I have this comforter I bought at a consignment sale for 15 dollars years ago. Every day I revel in how much I like it.

Frankly, no idea. They talked the talk, but it’s vague enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if they cut out some important people and kept a lot of the bogus crap.

Speaking from a company that has seen (less dramatic) rhetoric around similar circumstances, and everyone on the ground who understood nuance would have guessed certain projects to get canned. Then it turns out they treated the money losing projects as the sacred cows and cut the profitable projects to the bone and put them at risk rather than give up the losers.

Yeah, my team has gotten cut and the end result is one management type person per person actually doing anything… They are “managing” teams of one each, effectively…

EDIT: To make it clear, I’m not an Intel guy, just commenting on an ‘Intel-like’ company behavior with respect to being stupid about layoffs.

Yeah, Intel is down 33% over the last two days… didn’t work this time…

Some layoffs can be seen as “improving efficiency”. This deep of cut is “oh shit, things are screwed”.

Don’t understand your “worth” numbers, that’s generally market cap and those numbers don’t line up. The employee counts line up…

100B is… close enough for Intel (though they have fallen to 95B). So $730,769 per employee

ARM is $140B… So $20,000,000 an employee…

nVidia is worth 2.7T… $90,000,000 an employee…

Part of the lackluster CPU problem is that Intel was pissing away their money on other adventures. CPUs were “in the bag”, so they kept spending money on other stuff to try to “create new markets”. Any casual observer knew their fundamental problem was simple: they got screwed on fabrication tech. Then they got screwed again as a lot of heavy lifting went to the ‘GPU’ half of the world and they were the only ones with zero high performance GPU product/credibility. But they instead went very different directions with their investments…

For example they did a lot to try to make Optane DIMMs happen, up to and including funding a bunch of evangelism to tell people they’ll need to rewrite their software to use entirely new methods of accessing data to make Optane DIMMs actually do any better than NAND+RAM. They had a problem where if it were treated like a disk, it was a little faster, but not really, and if it were used like RAM it was WAY slower, so they had this vision of a whole new third set of data access APIs… The instant they realized they needed the entire software industry to fundamentally change data access from how they’ve been doing it for decades for a product to work should have been the signal to kill it off, but they persisted.

See also adventures in weird PCIe interconnects no one asked for (notably they liked to show a single NVME drive being moved between servers, which costed way more than just giving each server another NVME and moving data over a traditional fabric). Embedding FPGA into CPUs when they didn’t have the thermal budget to do so and no advantages over a discrete FPGA. Just a whole bunch of random ass hardware and software projects with no connection to business results, regardless of how good or bad they were. Intel is bad for “build it, and they will come”.

I do a moderate amount of work with Intel, and I’d say the problem is not that the people are “shit”, it’s that their bureaucracy is so messed up. You have the people that actually engaged with their customers (support and sales), who marketing largely ignores, and marketing makes up stuff that isn’t in sync with the field guys, but that’s hardly a problem because the development executives then go off on their own “cool” ideas, without any buy in or anything from support, sales, or marketing. This has real impact, but then you have some middle managers spooling up side projects with like a dozen dedicated people each, adding another indirection of effort totally disconnected from any business capability.

So end result is you have an admittedly qualified team toiling away on a project that there’s just no way a potential customer will even hear about, working on problems that someone “imagined” that a customer never had, or is trivially solved in the industry already, but they don’t have the experience to know that. Even when the work is good and people might want it, it’s still doomed to obscurity because there’s such a disconnect between the engineers and any actual communication with potential customers.

Their objectives went south around windows 8.

They screwed up execution before, certainly, and in never was a huge fan, but they were at least trying to make what they sincerely thought was a intrinsically good desktop experience until 8.

Windows 8 was when they had the fear of Android and iOS and the Microsoft phone os was failing on its own, so the mission for Windows 8 was to throw the desktop user experience under the bus for the sake of trying to bolster the phone platform, and maybe make PCs that were tablet like. Also seeing Apple and Google succeed with Internet account based access to the devices was a motivation to get people into an online ecosystem that would have the way to indefinite monthly payments and an app store where they could take a cut off all the application vendors’ revenue.