4 ms·
Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of th
by synergy20 2y ago
Intel is 1/3 of AMD by market cap but 6x the employee, that's 18x difference. If QCOM takes over INTC, they might need let a LOT go to revamp it, like 80% of them.
- tazu 2y agoLetting 80% go seems to have worked for X.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y agoIf by worked you mean "the site isn't dead", yes. If you mean more "profitable", I don't think that's true, is it?
- tazu 2y agoSetting aside the political reasons for less advertising revenue, it's still running and there are 200M DAU. Many ex-employees swore the servers would catch fire by now.
- richbell 2y ago> Many ex-employees swore the servers would catch fire by now. They've 'caught on fire' many times, such as the time login/2fa broke, or the weeks/months where you were rate-limited to only a few hundred interactions per day.
- seba_dos1 2y agoJudging by how unreliable it has been ever since, there's likely constant firefighting going on.
- Andrew_nenakhov 2y agoCan't confirm. It works for me just as well as it did in 2022.
- ksec 2y agoNot my experience at all. It is faster and has slightly more feature since.
- mcphage 2y agoIt really doesn’t work well. But it has the advantage in that, if some messages just don’t appear… well, you don’t really notice.
- brigadier132 2y agoThat has nothing to do with letting go staff and everything to do with the owner.
- rbanffy 2y agoLetting go staff has everything with the owner though.
- pasttense01 2y agoWrong. A substantial number of advertisers dropped X.com because it isn't brand safe (for example their ads are located next to racist or Nazi or pornographic content). A substantial number of the staff let go were involved in keeping the site brand safe.
- nadist 2y agoGoogle also should not show x.com on search engine as its another social media platform, it has nothing to do for ranking
- ryoshu 2y agoLet go of 80% of workers and 84% of revenue. Brilliant.
- bdcravens 2y agoAren't the two disconnected? The revenue lost is a result of advertisers not wanting to be connected to Musk's politics. Downsizing isn't what caused that.
- tester756 2y agoYou can't tell easily without informations from inside.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think it is fairly easy to tell when advertisers publicly pulled out and gave a very explicit explanation.
- ryoshu 2y agoMusk got rid of the people who owned the relationships with the brands and agencies that drove the ad revenue. Burning those relationships plus getting rid of content moderators made sure advertisers were very skeptical of being on the platform. Then there's the GARM lawsuit causing that tiny org to shut down, suing another non-profit for point out brand safety issues, etc. It was Musk's actions.
- bdcravens 2y agoI thought the advertisers pulling out was more a direct result of the tweets he posted or liked. Perhaps those relationships were strained already due to what you've pointed out, but I don't know that those employees could have made a difference in relation to those posts.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y agoCongrats. You completely fabricated a history to fit your world view.
- EasyMark 2y agoLetting go of 80%of intel’s employees and the company is dead in weeks other than a skeleton crew of lawyers, bean counters, and top level execs stuffing their golden parachutes with maximum parachute.
- ywvcbk 2y agoTwitter is just a relatively simple website, though. They aren’t doing anything particularly complex or innovative and aren’t releasing any new products. It could survive for years in maintenance mode as long as people continue using it.
- Dalewyn 2y agoIt's not happening though, an acquisition of Intel means the end of x86 due to cross-licensing terms between Intel and AMD which stipulate they all terminate upon either party being acquired. Granted, Qualcomm has interests in ARM so this might actually be what they want: Embrace, No Extending, Extinguish.
- chasil 2y agoAMD developed the 64-bit instruction set, so perhaps they could keep it. I'm sure there would be plenty of lawfare, though.
- Dalewyn 2y agoIntel and AMD literally cannot manufacture x86 CPUs without the other, their cross-licensing and dependencies go both ways beyond amd64. If Qualcomm somehow actually convinces Intel to sell, that means Intel is immediately out of business because all they (could) make are x86 CPUs. AMD would likewise become a zombie overnight with only their Radeon GPUs remaining on their catalog. It's far more likely for AMD to come and bail Intel out if things really came to that. What's embarassing about this is that Qualcomm could actually go and ask Intel if they're selling without it sounding like a complete joke. That signifies how far Intel has fallen, Qualcomm trolled Intel and actually got away with it.
- Mountain_Skies 2y agoHighly likely that anti-trust regulators would make licensing of x86 a requirement for letting the deal go through.
- icedchai 2y agoYou know agreements can be amended, right? Nothing is set in stone when big money is involved.
- Dalewyn 2y agoWhoever wants to buy out Intel needs to convince both Intel and AMD that the subsequent arrangement will be better than the monopoly-but-not-a-monopoly they enjoy today. I'm willing to bet AMD would sooner spend money bailing Intel out to keep that going first before entertaining thoughts about sharing their cake.
- high_na_euv 2y agoIntel has this many ppl because they are like AMD+TSMC 76k+26k=102k
- NAHWheatCracker 2y agoAMD+TSMC revenue was almost $100 billion in 2023. Intel was $54 billion. They shouldn't have 20k more people with half the revenue.
- phonon 2y agoIt was $79 Billion in 2021...
- DeepYogurt 2y agoAMD is arguably understaffed though. They're executing well with design, but system integration, software, and support are all still lacking. ex. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amd-laptop-oems-decry-poor-164949791.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amd-laptop-oems-decry-poor-16...
- yieldcrv 2y agoAcquisitions often involve trimming the fat