News Intel to lay off fab workers in mid-July — company aims to refocus on more engineering talent

[Admin]

Intel will begin layoffs at its Intel Foundry division in mid-July as part of a new restructuring effort to cut costs while focusing on keeping engineering talent.

Intel to lay off fab workers in mid-July — company aims to refocus on more engineering talent : Read more

 

[rluker5]

If only the CHIPS act weren't effectively cancelled.

 

[ThatMouse]

It sounds like a good idea until you work for a company where managers are too busy to even respond to your emails.

 

[thestryker]

Unless it's really top heavy this seems like a really weird time to be making cuts at IFS period let alone at the primary research location. I suppose over time we'll see, but so far the moves have felt a lot more like minimum viable than actually moving forward with a leadership role.

 

[Reverend_Clint]

It sounds like a good idea until you work for a company where managers are too busy to even respond to your emails.

Yeah when I was there you had to ask them nicely to do things otherwise you'd hear back about it.
"Engineering Talent" lol the engineer in our lab got his degree at ITT Tech.

 

[Trake_17]

Laying off fab workers is a curious move for a company still claiming to want to rival TSMC

 

[TerryLaze]

this seems like a really weird time to be making cuts at IFS period let alone at the primary research location.

They just finished construction on the mayor FABs and are ready if not already started to ramp up production.
Would make sense to shift workforce when shifting workload.

 

[phead128]

18A yields clearly are doing great. Unquestioned process leadership accomplished.

 

[Loadedaxe]

If only the CHIPS act weren't effectively cancelled.

While the CHIPS Act hasn't been fully canceled, its funding is being renegotiated, and some grants might get cut.

One thing to remember, Trump said he was going to cancel it, that is one of the things the pushed for in his campaign. However, Republican lawmakers pushed back, arguing that the funding is critical for national security and that the money has already been allocated.

TSMC and Intel are both still benefitting from it. Intel has received $2.2B and TSMC $1.5B that isn't chump change.

I completely agree with everyone here, this is not the time for job cuts. These big corporations need to rethink how they utilize their workforce, playing to employees strengths rather than arbitrarily deciding who stays and who goes.

 

[Thunder64]

18A yields clearly are doing great. Unquestioned process leadership accomplished.

How about waiting until we see a product?

 

[Loadedaxe]

How about waiting until we see a product?

Nah, some people, simpletons, as some call them....just want Intel to fail no matter what, without even considering the consequences. They don’t seem to realize the ripple effect that would have on the industry and the economy.

 

[Thunder64]

Nah, some people, simpletons, as some call them....just want Intel to fail no matter what, without even considering the consequences. They don’t seem to realize the ripple effect that would have on the industry and the economy.

No one should want Intel to fail as that would give TSMC a monopoly on leading edge nodes and AMD a monopoly on x86. But saying a node that we haven't seen a prodcut on has unquestioned product leadership is naive to say it nicely.

 

[Loadedaxe]

No one should want Intel to fail as that would give TSMC a monopoly on leading edge nodes and AMD a monopoly on x86. But saying a node that we haven't seen a prodcut on has unquestioned product leadership is naive to say it nicely.

Stop it Thunder...your making to much sense!!

 

[TerryLaze]

and AMD a monopoly on x86

No, in fact AMD would lose their capability of making x86 CPUs, at least the ones they make now, they would have to make a new one that has no trace of intel IP or renegotiate a new license with whomever ends up with intels IP.

Intel and AMD have a cross license going, if one goes belly up the other one is screwed.

 

[Thunder64]

No, in fact AMD would lose their capability of making x86 CPUs, at least the ones they make now, they would have to make a new one that has no trace of intel IP or renegotiate a new license with whomever ends up with intels IP.

Intel and AMD have a cross license going, if one goes belly up the other one is screwed.

I very much doubt that. First of all the lawyers on both sides are too smart to not make sure language is included to prevent that. Secondly, no way the US gov't would allow the complete halt of x86 CPU production.

 

[TerryLaze]

I very much doubt that. First of all the lawyers on both sides are too smart to not make sure language is included to prevent that. Secondly, no way the US gov't would allow the complete halt of x86 CPU production.

