a history or philosophy professor (that might max out the 80s).

    6. Re:Times and tech are changing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The way I look at it, at a company with $41billion in operating expenses (like Intel), imagine hiring a top CEO who is good at managing, and just manages to reduce costs by 2%. Is that CEO worth paying several million a year? Yes, absolutely.

      Or imagine one who is a good negotiator, and he uses his skills to negotiate deals with suppliers that cuts costs by $20million a year. Is it worth paying that CEO $5million a year? Yes, it is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Times and tech are changing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Is that CEO worth paying several million a year? Yes, absolutely.

      Well quite. It was a rhetorical question. There's no "need" to pay a CEO that much, but if the ROI for an employee (including CEO) is greater than 1 considering all costs, then it's worth employing them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Times and tech are changing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well quite. It was a rhetorical question.

      Yeap. I wrote that post to support your point.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Times and tech are changing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like it, instead of complaining, here is an idea: get a degree in CS or EE and start making the cash we are are "overvalued" for.

    10. Re:Times and tech are changing by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Property is overvalued in Silicon Valley because of the over-inflated salaries, not the other way around.

  9. AMD hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It better!

    1. Re: AMD hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha... AMD is an employer of last resort. There are some good people there, for sure, but folks are only there because the job market is tight. Well, and some may stay to collect a good salary without needing to bust their balls working, since the SCBU doesn't have all that much work to do...

  10. Moore's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not about the cloud, it's about the end of Moore's Law. Intel sees it coming, and they're planning accordingly.

    1. Re:Moore's Law by quax · · Score: 1

      Thank you AC for stating what should be painfully obvious.

  11. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't they need cameras for that?

  12. Another DotCom-type crash may be good for SV. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not that we want people to lose their jobs, but maybe what Silicon Valley really needs is another DotCom-type crash.

    I mean, what positive things have Silicon Valley as a whole really accomplished over the past 10 years?

    Well, they've managed to make advertising and the collection of personal data far more invasive and pervasive than it was before.

    They've given us "social media", which is really just another way of delivering targeted, inane advertising, and harvesting personal info.

    Anything new showing some potential, like virtual reality, is quickly being hijacked as yet another method to, you guessed it, deliver advertisements and collect personal data!

    The programming languages they've created, like Go and especially Rust, are nothing impressive. We're still using C and/or C++ for any and all real work, and will be for some time.

    Databases have taken a big step backward with all of the NoSQL hype they generated in Silicon Valley.

    Web browsers today are worse than they were a decade ago. Just look at how badly Firefox has regressed. Its UI went from being really usable to being awkward to use thanks to Australis, lots of good functionality was removed, lots of dumb functionality was added in, and its performance still causes problems for lots of people. Chrome isn't impressive either.

    The price of everything, and especially of housing and rent, has been distorted beyond belief in San Francisco and the surrounding areas, causing untold headaches for long-time residents.

    Silicon Valley has a lot of potential, but so much of it has been wasted these past 10 to 15 years. Maybe another economic reset is just what that region, and the technology industry in general, needs.

    1. Re:Another DotCom-type crash may be good for SV. by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We're in the start of a dotcom crash, things are exactly like they were back in the late 90's and 00's. Startups and other companies with huge bloated valuations(see nearly all startups currently), have thousands of employees but the numbers have increased from hundreds to thousands in the span of a few years(good example twitter and uber). Product development is at a stand still, but they claim that things are going great, you just need to wait a bit longer for all that stuff(aka directionless see twitter, yahoo and uber). Advertising revenue is falling through the floor, specialized sites are shedding editors/writers, right now clickbait sites are shedding both(see gawker, salon, guardian for example). Sites that didn't use that, are suffering from massive declines in revenue because the ad rate of payment is dismal and advertising dollars are disappearing.

      Specialized gatherings/groups are being highjacked by extremists and are basically falling off the map as they produce nothing, in turn people lose interest. And VCs are seeing this and either demanding their money as soon as their return period is up or simply labeling it a lost cause and walking away.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Another DotCom-type crash may be good for SV. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I mean, what positive things have Silicon Valley as a whole really accomplished over the past 10 years?

      Well, they've managed to make advertising and the collection of personal data far more invasive and pervasive than it was before.

      I was going to write a big witty reply but Google just harvested a lot of personal data and used it to tell me that the traffic on the A15 is bad and I need to leave 20min earlier to make my next appointment.

