Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Intel Businesses

Intel Layoffs Exceed 5,000 Across US (manufacturingdive.com) 47

Posted by msmash from the deepening-cuts dept.
Intel is laying off more than 5,000 employees across four states, according to updated Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification filings. From a report: Most of the cuts are happening in California and Oregon. Intel more than doubled its layoff estimates for Santa Clara and Folsom to a total of 1,935 affected employees, according to California WARN filings. The cuts began taking place in Folsom on July 11, and in Santa Clara on July 15.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Layoffs Exceed 5,000 Across US More

Intel Layoffs Exceed 5,000 Across US

Comments Filter:

  • I have put off buying one of their gpus (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @08:47PM (#65525890)
    Because I don't trust them supporting it with how many engineers they have laid off. It would be madness for them to start cutting their GPU division but when it comes to stock BuyBacks and shareholder value anything is possible.

    If arm continues to make in roads on their main business than Intel is going to find itself in a death spiral and it's going to suck because that means only one x86 chip company unless somebody steps up and subsidizes them like they did with AMD.

    But the reason AMD got those subsidies was because of the threat of antitrust enforcement on the whole industry and nobody is afraid of that anymore.

    • Re:I have put off buying one of their gpus (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @08:49PM (#65525892)
      They used to be the Premier manufacturer of IC's. Now, TMSC has eaten their lunch. I was never sure that they had the "best engineers", but they did have the best processes to make IC's.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        They used to be the Premier manufacturer of IC's. Now, TMSC has eaten their lunch. I was never sure that they had the "best engineers", but they did have the best processes to make IC's.

        I remember how bad the later Petinums were that the AMD Athlon64 ate their lunch. It got so bad they had to abandon the Pentium name for "Core" which were only marginally better. They got lucky with the "Core 2" not being terrible and at the same time AMD's Phenom processors being a poor follow on from Athlon.

        Now it seems laptops are regularly coming with AMD processors, so the last market Intel had a stranglehold on is seeing competition. Intel doesn't do well under competition.

      • The 486 was literally the last chip which was a clear leader. The DX4-100 was well out ahead of every other PC processor of its generation. Then P54C melted its socket while AMD brought out the internally RISCy Am586 and since then Intel has never had a clear lead again.

        • At that time, things were looking up. Intel didn't just have 486 CPUs, but had OverDrive slots, so eventually when those were made, one could fairly easily upgrade to that. Of course, that ended with a whimper, instead of a bang, but it was nice to have, and also helped prolong life of a machine.

          All the cool stuff Intel was doing, be it SSDs, Optane, X86S are all gone. There isn't much left of that company, and they are definitely falling behind TSMC and AMD.

      • I was never sure that they had the "best engineers", but they did have the best processes to make IC's.

        They had (and still have) excellent engineers, but a terrible corporate reward structure. In my experience with them, engineers who worked on expensive high-margin products were rewarded and promoted. Everyone else was shoved aside.

        Ever wonder why Intel made zero inroads into low-cost computing? They had the processes and the talent to do it, and even made an attempt with the (now cancelled) Galileo, J

    • The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
    • One of the things I don't understand about stock buyback complaints is that being beholden to shareholders makes often make a business short-sighted. I think many call it enshitification as companies try to nickel and dime their customers. I feel like a lot of people didn't realize their linked...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Being beholden to shareholders and showering them with riches is certainly not a good idea for the business. However, it is very lucrative for the execs with their stock options. Once they get their piece of the pie, the business can go to hell as far as they are concerned.

        • Don't forget. It is the duty of every unit of management to maximize shareholder value, aka, shower them with riches.
          Until we change our laws, we will be eaten by those living under OTHER laws and practices rewarding long term gain.

          This is how we got to a zero manufacturing nation in the first place.
          Tariffs are supposed to deincentivise offshore manufacturing, said the orange god, but it does nothing but guarantee higher profits.

  • The bigger they are, the longer they take to fall (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shm ( 235766 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @08:54PM (#65525894)

    Remember how long it took for Lucent to unravel, including their Alcatel phase? Almost 15 years.

    Remember how long it took for Motorola to break up into little pieces being sold off here and there? Including Huawei if memory serves me right.

    The bigger they are, the longer it takes.

    • Re:The bigger they are, the longer they take to fa (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ndsurvivor ( 891239 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @09:00PM (#65525902)
      Hewlett Packard. Two noble men, history. Men who would spin in their graves. They set the bar about quality in Electronics. Now they are known for cheap computers, I guess. Sad.
      • Peter Norton same thing, not dead yet though, so perhaps just turning in his bed, or maybe enjoying the money he made from selling his company?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          I think the latter. Peter seems to have gone all Artsy'fartsy

          Which is fine if you are into that sort of thing. From what I can tell of his rather limited public persona now though he seems to take no interest at all in the Software or tech industry.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        Don't forget the inexplicable hiving off of the server business into HPE which frankly is the real successor to the original HP, not the as you say cheap shit manufacturer that calls itself HP now.

