These are only the first rounds of many and cost cutting is the priority. Fastest way to cut cost is to chop people. Political do-nothing favorites for now may survive. But the new owners expect a higher return on this investment. Pressures to be profitable will increase. This is all about financial return on the investment and financial performance. It isn't enough for a product to make money. It has to meet the new owernship's expected return, and be worthwhile in terms of company risk. Some product groups think they're quite profitable. In the larger scheme of things, their niche and revenue stream may be so nominal relative to the larger picture, they aren't worth the use of the assets.
The more pressure to be profitable, the more managers will have to choose between their own survival and that of their political do-nothings. Feelings and sentiment will in the end mean very little, and you will be amazed by the sharp increase in blame and backstabbing. Some non-performers always survive, but if you you have any dignity yourself, you build your professional experience and move to the next opportunity and leave this muck to its own destiny.
Ironically, a lot of discussion on this board has revolved around non-financial issues, like sympathy and caring, while the product itself provides data to make sound impersonal financial decisions. The products themselves help managers make decisions on whether to expand or contract in markets, including eliminating staff for profitability. The new owners are just following these same financial investment principles of profitability and return on investment.
Have to say that I agree with @VPwlkb7-2uej 100%. In my book, this post needs to be a thread on its own