      I'll refute the view of those people who only see the negatives and don't see the positives later, likely from my mobile phone which will remind me because we've synced up everything with my PC via a cloud based service. When I'm done I hope to educate as many people who want to listen by posting it on a big public platform to my followers and at least there'll be less people surfing the internet with their eyes closed.

      What a time to be alive!

    3. Re:Another DotCom-type crash may be good for SV. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Technical snobbery. Lots of real work is done in languages like C# and even Javascript. The company I work for has a cloud platform (Azure) that is a mix of C# and JS, and which does real work detecting and locating leaks in water pipes. Billions of litres of water saved. People go out to side and dig up the road based on where it says the leaks are.

      I happen to do the embedded site, which is all C and assembler. None of this namby-pamby C++ "classes" rubbish. But I respect the cloud guys because the data my hardware collects would be much less useful if it wasn't for the processing and presentation they do on their end. And they do some real processing, not just database queries, which I can't talk too much about because it's a trade secret.

      Browsers are undeniably better today than they were 10 years ago, Firefox not withstanding. They are faster, more secure and more standards compliant. Sure, some developers made mistakes, but to claim that things are not better now as compared to a time when Flash dominated because HTML5 was still in its infancy is ridiculous.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Clearly due to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this is clearly due to the shortage of tech workers that has been going on for more than 20 years now. The solution is more H1Bs.

  14. H1-B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need more H1-B's!!!!

  15. Billions and Billions of Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one that powers the cloud and the billions of smart, connected computing devices

    Powers them but not as part of them. It is as if Intel would like to leave that job for the ARM providers alone. Their keynotes emphasize the centralization of processing, not distribution of it. Who takes it? Whose vision will reign supreme?

  16. Dignity and Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is what you will be treating your new replacements with as you train them to do your jobs for a tenth the pay, if you want even a sliver of the severance packages you should have been promised"

  17. Business lines affected are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...fuck Intel, fuck IoT, fuck transitions, fuck Slashdot, and fuck YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. Can't blame Jobs by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Mac sales are still going up, so Apple is actually the only bright spot in Intel's future (even though through the constant work on Arm they are also the cause of the demise).

    I think Arm would have had similar success without Apple though, as the rise of mobile computing was inevitable - Apple just hastened it a bit.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. RISC WINS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yay SPARC!

  20. it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decimated.

    1. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by I4ko · · Score: 1, Informative

      No it isn't. Decimation means to fire 90% and leave only 10.

    2. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the opposite: kill 10% of the soldiers to set an example for the rest.

    3. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't

    4. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Decimation was the ancient Roman method of putting down a revolt.

      If a city-state rose up in a revolt against the regional governor or broke out in a riot or even just had persistent legal and judicial problems, and the Roman central government heard about it, they would "decimate" the population.

      They would first send a legion or two to quell the unrest.

      They would line up every man, woman, and child. Rich, poor, old, young, everyone. The soldiers would go down the line and count to ten. They would kill that person and start over at 1.

      Then the legions would leave, having killed one-in-ten residents. The latin for ten is "decem" (pronounced "day-kehm"). Hence, decimation.

      1 in 10 is equal to 10 in 100. The English word "percent" comes from the latin "per centum". "per" means "by", "through", or "from". "centum" means 100. So 10% is literally an English/Latin mashup meaning "ten from a hundred". So decimation is exactly 10%. Always.

    5. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decimation ... is a word that was taught to me incorrectly when I was younger. I was _convinced_ it was fire/kill 90%, leaving 10%.

      But it's not. It's just not. I was in the wrong for a long time on this one - not least because it doesn't seem to me that a 10% loss is all that significant, whereas a 90% loss would definitely be serious. On the other hand, I suppose the term originated from losing 10% of your side to _people on your side_ - which makes it a lot harsher.

      Anyway, it's 10, not 90. Even though I always thought the other way made more sense.

    6. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      It's worse. They've been elevencimated! Nigel Tufnel would be proud! :D

    7. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by quax · · Score: 4, Informative

      No reason to make it more gruesome. This punishment was for deserters, it was handed down to Roman soldiers, not civilians as you imply.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decimation was the ancient Roman method of putting down a revolt.

      Actually it was not... it was a punishment within the military... And used very rarely at that.

      http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/decimation/

    9. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Well deserters as in the entire army (or particular Cohorts probably), not the individual.

      Considering the alternative was to destroy the entire army (which takes effort and loss), or banish them (at which point you then have a rogue army to worry about, or at the very least a banditry problem), the solution, while gruesome was a form of severe punishment, that fairly (more less with lots) acted as a deterrent for future such behavior, while at the same time preserving 90% of your fighting force for that particular legion/cohort. I'm sure having their colleagues met out the punishment themselves really drives home the point.

    10. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by quax · · Score: 1

      Yes, ruthless yet effective. Pretty much sums up the Romans in their heydays.

    11. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You don't decimate deserters, since deserters are individuals. You decimate a legion you're very unhappy with ... very rarely, though, since it was as much a punishment for the legion as an act of severe self-harm for the whole of the Roman military.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:it's Official Inte's workforce has been ,,,, by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, more like nonamated. Elevencimation would fire approximately nine percent of the workforce.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  21. shareholders by anyaristow · · Score: 1

    fucking shareholders

  22. Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    RISC WINS! Yay SPARC!

    RISC already won, long ago. X86 has been RISC for a while. Legacy x86 instructions are translated into core RISC instruction and the later is (re)scheduled and run. No direct access to the RISC core is available, developers have to use the x86 facade.

    1. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      RISC already won, long ago. X86 has been RISC for a while. Legacy x86 instructions are translated into core RISC instruction and the later is (re)scheduled and run. No direct access to the RISC core is available,

      Not surprising, as it's not guaranteed to remain the same from processor to processor, and probably doesn't remain the same from processor to processor.

    2. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep. I just love to confound compiler optimization enthusiasts by demonstrating a benchmark for my "inefficient" x86 code that runs rings around their "more efficient" compiler code. My dumb compiler and/or hand written assembly code is simpler and nowhere near as "clever" as GCC or Clang output, but it somehow runs faster?! It's because I know x86 opcode is getting translated by microcode into RISC instructions, and so I use a small subset of instructions with low translation overhead rather than try to be clever and do a bunch of optimizations to produce tricky "efficient" oppcode. What's more efficient isn't reduced number of instructions but easier to translate instructions. Even with no optimizations enabled, a compiler will do peep-hole optimizations and reorder instructions to save a register access, ignoring that the more complex instruction actually gets processed by a bunch more register moves in microcode. Yep, that LEA (load effective address) which most compilers use to squeeze an add and multiply into one instruction? It can be slower than issuing the individual operation opcodes and takes up about the same number of bytes.

    3. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are joking right?

      RISC was a fad. Even ARM now has multiple instruction sets. Microcode won. Not RISC.

    4. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It is not quite RISC, just normal microcode to micro-operations translation because hardwiring some seldom used instructions is a waste of silicon and because it is easier to optimise for parallel execution. Besides, the whole CISC vs RISC stuff was only relevant for a short window between 1985 and 1995 and in hindsight the RISC fanboys were mostly wrong.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    5. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      So rather than being a dick about it, why not contribute a patch to GCC's and/or LLVM's codegens?

    6. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can drop the "probably". x64 may have 16 GP registers visible in its ISA, but physically many more exist. Haswell core has 168 physical registers, Sandy bridge only had 160. That's a clear change in the RISC core used to implement the same x64 register set.

    7. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      ..maybe because he isnt using GCC or LLVM

      Lets put your "suggestion" into a car analogy:

      Professional driver notes that he can drive his favorite supercar faster than a ford station-wagon can go. You are suggesting he go school the ford engineers so that their station-wagons become super-wagons.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's because I know x86 opcode is getting translated by microcode into RISC instructions, and so I use a small subset of instructions with low translation overhead rather than try to be clever and do a bunch of optimizations to produce tricky "efficient" oppcode.

      ...why do you assume that recent compilers don't know these things? Also, there's -Os and -O3. Sometimes mixed mode works best. Those LEAs definitely have their place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Intel is RISC ... x86 a facade by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's backwards compatibility to you and me. If you could evolve software very rapidly, chances are you'd use some kind of optimal encoding for every CPU generation that would end up very RISCy. (If humans don't need to touch it, why bother?)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  23. Foreign workers by argee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much you want to bet that when they hire for cloud and IoT stuff, they hire
    overseas workers or H1B people.

