Yeah. I apparently was thinking in german when i posted. Turnover is what i meant to say. Fluctuation is the german word.

K.

Kate, Intel yesterday updated on its cost measures: They are ahead of plan wrt headcount, it will be apprx. 12K this year (2 ahead of plan), cost-potential to be exploited next year has been recently revised to 1B (roughly 5K heads). I'd guess most of it can be done with fluctuation, i.e. no massive layoffs to expect.

K.

Yup. Here's a wafer pic.
http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stories/2007/October/IDF_Taiwan/itanium_wafer.jpg

K.

tx Heinz@w:o for the link

err, ...than Intel, naturally.
We'll see whether i got that right in less than 48 hours.
Anyway, i am admittedly puzzled about the market-strength.

K.

It was very obvious the guild has been briefed not to ask this.
One did though ask indirectly. If i understood Pauls answer right, AMD had an even stronger quarter than AMD qoq.

K.

I did never insinuate Intel and Enron had any similarity.

Which law you brake matters in criminal law. In civil law a verdict is usually based on how much was illegally gained with breaking whatever law.

K.

Absolutely. Looking at their numbers, they pile up a lot of fruits from its harvest.

K.

I stated that companies do business as interpreted by their lawyers and the law. Fraud has nothing to do with this.

Umm. You must have missed Enron, and many many other cases whos executives serve time currently for what you think has nothing do do with business.

K.

AMD isn't so much for bad for Intel.
Not at all. AMD has been very good for Intel the last couple decades - and still is. AMD has also been good for the industry in these decades, and for consumers. I just find that AMD deserves to keep some fruits from what it harvests from its tree to grow other trees from in its plantation instead of held dependent on subsidies, grants and loans.

K.

Good girl. Walking around this mousetrap.
Just as a suggestion, how about saying cheaper instead of better, next time?
And better leave it with it. The rest sounds like quota - not good for Intel.

K.

All you say stands undisputed - however this was not Kate's point. Her's was: "I can't believe anyone who does business won't play by the rules as legally interpreted". This implies the animal of fraud does not exist. I understand everyone never spotted it might want to believe this - so my comment was not attacking her idea - but just making ovious what it means.

K.

Sometimes things go much quicker than expected. I got through to the motive effortlessly with your elaboration. Many thanks for your constructive cooperation.

K.

That courts would not come to different verdicts, people don't have different opinions and humans can't err would be the very last i'd pretend. While i'm struggling to understand what purpose inventing claims to attack it serves - but then, feel free to go ahead if this helps you for anything. Maybe it helps me to get a grip of the motive for it at some point, as well.

K.

I can't believe anyone who does business won't play by the rules as legally interpreted
I understand. It must be courts misinterpreting these rules, then. Which you claim to have been part of one a while ago. Well - i've seen stranger things in this word.

K.

Playing nice isn't a part of business.
Well, this attitude restricts you to doing business with others who think likewise. Fair enough.

K.

I understand. At least you are consistent in you opinions in Microcosmos (TOU? - who cares) and Macrocosmos (Law? - who cares).

K.

Kate,

both kids deserve attention for their makings, and encouragement to develop their talents whatever they are. The elder one might be a three stars Michelin maitre de cuisine and the younger one makes decent hot-dogs - i like both. All you need to realize how tasty an ordinary burger can be is eating star-food for a week only. Works perfectly.

So besides i want them to play nice to keep peace in the family, there is a very selfish reason i would never let the elder have the kitchen alone. Btw, doing so would harm the elder far one more than the younger one.

K.

It seems as though Intel is guilty until proven innocent in your eyes.

This only seems so. Right or wrong, good or bad, guilty or innocent are all beyond my business - i leave this to others.
This goes for everything. Not only Intel and law.

However, when my elder one does not let my younger one let any toy to play with in the sandpit - i do not let this go. This is not a question of right or wrong at all. I just want both of them showing me their cakes or whatever they have made. In this i want them to compete as good as they can.

K.

D'accord. Actually even worse: Extension longer than original period is admission the commission's setting of the period in its first move would perhaps have allowed Intel an escape via procedural error. I guess this is corrected now, but it is not looking like a strong opening of the game now.

K.

OT jay, could you restrict your crosspostings to one board (of your choice) pls?

K.

are able to profit from the (marketing) value of the Centrino platform.
Yes. However to do so it is not sufficient to buy just a CPU. You gotta pay for a package to may call it so and make your customers pay for it.

higher quality components
This is also true. Intel requires to use certain components to sell procuct under Centrino-bran. (they don't say brandnames of components but specs only specific components meet)

This worked extremely well for couple of years and i believe it still does in corporate segment, but recent market data suggest at least folks in the U.S. buying from retail (i.e. consumers) are not willing to pay a premium for Centrino. ASP of Intel- and AMD-based notebooks only differ by some 25 Dollars there.