      • HP was awesome back in the day. Now all I can think about them is ink/toner extortion. So I would never consider HP for a printer or a PC or anything really, though they may still have some good divisions/products?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Hewlett Packard. Two noble men, history. Men who would spin in their graves. They set the bar about quality in Electronics. Now they are known for cheap computers, I guess. Sad.

        The essence of HP still exists. They are known as Keysight Technologies now, but were formerly known as Agilent.

        It's entirely possible to own the exact same HP product with HP, Agilent and Keysight branding - plenty of test equipment has that long a life. The biomedical division split off from Agilent but I can't remember what it's c

      • I still have my HP-16C and it still works. I still have my Agilent scope and it still works.

        While HP printers today come to a halt crying about DRM â¦

        Sad state of a once great company.

        • I am in the 'test and measurement' field. When I started, HP was the standard that everybody wanted to emulate. National Instruments kind of came, and went, it seems. I worked there. Now I guess they are Emerson. My recent project used an RP2040 to create 6 PWM waveforms with a precise 8ns delays and widths. I guess test and measurement is in the realm of inexpensive microcontrollers now. Back in the day.. 40 years ago, only HP could generate waveforms, and measure with accuracy. They had b

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. But fall they do and Intel is showing all the signs. Has any of the large ones ever turned things around?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        Has any of the large ones ever turned things around?

        Texas Instruments went into a nosedive in the 1980s. They bet on and failed at home computers, and Japanese competitors came after TI's bread and butter semiconductor products. TI had to restructure, do mass layoffs, close plants, etc.

      • Re:The bigger they are, the longer they take to fa (Score:5, Informative)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday July 16, 2025 @10:41PM (#65526052)

        Has any of the large ones ever turned things around?

        Lou Gerstner turned IBM around.

        Apple stumbled when Steve Jobs left, and recovered when he returned.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by antdude ( 79039 )

          Steve Jobs needs to come back. Oh wait... :(

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          You think IBM has a future?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Tailhook ( 98486 )

            You think IBM has a future?

            IBM is fine. IBM serves institutional customers. Wealthy customers (cities, states, major corps, federal agents, etc.) pay IBM for services. And no, I'm not taking about mainframes. They have zero profile in the start-up, VC circus, so bloggers don't prattle on about IBM, so you and your ilk are ignorant of what that do and why people pay them. Rest assured, however, IBM a going concern with a very secure future.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Ah, you are talking about the consulting branch. Well, yes, but that is not the original IBM. The original IBM did hardware, semiconductors, computers, storage, printers, fundamental research, etc.

              You can "save" an enterprise by changing its business fundamentally, but that is really just putting the brand on something else.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Tailhook ( 98486 )

                The original IBM did hardware, semiconductors, computers, storage, printers, fundamental research, etc.

                Except for printers, IBM still does everything on your list. POWER is one of the few surviving vendor proprietary CPUs in the world today. POWER11 was introduced a week ago, and they're still made in an IBM fab. They make enterprise grade flash storage systems and scalable cluster file systems. They are among the leaders in quantum computing research. They've developed their own inference accelerator hardware to augment their conventional CPUs.

                Again. This isn't apparent to people in the commodity ha

    • Remember how long it took for Lucent to unravel, including their Alcatel phase? Almost 15 years.

      Lucent unraveled almost immediately. The first rumors of accounting impropriety appeared in early 2000. Within 18 months, Lucent stock had lost more than 90% of its value. In less than 3 years from the first rumors, Lucent stock had lost 99%(!!!!) of its value. Of course, that was due to financial cheating. Intel hasn't done that. However, companies can come undone super fast.

  • Saw Intel use its monopoly stranglehold on PC makers to prevent them from using (superior at the time) AMD CPUs, so much so that AMD had to separate itself from its own foundry:
    CRY ME A RIVER.

  • âoeThere is no way around the fact that these critical changes will reduce the size of our workforce,â Tan wrote in April.

    In other words: Projects are to be cancelled to match the enforced reduction in workforce.

  • A CEO is entirely about Wall Street and trying to improve the stock price for shareholders. The problem is that a CEO by nature doesn't care how well the company is doing as long as the stock price is high, or can be manipulated to go higher. A president cares about the company and making the company do well. Wall Street is the reason all of these corporations have been going downhill for decades, because short term profits are more important to the Wall Street crowd than long-term health. A company

    • The problem is the the actual owners (shareholders) of big companies are funds, not people. People mostly buy the funds based solely on their performance. So, the funds are forced to force the companies to worry solely about the stock price.

      Stock buybacks are an efficient alternative to paying dividends. They give the shareholders unrealized capital gains rather than current income.

      All that said, compensating executives based on short term stock performance doesn't help.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.

Close