    1. Re:Foreign workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will be great. I'm sure people from places with no toilets will be able to comprehend why a light bulb needs to talk to a light switch over encrypted internet connection. (Although I'm from a place with plenty of toilets and I still don't understand)

  24. job cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, yeah. Why do I have a suspicion that " accelerat[ing] its evolution from a PC company to one that powers the cloud and the billions of smart, connected computing devices....." will involve jobs disappearing in the USA, and magically appearing in Bangalore?

    Why oh why do I think that, Intel.....?

    Well, you know the old saying: "Every time corporate america leverages its core competencies, an angle in Bangalore gets its wings."

  25. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cloud is dead...

  26. Accelerate .... by Luthair · · Score: 1

    with fewer people? Sounds more like failed acquisitions & contraction to me.

  27. Intel lays off 12000. Hires 2000 H1Bs per year by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only that, but they are lobbying for more H1B's while hiring ~2000/year

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Intel lays off 12000. Hires 2000 H1Bs per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't do IoT without H1B, in P2P the ROI is ATP and the CISC is OTD.

    2. Re:Intel lays off 12000. Hires 2000 H1Bs per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

  28. AMD should poach them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Intel is throwing them over, then AMD should try to pick up as many as they can afford. Maybe it would help create more competition again.

  29. Found on another site... by brennz · · Score: 0, Troll

    In other News, Intel announced 12,000 H-1B visa openings at Intel headquarters, most of which will be retained through subcontractors Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra.

  30. around the world ... my buttocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "high cost geo" is the US. They say around the world because they are trying to deceive. UCMJ would call it lying.

    They (still) have no vision, though they talk big. They can't stop sinking. Perhaps there is a connection with blindly laying off the most talented because you have a poor definition of talent and are incapable of measuring value within the time-scale of interest? If that is the case, the lay-offs will accelerate their decline in the market. Something to watch for.

    Their stock value has been constant for more than a decade, and buybacks are a short-term hack that has no meaning with "a soft pc market" that is sustained. They don't have enough vision to innovate, only create incremental improvements.

  31. Intel Lobbied for Visa Workers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...claiming they had no local talent to do the work...all the while plotting to lay off here...

  32. Laying off 12,000 people... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    ... and yet I'm still getting calls to recruit me for contractor positions at Intel in Hillsboro... strange.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Laying off 12,000 people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... and yet I'm still getting calls to recruit me for contractor positions at Intel in Hillsboro... strange.

      it is less strange if you see it as each rejection to their calls as one more statistic to say that they can not get local workers, so need more H1B workers.

    2. Re:Laying off 12,000 people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not strange. Given the position is a contractor position, it doesn't go againt the head count since you are not part of regular employee workforce.

    3. Re:Laying off 12,000 people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oregon has a large amount of people working in the Data Center Group which is one of the only groups at Intel actually growing in profitability. DCG is still hiring through this down turn. They hire both internally within the company (always the first choice) and externally when they can't find internal candidates.

    4. Re:Laying off 12,000 people... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ... and yet I'm still getting calls to recruit me for contractor positions at Intel in Hillsboro... strange.

      Why would you think it's strange that a company is hiring contractors while laying off full-time employees with benefits? Are you new? And I don't mean to Slashdot, just... new. Like, on this planet.

      Fuck, these posting delays are shit. They don't dissuade spammers, who can create multiple accounts and use automated posting so they don't have to care. They only annoy the users who post most of the comments... you know, the comments this site runs on?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Laying off 12,000 people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can vary with labour law. Where I live, contractors are the easiest to get rid of/re-hire, so they go/come first.

  33. What does IoT stand for again? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Internet of Turds?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:What does IoT stand for again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and you are one of them

    2. Re:What does IoT stand for again? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      internet of turkeys.

      ever hear the 14.4k modem sound? then you know.

      (its not hamsters on those wheels)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  34. Not exactly by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's because companies like LinkedIn need very few employees relative to the amount of paying users. That's what scale really means. It means the investors can make a shitload of money without all those pesky employees ruining it for them. Investors have been living high off the massive productivity gains they've squeezed out of the work force, but they're kinda hitting the limits of that until automation kicks in. They're a little nervous about full blown automation because if they're not careful they'll end up with socialism when people notice there aren't any jobs anymore. So they're moving at a snails pace and using companies like LinkedIn to realize the profits they demand.