K.

savantu

Mercury-data are roughly consistent with Gartner and IDF. There is more in Intels IA-64-revenues than chip sales - don't let you get distracted from simple-minded reasoning.

K.

Ok - i believe you are right to leave it there is the best we can do. So be it then.

K.

Well i had strange ideas of people in other countries and continents before i lived there a longer while.

Yeah? how?
Deadline to respond: Weeks.
Provisional extension: Weeks.
Just counting in weeks instead of stating deadline-dates does the trick to make it look shorter. As simple as that.

K.

Putting a person under oath does strange things to memories.

Yeah. Probably a more common cause of amnesia than illness and injury together.

K.

Yes. However the commission has already signaled it is not willing to allow filibuster in this case but intends to keep firm grip on a schedule as tight as practicable in this case by communications timelines in weeks.

On a sidenote, this has probably very little to do with the case, but rather with the fact most europeans think EC-procedures in general go way slower than they should. Media and local politicians make populistic articles and speeches out of this, so there is political pressure in this respect put on Brussels, which in turn determines communication for cases of public interest as outlined above.

K.

it's an intricate patchwork of innuendo, fact, fiction, hope and denial.
I could not agree more - however the world we live in is just so, insofar a trial reflecting reality cannot be anything else.

Intel should have the right to call witnesses and have a trial.
It has. There will be a hearing before the commission will decide on its final verdict. After this Intel can appeal to court and will be served a proper court-trial if it wants so.

K.

Time will tell.
It already did teach this course in Japan. However time is patient teacher. It repeats lessons endlessly.

It didn't take them long to go after Microsoft.
Years, as well - although the case is much less complex than Intels.

K.

that it's taken many many years to come up with anything

To get through to a comprehensive picture of how this industry works which industry-exectutives acquired during two or three decades is a fairly hard nut to crack, so couple of years is what it always takes for folks in commissions or courts to make their own scribble of it and translate it to legal context even with sound experience from other cases.

K.

Fwiw, Nellie knows a thing or two about this industry. She was a board member of a major player's netherland branch for a while. So any attempt to fool her commission will likely fire back badly.

K.

that is pure fud.
Yes. I am happily willing to agree in this to settle it.

K.

He did not say anything about headcount afaik. What he said specifically was just targets to cut costs by 2-3 B in 2007 and 2008 accordingly. Not rocket-science to translate to heads: 2B /200K per head gives you 10K, i.e. roughly 10% workforce.

K.

p.s: Apologies, it tried to avoid this earlier today and left your previous post as it stands. However in the meantime you expressed your curiosity to learn how things lie behind general statements on the other thread, so i guess it is appropriate to talk turkey.

Intel's cost cutting actions are an attempt to become more efficient, not the result of a downturn in business. AMD on the other hand should and no doubt will cut costs out of necessity.

While I don't want to take a stance on either motive, i consider bloodletting as potentially healthy (read potentially as if you have a touch to when you let it, how much is appropriate and most important what you let it for). This goes not only for human capital, neither capital in general but for everything.

You might probably want to link this comment to beer - which is perfectly fine with me.

K.

Elmer

Wrt first paragraph, this can only mean i am talking trivia today.

Wrt following paragraph, i did not even touch the question why Intel is going after cost. It's up to folks who run the shop.
Basically same goes for AMD - they have committed to show further cost-synergies from the merger already, btw.

K.

you just don't like what he has to say.

I neither like nor dislike what he says. I am just listening to what he says and try to understand what it means.

K.

I see now what you are getting at. Intels m/o using a rich toolkit to make people leave "voluntarily" goes undisputed. However even with extensive use of this toolkit limiting severance-payments Andy's targets are not achievable without severance-charges.

K.

It's really beyond me to shatter your opinion Andy Bryant is just blowing smoke with his cost-cutting numbers. I just do not share it, as he was pretty accurate with what he said in the past about cost targets.

At the end this comes down to what this game is about: Statements or Dollars.

K.

Tom,

Andy Bryant has been very specific with numbers for cost-cutting targets for this and the next year - which leaves not much room for speculation translating it to headcount.
Besides, it is usual to undertake semantic contortions to avoid the word layoffs. I did not find something really innovative in Intels recent communication in this respect. The "IT-staff" thing is very common for IT-companies, btw.

K.

It is said history repeats itself. K.

Yes, i am very understanding in this respect.

K.