6 ms·

Ex-Intel perspective: There is also a lot of work that needs to be done at Intel which requires mediocre engineers by the thousands. Intel does pay well to thei

Ex-Intel perspective: There is also a lot of work that needs to be done at Intel which requires mediocre engineers by the thousands. Intel does pay well to their top engineers which climb up in the ranks. The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. For every top engineer, you need 20 minions to execute. Folks who think otherwise haven’t really worked in a large company. In the words of Jim Keller - “It’s craftsman’s work. It’s fun.”

mywittyname 6y ago
> Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. Intel is replaceable.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  Sorry, I’m not sure if I follow your point? Basically, I was saying that top-engineers are irreplaceable but they need replaceable engineers to execute menial, boring, repetitive work. There is a lot of this to be done.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    His point is, when you go from being practically the only game in town in 2014, to being a joke-ass also-ran "competitor" being trounced by the underdog processor company[0] who damn near went bankrupt and had to sell their fab just to stay afloat; and when your two biggest allies 1) make their own System-on-a-Chip that fucking slaughters your best offerings in a ton of benchmarks and real world tests, and also does it on 1/4th the power[1] and 2) is actively working with another company to also make their own System-on-a-Chip that you can be damn sure will also go into, not only their premium tablet and laptop line, but likely also their cloud service division [2], you had better shape your ass up with a quickness and do whatever you need to do before you end up a footnote of history. [0] - AMD [1] - Apple [2] - Microsoft
    - fermienrico 6y ago
      This feels like a distraction from what I was driving at. Whether it’s Intel, AMD, etc. any large company needs a lot of work to be done. You don’t need top engineers for that.
      - cbozeman 6y ago
        > You don’t need top engineers for that. Top-tier companies have to pay top-tier compensation.
        astrange 6y ago
        Unethical companies have to pay top-tier compensation. You don't have to pay Google/FB bucks if you don't have sex scandals and employee retaliations in the news every day, or if the students you're recruiting don't think you're brainwashing their grandparents.
        Infinitesimus 6y ago
        That's a very weak idea and unhelpful. Many companies pay excellently and aren't even connected to advertising. If you are/become a leader, this mentality can seriously hurt your org. Pay for the talent you want to attract and keep. Pay generously for performance.
      - cambalache 6y ago
        You are confusing "top" engineers/employees with top-technical employees, that is not the same at all. If you staff a company with geniuses in R&D and gray mediocrities in all the other departments I am pretty sure you know what will happen. You want great CAD designers, PM, QA, logistics, marketing people? Pay them accordingly and not like mediocrities.It is pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
        FuckButtons 6y ago
        Either that or he is unwittingly expressing the underlying problem with intel's corporate culture that got them into this mess.
  - mywittyname 6y ago
    Hiding in those pools of 'replaceable' engineers are the next generation of top-level engineers. Intel seems to have failed to recognize that fact and now have become as replaceable as their employees are. Having a boring or menial job is not an indictment of a person's potential or capabilities.
Chyzwar 6y ago
I saw these first-hand armies of cheap contractors that cannot deliver anything. In the meantime your neglected supporting software/infrastructure slow you down. Intel had enough money to get the best engineers on every level. Lower turnover and better and cheaper to maintain software. Instead, they choose to save money QA they got spectre saga. Intel saved on latest process and not used EUV and could not deliver 10nm at all.
baybal2 6y ago
> The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. You just named all specialist who would get N-times the salary outside of the industry. That's the problem of the industry. A man who can "just write a CAD plugin" in semi industry would probable be an instant senior hire in any CAD vendor. A mid-level semi PM would be a senior PM, GM level manager, or a COO anywhere else. Analog IC designer is by default a top-tier EE. A fab "junior technician" is likely an engineering, or physics master, or more likely a PhD in Taiwan. And so on, and on.
astrange 6y ago
All of these people can and do make outsize contributions to the company if you let them, because people don't only do their jobs. (They can also do outsize harm if you let them, I suppose.)
js8 6y ago
> The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. I think this is a very elitist mindset that unfortunately many people have. To me engineering is primarily a learning process on how to build better tools. And you can probably always build a more suitable tool on top of existing tool. So saying, this is "boring work", that requires "just minions" is akin to saying that the existing tools cannot be improved, or people who use these tools cannot figure out a way to improve them themselves, they need to be told by somebody.

mywittyname 6y ago

> Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. Intel is replaceable.

fermienrico 6y ago
Sorry, I’m not sure if I follow your point? Basically, I was saying that top-engineers are irreplaceable but they need replaceable engineers to execute menial, boring, repetitive work. There is a lot of this to be done.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  His point is, when you go from being practically the only game in town in 2014, to being a joke-ass also-ran "competitor" being trounced by the underdog processor company[0] who damn near went bankrupt and had to sell their fab just to stay afloat; and when your two biggest allies 1) make their own System-on-a-Chip that fucking slaughters your best offerings in a ton of benchmarks and real world tests, and also does it on 1/4th the power[1] and 2) is actively working with another company to also make their own System-on-a-Chip that you can be damn sure will also go into, not only their premium tablet and laptop line, but likely also their cloud service division [2], you had better shape your ass up with a quickness and do whatever you need to do before you end up a footnote of history. [0] - AMD [1] - Apple [2] - Microsoft
  - fermienrico 6y ago
    This feels like a distraction from what I was driving at. Whether it’s Intel, AMD, etc. any large company needs a lot of work to be done. You don’t need top engineers for that.
    - cbozeman 6y ago
      > You don’t need top engineers for that. Top-tier companies have to pay top-tier compensation.
      - astrange 6y ago
        Unethical companies have to pay top-tier compensation. You don't have to pay Google/FB bucks if you don't have sex scandals and employee retaliations in the news every day, or if the students you're recruiting don't think you're brainwashing their grandparents.
        Infinitesimus 6y ago
        That's a very weak idea and unhelpful. Many companies pay excellently and aren't even connected to advertising. If you are/become a leader, this mentality can seriously hurt your org. Pay for the talent you want to attract and keep. Pay generously for performance.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      You are confusing "top" engineers/employees with top-technical employees, that is not the same at all. If you staff a company with geniuses in R&D and gray mediocrities in all the other departments I am pretty sure you know what will happen. You want great CAD designers, PM, QA, logistics, marketing people? Pay them accordingly and not like mediocrities.It is pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
      - FuckButtons 6y ago
        Either that or he is unwittingly expressing the underlying problem with intel's corporate culture that got them into this mess.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Hiding in those pools of 'replaceable' engineers are the next generation of top-level engineers. Intel seems to have failed to recognize that fact and now have become as replaceable as their employees are. Having a boring or menial job is not an indictment of a person's potential or capabilities.

Chyzwar 6y ago

I saw these first-hand armies of cheap contractors that cannot deliver anything. In the meantime your neglected supporting software/infrastructure slow you down. Intel had enough money to get the best engineers on every level. Lower turnover and better and cheaper to maintain software. Instead, they choose to save money QA they got spectre saga. Intel saved on latest process and not used EUV and could not deliver 10nm at all.

baybal2 6y ago

> The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. You just named all specialist who would get N-times the salary outside of the industry. That's the problem of the industry. A man who can "just write a CAD plugin" in semi industry would probable be an instant senior hire in any CAD vendor. A mid-level semi PM would be a senior PM, GM level manager, or a COO anywhere else. Analog IC designer is by default a top-tier EE. A fab "junior technician" is likely an engineering, or physics master, or more likely a PhD in Taiwan. And so on, and on.

astrange 6y ago

All of these people can and do make outsize contributions to the company if you let them, because people don't only do their jobs. (They can also do outsize harm if you let them, I suppose.)

js8 6y ago

> The engineer working on CAD, layout, specs, RFQs, Suppliers, Equipment, etc are hardly going to revolutionize anything. Their work is valuable but they’re entirely replaceable. I think this is a very elitist mindset that unfortunately many people have. To me engineering is primarily a learning process on how to build better tools. And you can probably always build a more suitable tool on top of existing tool. So saying, this is "boring work", that requires "just minions" is akin to saying that the existing tools cannot be improved, or people who use these tools cannot figure out a way to improve them themselves, they need to be told by somebody.