    Once companies like that dry up be afraid. These folks run the economy and have a boundless desire for wealth. I'm not sure what they're going to do but if you're a member of the working class instead of the ruling one it's not going to be pretty...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not exactly by ultranova · · Score: 2

      if you're a member of the working class instead of the ruling one it's not going to be pretty

      So how's that any different from any other time in history?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Not exactly by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I know three people at Intel all friends since grade school. All three have started their own businesses and gone into real estate long ago, in addition for wrking at Intel. Actually most engineers that I still know since college have done likewise, even many engineering coworkers. I'm certain they'll all be fine. Would you consider them working or ruling class? Most, if not all of them, are multimillionaires (it's not that difficult if you are not a complete idiot and work hard).

  35. Not really by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not after we repealed Glass-Steagall and let the investment bankers get buddy buddy with the Mortgage bankers. See, we used to keep the risky wallstreet stuff separate from the stable Mortgage, car and Student Loan stuff. We don't do that anymore. So a Stock market crash doesn't just devalue the paper money of the 1%ers, it wrecks the whole economy. That's sorta why we separated them in the first place...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. The network is the computer. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    -- John Gage of Sun Microsystems

  37. It's their own fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just an observation from the peanut gallery.

    In my view, PC sales are in decline because prices have been going up, not staying the same or getting cheaper.

    Years ago, I bought a new PC with an i7 920 in it, along with a monitor, and they threw in a netbook for free. Factoring out the other items, I paid less than $600 for the PC - a price/performance ratio that I could not touch when it came time to upgrade. (I tried every avenue to actually upgrade my old machine, but every time it added up to more than buying a new PC). The new PC is only about 30% faster than the old - a far cry from my usual 100% increase.

    I have kept my eye on the market as people have been talking about the decline of the PC, and the situation has not changed. We are not, and cannot get our money's worth out of new PCs, so we are not buying them. Ergo, fewer PCs are being sold. Increase the value proposition, and watch PC sales skyrocket - we still need our gaming fix, and we will still buy fast PCs - if we can get a deal.

    Oh, and one more thing... Microsoft hasn't helped with their Windows offerings - the braindead stupid interface changes in 8 and up, and now being strongarmed into upgrading to the data-stealing Windows 10. You can't sell me a PC with that OS on it. So yeah, PCs are in decline. Give us a decent deal, and get Microsoft to stick to the better side of it's nature, and maybe that will change.

    1. Re:It's their own fault. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In my view, PC sales are in decline because prices have been going up, not staying the same or getting cheaper.

      I see your example, but there are awfully cheap ones you can get today. I think the real problem is not just that the CPUs flatlined a bit it's that EVERYTHING did. 10 years ago, a PC wouldn't last for 10 years, then suddenly they did as it were.

      I'm typing this on an eee 900, which while getting more than a little long in the tooth still actually works remarkably well for a bunch of stuff. It's 8 years old, though more like 11 years old in terms of performance. But OK, this is my borwsing machine, not my work machine.

      At work I have an old thinkpad W510 with an i7 860 CPU. First gen, getting actually pretty slow by modern standards. I'm an engineer and so you might expect I need a fast computer to avoid wasting time. Well, no. I need my 16G of RAM to run my VMs but that's it.

      My current work is compiling firmware for an embedded 8051 core (ps, IAR you're shit) and compiling a mush of Java (native android) and C# (unity) for the app to drive the device. Of the build process, well over 90% of the time is waiting for the crap to upload to the device in question, so CPU speed has little to do with it. There's also bits and pieces fiddling around with filter design and data analysis and that sort of thing, but it's rare that I run into the CPU limiting me severely.

      So, the question is, why buy a new machine?

      Nowadays, I could get a substantially faster machine, but I don't need one. I could get more disk, but it turns out the W510 is upgradable and I recently shoved a second SSD in there adding half a terabyte (my god it still sounds strange to say that!).

      I could get a smaller and lighter machine which is faster, with a lot more battery life now with as much RAM and nearly as much disk for quite a lot of money. But, would it be worth it? My "laptop" is more of a luggable workstation and spends 95% of the time on my desk at work.

      What about the screen? Well, the screen is a bit dim now, but I plug it into a 2560x1440 external monitor anyway.

