this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
493 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

73878 readers
3662 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yarr@feddit.nl 23 points 1 day ago

The problems at Intel haven't even begun. When a big company does layoffs like that, there's a certain amount of institutional knowledge that just evaporates.

There are going to be a large amount of dropped balls at Intel and this is just one of them.

Sadly, I think instead of the market responding and Intel going under, Intel will mutate into a government subsidized technology company. At least for the present moment, they serve as an example of what could be domestic manufacturing.

To me, their attitudes strongly resemble Blackberry just prior to the iPhone coming out. They have a certain amount of arrogance and are resting on past glories. It's pretty clear that just cranking up the wattage and shipping a new product isn't a path they can walk forever.

It's a shame that Intel was actually on a plan to get things fixed up. Their former CEO pay Gelsinger had told them they had to endure some years of pain before things would be better. Unfortunately, the board was not so tolerant and kicked him out before the plan was fully realized.

Their board has some really questionable members on it too, so all around not a very good situation. Probably the only thing in Intel's favor is that starting a new microprocessor company isn't just something you do in the basement, so they have some room to turn the ship around.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Coretemp and Ethernet. Also a few years ago the guy that maintained meshcentral (the only reason to pay extra $$$ for having Intel vPro compatibile computers in the workspace)

Basically this tells their biggest customers "next server needs to be based on AMD epyc"

How much money they could possibly "save" with those THREE salaries? Just cut one week of travel with private jet for the C class and the same savings are served

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 19 hours ago

Mass layoffs are never done in a thoughtful way. It's often the C-suite telling each division "cut x number of staff underneath you". That order is filtered down through layers of management until it gets to the people who do actual work. If they're lucky, they can negotiate some room on their team with one or two layers of management above them, but it just means another team underneath the same management layer is getting hit that much more.

Remember that when a CEO says "we had to make the hard but necessary decision". All that asshole had to do was say "cut 10,000 people" and filter that order down the stack. All the actual hard decisions were made far, far away from the board of directors.

[–] Cocopanda@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

But how else is the CEO going to cheat on his wife? Cold play concerts are def out of the picture now.

[–] Fedditor385@lemmy.world 89 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, their chips become unsuitable for enterprise servers. Datacenters avoiding them and buying AMD. Intel losing enterprise market share and revenue. Reduced revenue causes next layoffs, probably again people working on things that keep the business working. Shoots itself in the foot and being surprised about the consequences.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 2 days ago (20 children)

And AMD becoming a monopoly, nice, nice world

[–] Keyboard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 130 points 2 days ago (11 children)

IMO, Intel is circling the drain and will die without intervention. And their death will have some pretty crazy ramifications.

If the US had competent leaders, they’d realize Intel was important to global security, and they’d come up with some sort of way to break up the fab and design business.

No one wants to send their designs to Intel’s fab because they don’t want Intel to copy their homework. That’s why Intel’s design competitors use TSMC. And TSMC scales faster because of increased money and experience.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Trump's 100% tariffs on chips made outside the USA is puzzling. It it an attempt to force Intel, who do make chips in the USA, to become more competitive just through bullying everyone? Or does he know it will just cause more trouble and is he trying to drive Intel into the ground for revenge because they took Biden's money? Why is he also demanding that Intel's CEO resign? Does none of it make sense because Trump is a crazy old narcissist who has lost touch with reality and is now losing his mind?

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

there is no real rationale. Trump is all impulse, no long range thinking/planning.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

The tariff thing just shows that Trump doesn’t understand why people use TSMC. TSMC doesn’t have a brand of chips that they sell, and they can’t copy your designs.

Companies don’t manufacture with Intel because Intel isn’t just their manufacturer, it’s their competitor. Also, Intel’s fab is now behind the curve. It literally can’t manufacture some of the shit Apple and Nvidia want.

Trump sees a rash and is prescribing cortisone cream. But the skin irritation is from melanoma.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Trump loooves to take action. Coherent plan or direction is irrelevant.