No matter how smart of a lawyer you have, if a company that you don't own stops existing then it stops existing, nothing you can do about that.
You can't just steal something from a dead person and claim that it's ok because they are dead.
If the cross license stops because one of them goes under then the other one has zero options to do anything, the IP doesn't belong to you so there is no legal way out.

Secondly, no way the US gov't would allow the complete halt of x86 CPU production.

Yup, that's basically the same reason so many banks got bailed out.

 

[Thunder64]

No matter how smart of a lawyer you have, if a company that you don't own stops existing then it stops existing, nothing you can do about that.
You can't just steal something from a dead person and claim that it's ok because they are dead.
If the cross license stops because one of them goes under then the other one has zero options to do anything, the IP doesn't belong to you so there is no legal way out.

Yup, that's basically the same reason so many banks got bailed out.

Dead people own things? Ever hear the old saying "You can't take it with you"? I'm sure a lawyer could say if x y or z happens then you surrender all relevant IP to us. Intel tried to say AMD violated the agreement when they spun off their fabs and again when they wanted to use TSMC as well as GloFo. Both times the agreement was amended. You can't really think if one went under the other would just stop being allowed to make chips, right?

 

[TerryLaze]

Dead people own things? Ever hear the old saying "You can't take it with you"? I'm sure a lawyer could say if x y or z happens then you surrender all relevant IP to us. Intel tried to say AMD violated the agreement when they spun off their fabs and again when they wanted to use TSMC as well as GloFo. Both times the agreement was amended. You can't really think if one went under the other would just stop being allowed to make chips, right?

/s
Oh for sure, yes certainly, both companies agreed in the cross license agreement that if they go under they just gift all of their IP to the other company at no cost....companies are just nice like that....
/s

 

[Thunder64]

/s
Oh for sure, yes certainly, both companies agreed in the cross license agreement that if they go under they just gift all of their IP to the other company at no cost....companies are just nice like that....
/s

No more crazy than your premise that if one goes under the other is screwed. Somebody has to produce x86 CPU's. Do you really think Intel would be screwed if AMD went under 10 years ago? Of course you don't.

 

[TJ Hooker]

No matter how smart of a lawyer you have, if a company that you don't own stops existing then it stops existing, nothing you can do about that.
You can't just steal something from a dead person and claim that it's ok because they are dead.
If the cross license stops because one of them goes under then the other one has zero options to do anything, the IP doesn't belong to you so there is no legal way out.

If Intel went bankrupt they would sell off their assets, including intellectual property. It wouldn't just disappear.

 

[ezst036]

If Intel went bankrupt they would sell off their assets, including intellectual property. It wouldn't just disappear.

I was thinking that same thing. In this all-is-dead scenario, x86 itself is saleable as a separate thing.

AMD is a potential customer for just that IP.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not a single mention of the current CEO Lip-Bu Tan in the entire article, choosing only to refer to “the company” instead. Yet, for some reason, brought up a past event, name-dropping Pat Gelsinger because he was the CEO at the time. Despite the fact that this site has even reported that Lip-Bu Tan was the main driver and advocate for the mentioned past layoff event, which essentially forced Pat Gelsinger’s hand. Even though Pat tried to compromise and meet most of the demands, Lip-Bu Tan thought it wasn’t enough, threw a tantrum, and left the board.

So look, I’m not saying the author is trying to be biased, but there are better, more factual ways to reference past events. Stop being creative with your language when reporting other stuff in an article about something that’s happening now. You just end up creating a tabloid article instead.

 

[thestryker]

They just finished construction on the mayor FABs and are ready if not already started to ramp up production.
Would make sense to shift workforce when shifting workload.

Ohio is nowhere near completed and Arizona Fab 62 isn't finished either. The only one which has been is Arizona Fab 52. It does not make sense to be cutting workers now unless it's somehow just going to be management type positions. If they'd actually completed installation at the fabs I'd agree with you because worker shuffling then makes sense, but that's not where they are.

Cutting workers at your primary research hub doesn't really make sense at all period unless again it's people you don't need for research and development.