      So the frugal part of me doesn't replace the machine, because however cheap the replacement, I would gain essentially nothing day to day. So why put in the time and/or effort?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:It's their own fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost every Macbook has an Intel CPU in it. Macbooks are everywhere as far as I can tell.

    3. Re:It's their own fault. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      My current work is compiling firmware for an embedded 8051 core

      ..a chip manufactured by...Intel.

      Some people here would quite dishonestly have you believe that Intel spends the majority of its time manufacturing x86 chips.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:It's their own fault. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      ..a chip manufactured by...Intel.

      Nope. Made by Texas. Embedded 8051s are/were very popular in radio chips. This one is the CC2541. It ain't your grandaddy's 8051 either. The 12 stage clock divider is gone, the divide completes in 5 cycles and it clocks at 32MHz.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:It's their own fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - the bottom line is, do you need it, and if so, how much, and how much are you willing to pay for it.

      I'm a special case, in that I just like having a fast machine, even though I'm not willing to spend big bucks to get one. So, I end up in the upper middle performance range most of the time.

      On the other hand - you may be underestimating exactly what a strong upgrade would do for you day to day. SSD is admittedly a huge help, but everthing else also adds up.

      I wasn't actually considering laptops at all in my post - I personally have no use for one. I have desktops at home and at work, which I prefer because there are no portability compromises. I simply don't need anything else that can't be accomplished by phone or by tablet.

      But as long as they make them, they will never get me to give up my desktop - you know, the ones that run rings around the Cray supercomputers of my younger days. I often imagine what would happen if I traveled back in time with my desktop - how many nations would vie for a chance to use it? Who would kidnap me? :)

      And then I think, how about I drop in somewhere in the 1950s and start flashing my smartphone around. I'd love to see the look on their faces :)

    6. Re:It's their own fault. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't see it (unless you do your shopping at Apple). PCs are stupid cheap now, and even the cheapest ones have more than enough computing power for the average user. I mean, a $300 computer has 4GB of a ram and dual core processor? $600 will get you a quad core with 8GB and an SSD. Decent monitors are like $150, and even a cheap computer can drive two of them without breaking a sweat.

      The big problem for new PCs which you did touch upon is that for most people, a 5-10 year old machine is perfectly adequate. So people just aren't replacing their computers as often.

  38. This time we know it's coming by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and it's not entirely impossible we could do something about it. Trump, believe it or not, is the working class trying to do something. You're laughing, but he at least supports Tariffs and other pro-worker policies. Sanders is another example of the trend. The bad part is you'll notice the trend only happens on the national level. If you look at most good things (end of Separate but Equal, getting Lead out of gas, the EPA) they come from the national government. That's because State gov'ts are too small. They get picked apart by robber barons and mega corps. You will note that those same Robber Barons spent the better half of the 80s, 90s and '00s convincing the working class that gov't was the problem, not the solution. But I've yet to hear of a convincing alternative that can stand up to those same barons. And I don't see the barons cutting their share of the gov't pie. Just ours.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This time we know it's coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Tariffs is that they go both ways and raise prices. E.g. you add a Tariff on stuff from China/India you effectively raise the price of US goods for export. You also create an environment where governments put Tariffs back on to you blocking your exports in favor of their own.

      Tarrifs raise prices to the consumer at for the theoretical benefit of higher employment rates. That's not necessarily bad but like many economic incentives it can lead to unforeseen circumstances...

      E.g. both Sanders (who I really like) and Trump (who I despise) don't support the new trade deal. But canceling that would cause the east Asian countries to increase dealing with China effectively strengthening its power in the region. This will hurt US exports and would weaken US interests where they conflict with China.

      Sometimes you can be very agile and manage the market thru rapidly changing taxation and tariffs to navigate issues. Unfortunately the US government has proven itself to lack agility in the past decade so any mistake made in tariff settings would take ages to revert and could cause huge damages.

    2. Re:This time we know it's coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what we need to do?? Cut down on the government. Instead of 20% it should be 10%. Just imagine how free we'd be cutting the government IN HALF??

      Captcha: disguise

    3. Re:This time we know it's coming by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and it's not entirely impossible we could do something about it. Trump, believe it or not, is the working class trying to do something. You're laughing, but he at least supports Tariffs and other pro-worker policies.

      I'm laughing because Trump only supports Trump, and you think he gives a shit about anyone else. History shows that such an idea is fucking stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:This time we know it's coming by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm laughing because Trump only supports Trump, and you think he gives a shit about anyone else.

      I think the idea is that Trump doesn't give a shit about other rich people, either. Which means that he just might screw them over to be more popular, or at least not care about their desires.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re: This time we know it's coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going to be awkward at all those rich clubs...

    6. Re:This time we know it's coming by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, it may not be a bad thing, because Trump might actually care about his legacy enough to attempt to do a good job as president. He might actually care about what people will think of him in 25 or 100 years. I don't see that from Clinton and Cruz, where it will be 4 (or maybe 8) years of cronyism and corruption, followed by them disappearing from the public eye much like the Bushes Legacy? Who cares, by then they'll be pushing up daisies.

    7. Re:This time we know it's coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that Trump isn't trying to do anything other than promote Trump, but that's not what he said. Voting for Trump is the working class trying to do something.

  39. Working by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and maybe they will do fine. So long as none of them gets sick. Or bets on the wrong horse in the real estate market. Or gets out maneuver by an actual member of the ruling class and has their company get pulled out from under them.

    It's also not that difficult if you have the wherewithal to become a highly paid engineer at Intel. Not a lot of people do. Take those kids in Flint, MI. None of them are going to be engineers now. That's not how lead poisoning works. Yeah, that's an unpleasant thing to say, but also true.

    Basically, you've got a few engineers who are one illness or financial mistake away from ruin and a massive population (66% last I checked) living paycheck to paycheck. That sucks. We're America. We can do better.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a Communist!

      Real capitlists hoard currency and don't bother with pesky illnesses, financial ruins or lead poisonings.

      Captcha: slopes

  40. The Clouds are dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i know. it's tragic. on top of that, i can't find their lyrics anywhere.

    i consider myself fortunate to have found their album "Penny Century" on youtube, but i don't hold out any hope of finding their obscure single release "Anthem" and the totally obscure song "Ee Mush" (which is, i gather, related to the reversed harmonies from the start of their song "Show me").

  41. so prophetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about simpson's did it!

    1. Re:so prophetic by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      OJ definitely did it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  42. Moore's Law is ending... because... you're fired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck, if that doesn't just explain everything.

  43. Boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am an engineer, too, but I know something about the world outside engineering.

    Let me phrase it as a question: don't you think that providing a dozen-million-candidates hiring-website is a massively useful economic proposition ?

    Of course you can continue with your retarded worldview, but please don't blame others for being stuck in a craphole then.

  44. Welcome To Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Intel ate IBM's lunch. The tribe of IBM had to fire hundreds of thousands of their tribesmen.

    Now ARM eats Intel's lunch. [you know what to fill in here]

  45. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people "living paycheck to paycheck" should not have wasted their money on cars "because everyone has a car" ?

    Look at the Saudis, despicable as they are, they have a large mountain of cash. They have no industry and still they are able to save money.

    That's because they are disciplined and don't follow all their lowest instincts. It appears to me...

  46. Just Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for the 1% to explain that "the fired people were all low-skilled. Those 12000 Indians we want to hire are high skilled".

    Folks, you must vote for Trump or suffer more of the 1% nonsense. Hillary is fully in pocket of the 1% and all her minority/diversity/women talk is CAMOUFLAGE. Or DECEPTION.

  47. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They call it "IP-connected cameras". NSA and GCHQ love them. Because all of it is insecure $hit, which they can hack, if they see a need to look at someone.

    They now have the capability to look into millions of cafeterias, metro stations, house fronts, train cars, railway stations and so on. All over the globe.

  48. No layoffs at Intel India by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

    On the contrary Thaine Creitz wants to increase investments in India and recruit more in India.

    http://thetechportal.in/2016/0...

    1. Re:No layoffs at Intel India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is too bad since every project given to Intel India is horribly horribly late. I have not seen a single succesful project come from Intel India since the Whitefield debacle.

      As an Indian engineer who works for Intel in hillsboro put it, "I don't know why we give jobs to Intel India. All the good engineers have already left India to come work for Intel in the US".

    2. Re:No layoffs at Intel India by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      which is too bad since every project given to Intel India is horribly horribly late. I have not seen a single succesful project come from Intel India since the Whitefield debacle.

