Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Techs, are you ok with being wage slaves forever? There is no stock for you anymore if the company does great you get a tiny APB, if the profit goes up you get a tiny slice of the profit in QPB, if the stock goes up, say like nvidia, everyone around you becomes millionaires and you’re still a peon.

@ft+1jkxbbkxq Just another example of China using state subsidies to drive out competition.

We should not do any trade with a communist country. They will never, ever allow free and fair trade.

Their goal is to dominate the world, making the rest of the world part of their prison society.

So what.. all the CPU GRADE SILICON comes from china. The US cannot source enough of it to sustain,"US only" CPU or GPU or processor production. Add to that those US only plants have legal binding contracts to use China silicon and produce CPUs,GPUs and other processer types for OUT OF COUNTRY customers ..

This whole thing is a huge scam..

Google > "mining-and-refining-pure-silicon-and-the-incredible-effort-it-takes-to-get-there" "silicon production by country statista" "low-on-gas-ukraine-invasion-chokes-supply-of-neon-needed-for-chipmaking" <- arstechnica website

U.S. Remains Painfully Dependent on China for Silicon and Solar Panels https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/US-Remains-Painfully-Dependent-on-China-for-Silicon-and-Solar-Panels.html

@cf+1jkxbbkxq Read the news. The US just announced reciprocal tariffs to offset the tariffs, VAT tax and subsidies that the rest of the world placed on US exports.

The TSMC profit margin is largely due to those things.

Taiwan is not the worst offender but all the countries affected are stealing growth from the US.

The tariffs help to level that playing field, then we will see which country is innovating and which has been merely stealing.

You really don't want to be invested in the wrong country.

@cf+1jkxbbkxq Products does not overpay for IFS wafers. Choosing TSMC was not about wafer cost but about the need to be on leading node, in order to compete with AMD, and try not to lose more market share to ARM developers (good luck with that).

In the split, if anything, IFS took a hit on costs and that is part of why it still shows losses.

I think that was intentional, so that Products could more quickly get to the target profit margin, and IFS would eat losses which can be explained as getting back to lead node.

In the past the wafer cost was elevated, largely due to how the fabs served the needs of the product divisions. Leave No Wafer Behind was the goal, back when the company dominated the markets it served. That's gone and not coming back for x86.

@ba+1jkxbbkxq At this point, IFS is NEGATIVE value to INTC stock. It's huge money loser, and enormous cash hog on capex spending. If it wasn't for Intel Products paying an overpriced cost for wafers, IFS would look really terrible. Pat called out TMG/IFS by questioning why does TMG/IFS manufacturing costs are higher than TSMCs wafer costs... and that includes TSMC having 60% margins on their products (and better product yields).

This would only work if they flush out 99.9% of IFS existing managers and anyone there for over six months. Otherwise, TSMC is just bringing a cancer into their own work culture when those employees go back to TSMC (and see how lazy and inefficient Intel employees are, and can get away with it).

Stupidest take ever

If they do spin off into a new company will Intel shareholders get stock? They didn't get stock on MobileEye. They may do the same thing again and say ot is a completely separate company so they shareholders need to buy stock in the new company

@b4+1jkxbbkxq TD certainly could use some mass layoffs.

Not sure Finance makes a difference and they were slashed quite a bit in this last season of Hunger Games. They have been trying to get out of the consulting business, but Ops keeps dragging them back in.

TSMC would almost certainly stop these wasteful management practices, of always wanting to have enough data to make perfect decisions, because:

A. There are no perfect decisions.
B. They end up biasing the decisions anyway, in favor of overcapacity and all the headcount and tools that come with that base assumption.

TSMC doesn't have the layers of management or bloated fab engineering that still exist at Intel, and I think Tom Caufield would be totally onboard with transitioning to a far more lean organizational structure.

Saves a lot of cost and enables greater velocity.

The current Fab and TD structure is a bloated remnant of IDM 1.0, where fab was run as a loss leader, to serve Product groups with all the wafers they could ever want.

That's gone. Let it go.

If TSMC can fire all of IFS leadership, and IFS Finance... and put some competent people in there... INTC would be $60 a share min. If it wasn't for the IFS dead weight, while Intel Design isn't great, they are profitable as a standalone business.

It is a shame if actually happens.

It makes sense for Intel but not for TSMC unless Trump force them to do so.
Have fun working for Chinese bosses, a lot of them might be ex-Intel.

Baird perhaps looks for the same things in their analysts as intel look for in its VPs, they should be able to to shoot sh-t in the air while making it look like droplets of wisdom.

TSMC will buy all Intel fabs in America with the US governments approval. Leave the keys on the bench and turn off the lights when you leave.

TSMC ceo already said publicly: No, No, No.

@a7+1jkxbbkxq True that the older fabs are 'special' but starting with 18A the fabs are aligned with industry standard design tools, so shouldn't be too much of a transition although I'm sure some senior PEs have insisted on making some of the tools 'special', so would be retired.

JVs are often a mess, just look at the IBM and GF troubles, but both TSMC and Intel have motivation to make it work, and the rumors about Tom Caufield fit well with the idea that Foundry will be spun off and he would be the CEO of the JV, as he has been through all the troubles at GF.

Could see him sell the older fabs to GF, then lead the JV with the newer fabs, as I doubt TSMC wants to have anything to do with the 'special' non-EUV fabs.

Intel couldn't even buy Tower Semi, I guess a JV doesn't need approval. But good luck to TSMC modernizing Intel systems, that sounds like an 18 month churn with no progress until they figure they should just junk all Intel systems and bring in their own.

This is quite a foolish proposition, Intel fabs aren't designed to bkm standards or using the latest and great tools, CE! ensures they only run obsolete tools and processes. Intel would just be a weight on TSMC, faster and cheaper to build and bring their own tools and buildings then take the albatross that is Intel onboard.