Quote from: Real NikoB on August 03, 2024, 11:26:25Not at all, fool.

Finally someone baited this retard into leaking his age.

Almost no company outlives 2 human lives with an average lifespan of 80 years. Fun fact...

Quote from: Werewolf on August 02, 2024, 23:55:24Intel is older than you.

Not at all, fool. What did you mean by this? A lot of companies with a hundred-year history have already disappeared. History proves that no company is eternal and its heyday always falls on the creative layer of its first creators. When they leave they quickly turn into zombie companies, with very few exceptions. It's just that the speed of their oblivion depends on the initially acquired market niche and geopolitical weight. As soon as these terms disappear, the company is finished. Intel will disappear like another zombie company by now.

Quote from: NikoB (old nik bl) on August 02, 2024, 22:48:40And naturally, all large TNCs, as soon as they find a rich market niche, immediately acquire crowds of "workers", in fact parasites, who do little or even pretend to do something. Nepotism and corruption begin to flourish. The roots gradually rot and such a company dies, despite its seemingly overwhelming market share.

Intel is older than you.

Quote from: GeorgeS on August 02, 2024, 18:18:05While these folks are much much less expensive then people that may actually know how to do anything they end up spending their first few years at Intel 'reinventing the wheel' by continually proving that ideas and methods that did not work decades ago are still not viable while they and whatever staff that actually is competent grows frustrated over the waste of resources and effort required to actually get ANYTHING done.

Valuable people are an extremely delicate mental matter - destroying such people is elementary. It is impossible to return the destroyed back and it is not even a matter of physically returning to the company - a mentally killed higher creative intellect, in principle, is not returned to any company if it was treated badly in one of them. This is even worse than "burnout".

Modern companies destroy both the "fertile soil" for such people and themselves. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are fewer and fewer valuable personnel, and greedy managers are chasing them more and more fiercely, fighting with each other, not understanding the main thing, because they are stupid...

One has only to go through the human backbone with vandalism methods of the next upstart manager and that's it - the company will have to deal with the consequences (at best) for a decade or more.

And naturally, all large TNCs, as soon as they find a rich market niche, immediately acquire crowds of "workers", in fact parasites, who do little or even pretend to do something. Nepotism and corruption begin to flourish. The roots gradually rot and such a company dies, despite its seemingly overwhelming market share.

It is impossible to fire valuable employees in such numbers - this means they are of little value. But then why were they in the company in such numbers?

Everyone knows that in teams, at most 15-20% of workers really pull the strap and create. The rest are extra baggage...

Honestly, they ought to go much much deeper than a mere %15. :)

First: in a capitalistic world where time + materials = product many western companies have turned to 'outsourcing' and 'contract labor' in attempts to control the human costs of 'time'.

Until Pat recently changed the policy Intel was famous for having entire armies of 'contractors' working at their facilities vs actual employee's of Intel. The reasoning was two fold: the outsource companies BID to be allowed to place their workers at Intel thereby reducing the labor costs and via an accounting 'trick' staffing was deemed 'project related expense' vs 'overhead' and could be brought on and let go at will WITHOUT any reporting of 'staffing changes' as Intel's actual head count was unaffected.

In a historically classic case Microsoft got caught doing the same thing wherein 'contractors' worked side-by-side actual Microsoft workers for years and 'sued' and WON in court that they actually were Microsoft employee's. Since THAT decision most companies (including Intel) now have the '18 month' rule where contractors can only work 18 out of 24 months at a Intel campus.

Secondly: is the NCG revolving door at Intel where in attempts to keep 'professional costs' down and have 'new blood' to spur 'innovation' there is a constant stream of new college graduates filling the halls at Intel campuses.
While these folks are much much less expensive then people that may actually know how to do anything they end up spending their first few years at Intel 'reinventing the wheel' by continually proving that ideas and methods that did not work decades ago are still not viable while they and whatever staff that actually is competent grows frustrated over the waste of resources and effort required to actually get ANYTHING done.

Considering their ultimate 'product' is the 'chips' they make, they have an overly inflated staff attempting to do their customers jobs for them. (IE: design products with Intel chips)

Say capitalization ONE MORE TIME.  I dare you.

Also come to the dark side and register an account. We don't bite.

Quote from: NikoB (old nme bl) on August 02, 2024, 14:06:36Long term investors with 401k plans don't care about your stupid stock speculator calculations.

And it's the reason why you have to stop pretending you understand stock market.

Quote from: Gibi on August 02, 2024, 14:03:16Bullshit analytics.

Long term investors with 401k plans don't care about your stupid stock speculator calculations.

Quote from: NikoB (old nam bl) on August 02, 2024, 13:52:40Intel shares cost almost $60 at the end of 1999, and now cost less than $30

Bullshit analytics. They were 60 in 1999, then 30 from 2001 to 2017, then 50 in 2018-2022, then 30, then 50, then 30.
You've cherry-picked two data points and built a whole "theory" on it.

Quote from: Hotz on August 02, 2024, 12:52:08A simplistic calculation like $10.000.000.000 / 15.000 = $666.666 per employee/year is... surreal. Wow.

Not at all, considering taxes and related expenses. This figure is a bit overstated, but not absurd.

The loss of human capital due to stupid greedy managers in the leadership and such stupid and greedy key beneficiaries has led to the fact that Intel's capitalization is currently 2 times lower than the capitalization of its own antitrust gasket - AMD and more than 20 times lower than the capitalization of M$, their once main partner in the x86 market.

Intel shares cost almost $60 at the end of 1999, and now cost less than $30, i.e. investors have lost 80% of the value of their portfolios in real dollars of 1999 in 25 years, if they had bought their shares at the peak of the dot-com boom of the 90s.

In general, their chart increasingly resembles another world disgrace - shares of the Russian Gazprom, whose management promised investors $1 trillion in capitalization in 2008, and now this disgrace is not worth even 1/10 of the real capitalization of 2008 in 2008 dollars, when it cost almost 3 times more than the current capitalization of Intel and even significantly more expensive than the current capitalization of AMD. Only theft and corruption in Gazprom are the talk of the town, as is the use of the company in geopolitical games, and what about Intel from the "free world", how could they be so stupid, greedy and destroy the entire human potential of the company?

---
How low must those, I won't point fingers, stubbornly create fake registered accounts for all my new (forced through their fault) unregistered nicknames fall?

Quote from: DEIntel on August 02, 2024, 13:36:15Maybe get rid of that bloated DEI sector

That's exactly what they are doing

Pat is doing a great job. Maybe get rid of that bloated DEI sector? Once all thise senior engineers were systematically replaced in the last decade and a half by DEI hires, the company gradually lost its edge. Now the problems have become deep rooted. Good luck Pat.

Quote from: Snake_2024 on August 02, 2024, 13:25:15Nobody is going to buy an Intel.

Reality - 63% of x86 laptops sold in 2024 are Intel, 33% AMD.

The problem is not the employees, the problem is that nobody trusts Intel, especially when the last two generations of Intel Core 13 and Core 14 burn out every year. This is a disgrace. Nobody trusts buying an Intel laptop, and even less a tablet or ultrabook. Add to that the 5 years in which they slept with the 10mm++++++ and add to that the high temperatures close to 100ºC and to top it off, last year INTEL WAS CAUGHT CHEATING IN THE TESTS. Nobody is going to buy an Intel.
And to top it off, the government has invested more than $10,000,000,000 and to this you add the expected layoffs.
I honestly wouldn't buy Intel right now, especially when AMD has released Zen 5s that have a higher performance of almost 40% compared to Zen 4