      It doesn't matter if they are late any more, because AMD is now on a slow spiral into the toilet. They can be slow and still lead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flip burgers, tech-heads! Clean toilets, computer weenies! :)

  50. Re: Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Thing by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  51. Re:"It's all about the cloud and Internet of Thing by dargaud · · Score: 1

    So basically the load average of their production is going way up. Instead of having billions of underutilised PCs, you have millions of servers running at nearly full potential, and lots of low-powered devices (think phones, tablets, thin clients) also running fairly hot.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  52. Hello, Welch-era GE. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Trying to sneak it through in smaller bites doesn't help.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Hello, Welch-era GE. by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would, if they were small enough. First you just freeze hiring. This gets you some amount of reduction "for free" by way of attrition. Then you direct all your first line managers to stack rank their teams, and only give yearly cost-of-living raises to the top 75%. The idea here is that the "worst" bunch will eventually leave on their own as their pay decreases in real terms over time due to inflation. Can also offer voluntary retirement bonuses and hope some of the 60+ crowd takes the bait. Or potentially voluntary severance bonuses for people not near retirement age.

  53. Writing off 12,000 citizens == always bad. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Only if they're able to afford what is available

    Unless you're a far-removed economist, trying to justify it against the technically capable subset of the workforce (much smaller than even the 170m) is a stretch.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  54. Solution: Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breathe new life into your PC with Linux!

  55. Opining... by georgekwatson · · Score: 1

    I would posit that Intel rode the comfortable model it had, bigger, badder, hotter processors every year to feed the market. They have been snookered by the fact that people now love portable, battery operated devices for most of what they consider to be computer use. Intel has not really got an energy efficient, capable processor to match what ARM implementors have on offer. An Intel processor needs a wall plug very close at hand, or a big, laptop sized battery (with a wall plug close at hand). The architecture is likely provably much more energy inefficient (too lazy to look for studies on this) than many of the alternatives. It's a normal part of business, but it sucks for the people being laid off. I think I have a 4004 and 8008 lying around somewhere. My father and I experimented with these when I was a child.

  56. Intel takes good care of their employees... by gosand · · Score: 2

    I have a life-long friend who has been at Intel for 15+ years, he works in the fabs and is a ME manager. Intel has always treated him very well. He's thought about leaving on occasion, but he just couldn't do it. Every 7 years - paid 3 month sabbatical on top of vacation. I don't know his salary, but he was doing very well. During the financial downturn, while i was being told I was lucky to have a job and not getting a raise, he was getting double-digit % raises and strong 5-digit bonuses. He gets stock options worth about half my salary. He didn't have any easy job and he was good at it. He had to travel some, but mostly just worked his 40/week and loved it. I never heard anything but good things about working at Intel. He said their philosophy was to hire good people and take care of them, and during down times take care of them even better. I had many conversations with him over beers when AMD was kicking Intel's ass in processors. He said their leadership's message was that it was one of the best things to happen to Intel because it shook them awake. They had become complacent, but would get back on top because they had the engineering ability to do so. Nothing smarmy, no whining.

    As with large companies, I am sure that there were flipsides to his story. Maybe it was because he was in engineering, or because of what he did. I was always somewhat jealous of his love for his company, I wish any of my employers would have had half of that dedication and attitude towards their employees.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  57. How many? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I tried several times and I keep getting 10.333739068902037589%.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Vaporware by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    Are not clouds powered by vapor? Embrace the vaporware.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  59. Sun versus the cloud by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    The age old battle of Sun versus Cloud. Sometimes the Cloud blocks the sun, and sometimes the Sun burns off the clouds. The age old battle between thin clients and local iron ebbs and flows as the earth rotates.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  60. Re:Damn cloud (watch out) by FirstOne · · Score: 1

    I bet those LGA sockets sprigy wires start wearing out in a couple of years.
    Why do you think Intel is going to only BGA (soldered in CPU's ) in near the future?

    Thus you may have no choice. Hint, I've been noticing my older Intel LGA based PC's no longer bios post.

  61. Not surprised.. Microsoft may be to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering M$ offered a free upgrade to Windows 10.. Not many people upgraded their PC hence the hit on Intel Chips..

    Simple as

  62. presidential might by epine · · Score: 1

    Well, it may not be a bad thing, because Trump might actually care about his legacy enough to attempt to do a good job as president.

    It's a sad thing if you don't see the problem with "might" and "president" sharing the same bed, with "might" on top.