Good luck US, still some to go.

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right? Good Luck America. FAFO.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Point 3 of Umberto Eco’s traits of ur-fascism.

Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Goering’s alleged statement (“When I hear talk of culture I reach for my gun”) to the frequent use of such expressions as “degenerate intellectuals,” “eggheads,” “effete snobs,” “universities are a nest of reds.” The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BD89@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 2 days ago (4 children)

When I got a new desktop PC this year I specifically avoided anything with Intel in it because of how bad they dropped the ball with their GPUs basically disintegrating.

This is just a small glimpse into how Intel is breaking down from the inside. It may take a few years but if the US government doesn't intervene somehow on their behalf I truly think Intel might be done for in the next 5 years.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 17 hours ago

Arent their dGPU supposed to be pretty good?

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But if history is any indicator, they will. "Too big to fail!"

What's crazy is, people will say "See how capitalism fails us?" when that is socialized capitalism. The government should not be bailing out any companies. If they can't survive without government money, they don't need to exist.

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

socialized capitalism

I think I understand your complaint, but I'd say "free market" rather than "capitalism". But regardless of what we call it, it doesn't actually exist unless you have a more powerful external system regulating it.

Start with a truly free-market capitalist system. One company manages to temporarily pull ahead (through luck and skill). The rational thing for the company to do isn't "make better products" (that's hard) but "destroy competing companies" (much easier). And the end-product would be that the company becomes a government so it can force consumers to pay.

So I'd argue that socialized capitalism (which I'm picturing as a socialist system that permits certain specific free markets and handles the fallout of business failures) is what you actually want.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not exactly. And larger companies simply CANT destroy competition without assistance from the government.

If you are free to choose what to buy, and who to buy it from, you can choose to buy from the startup. You can choose to buy from the guy running a business out of the back of his pickup. Or out of his garage. Or any number of options.

Problem is, right now we have our government enabling monopolies. Propping up failing, or non-profitable businesses by making it illegal to do business without spending millions or more on regulations that seem good on the surface, but when you start to dig into them, you see the vast majority of them were actually pushed by the big name businesses to stifle competition.

Our wallets should be the only regulation. Would you willingly buy products from a company that doesn't respect the environment? No? Well guess what! That's the power of the free market.

There's, right now, a hybrid truck manufacturer in Canada that is staring down the barrel of excessive regulations that will limit their ability to build hybrid semi trucks.

How many other would-be entrepreneurs simply don't even bother trying because there's no way they can afford it?

How many small 1 to 2 person businesses would be in existence right now to compete with all these large companies?

[–] Mniot@programming.dev 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.

So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

It's odd that you think it's fundamental to capitalism when it's exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.

What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.

You may think that's an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.

You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.

What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.

Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.

Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn't get us here.

History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same. Intel and Nvidia are both on the boycott list.

As great as AMD is right now, I still don’t want them to become a monopoly. The fact that we have a duopoly is already a major problem.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe we can dig up VIA and get a new Cyrix CPU.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

It's time for Voodoo to make a triumphant return!

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Imagine if x86-64 got blown open because of it? Might literally be the best thing to happen to computing in like 40 years.

Really fuckin' doubt it'll happen, but a girl can dream XP

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The base x86-64 patents expired in 2021. Also, it was held by AMD, not Intel.

However, there are a lot of extensions that are still under patent. You can make an x86-64 processor the way it was when Opteron was released in 2003, but it won't be competitive with current offerings. Those extensions are patented by a mix of both Intel and AMD. Intel failing isn't going to fully open x86-64.

Edit: also, it's not just the patents, it's the people. Via is still technically out there and could theoretically make its own x86-64 to modern standards. However, x86-64 is a very difficult architecture to optimize, and all the people who know how to do it already work for either Intel or AMD. Actually, they might only work for AMD, even before the layoffs.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›