Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Intel’s disruption is now complete!

https://jamesallworth.medium.com/intels-disruption-is-now-complete-d4fa771f0f2c

by
| 2353 views | | 11 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+17WHCa9m

11 replies (most recent on top)

As a virtual monopoly, Intel lost its focus on external competition and soon warfare turned internal. That's the heart of the dysfunction and broken culture. Employees from the top down are no longer worried about being disrupted... they're looking over their shoulders to see who inside Intel is coming to stab them in the back or steal their funding or lay them off. The broken culture and lack of trust resulted in looking externally for "strategy" and the next big thing: tens of millions poured into Bain and other consultants.

by
|
Post ID: @bbmp+17WHCa9m

Finance people above all others should be trying to keep the company going. They are completely replaceable. True talent will find comparable work elsewhere. Did the best minds of our generation really pick MBA over PhD or MD?

by
|
Post ID: @ngn+17WHCa9m

Do any current employees even give a c-ap? I for one could care less intel provides me a paycheck until the day it doesnt at which point i go elsewhere. Intel care ls little for employees so employees like me care less about Intel. The corp world today and the world companies built.

by
|
Post ID: @jzs+17WHCa9m

ironically, the refusal of Intel to engineer iPhone chips followed right on the heels of the Willamette/Prescott super pipelining debacle. One might have thought that the company would have seen the future and been willing to hedge its bets on smart technology devices, seeing as how the iPod had been such a success.

by
|
Post ID: @ano+17WHCa9m

The finance organization at intel has been given a significantly large role over the years in setting company’s direction and strategy. While intel was riding the PC market as a monopoly, there was less pressure on technical as well as BU talent. There is no true business leaders, product managers at intel. What we have in BUs are go to market people. If you give them a product, they know how to launch it, do press releases and events.

With Paul becoming CEO and Andy as chairman, the influence of the finance org became even more significant. Now, we have two CFOs running the company one as CFO and the other became the CEO.

Of course, Finance has no technology knowledge and insights but based on Intel’s history, finance people are each GMs right hand man and try to drive strategy. It is a nightmare. People from finance also moved to other business positions, first becoming TAs and then GMs. I.e. Lisa S.

by
|
Post ID: @suq+17WHCa9m

yep, in many ways it has been turf wars that doomed Intel; engineering sites scattered all over kingdom come .. at cross purposes. I saw this all the way back in the mid 90's with eye rolling occurring when some combative sites were mentioned, and witnessed the combat at lower levels, more than a few times.

by
|
Post ID: @snf+17WHCa9m

The Chairman of the Board is from Healthcare industry. Not many semiconductor veterans on the Board. Intel's Board is a joke.

by
|
Post ID: @ulw+17WHCa9m

Steve Jobs take on the innovator's dilemma through the lens of Xerox/PARC about 20 years ago. Instead of "toner heads," we have x86 heads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBjNmXvqIM

Pretty ironic that Andy was close to Clayton, but he didn't even see that he was sowing the seeds of mediocrity himself by grooming people like Otellini and BK (no, BK with a BS from SJSU was not an engineer's engineer).

And setting up low cost "remote" enclaves that would sequester the talent so Intel wouldn't have to compete to attract the best talent. Of course Intel, Apple, Google, and others engaged in the anti-poaching collusion that artificially kept engineering salaries low. But once the lawsuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation) was settled in 2013 AND new players like FB and the sharing economy startups started poaching from Google with higher salaries, Apple, Google and others recalibrated and went all in for the battle for talent by bidding up. Intel was one conspicuous actor that decided not to get in the bidding war, instead doubling down on lower cost geos and lower cost H1Bs. I knew talented PhDs that worked on 10nm in PTD. They got out in 2015, when they saw that things were going FUBAR and that they were getting paid sh– to be sequestered and on call in Hillsboro.

by
|
Post ID: @aan+17WHCa9m

I have posted this topic here a few times.

If any company knows the power of volume and incremental improvement to take down the incumbent it would be intel.

Now PSO and BK and the Fellows or Senior VPs for got is beyond me.

X86 starting with the 8088 s—ed and how did it with intel’s terrible process technology conquer it all? They beat IBM, Motorola, DEC and all those other superior architecture and superior process by taking that huge PC good enough and riding that volume to invest in technology and fast cadence and what happened they know rule the servers, cloud and client.

But the management as well as technologists lacked any courage, vision, or advocating leadership on the process nor design side.

Cal it greed, arrogance or stupidity, as someone there I can say all three were factors in every technology and product decision.

PSO as a business student really should have recalled how x86 won and saw the ARMy coming, he failed and sold off all the mobile, communications and StrongARM. Intel had it all as CRB left to dominate and be Qualcomm, Intel and Apple supplier and this TSMC too. TSMC is like Intel when a device integrator hands you the golden goose. TSMC had Apple choose them just like IBM chose Intel.

All this was squandered by PSO and then you had BK, what a joke he of the gimmicks like drones and such. BS isn’t any better, he has no clue and nobody on the Board has a clue.

Sad to see the American icon, inventor of the IC and so much more fail for the last 15 years.

There is little chance for their recovery, perhaps with huge subsidies and protection from the US government and complete replacement of senior management, a total FUBAR

by
|
Post ID: @iuu+17WHCa9m

I have a theory about why turf wars like this happens: the more successful and wealthy an entity, the greater opportunity there is for a manager to take wealth instead of make it. When you’re sc-appy and broke, the only path to success is to make the company successful.

When the company is rich and multitudinous, an individual can gain more from politics and turf wars rather than actually trying to push an already high enterprise value higher. The “maker:taker” opportunity ratio changes, and so does the type of personality the organization attracts.

by
|
Post ID: @nxs+17WHCa9m

As someone who worked on Intel's phone chip: we definitely didn't win it. We f—ed it up twelve ways to Sunday. Why: giant egos. There were turf wars between Austin, Santa Clara and Israel over who would design it, and the team that won out had long since lost its best principle engineers and had no clue how to spin the architecture to meet the design win.

Otellini's hindsight hedge is pure spin: we knew the landing zone, we just didn't know how to get there. And the aforementioned turf war guaranteed we didn't get access to other teams' talent. I'm bitter because it was a really fun team when I moved from Motorola to Intel Austin, and then it just corroded over political battles.

by
|
Post ID: @clo+17WHCa9m

Post a reply

: