Arm Considering Making 15 Percent of its Workforce Redundant

[Valantar]

Softbank seems to be acting like a bear with a sore head or teenager throwing a tantrum. Tells me they need to grow up and that ARM would indeed be better off NOT a part of Softbank. ARM(and the world) would likely be best served by her majesty's government bringing the company back under UK ownership where sensible business management can take place.

Yeah, I might be naive, but I just keep being baffled by how uninterested some businesses/shareholders are in just... letting a well run, solid, stable business keep going? But of course, an IPO comes with the expectation of ROI for the investors, because that's what is important and not the stability of the company behind the instruction set and architecture upon which a staggering portion of the world's infrastructure is built...

If there's one thing the world of finance is good at, it is ruining something good because it wasn't showing sufficient growth.

 

[qubit]

This is bad, especially so now there's a major war on in Ukraine since it has worldwide repercussions.

 

[Bomby569]

Softbank couldn't care less about the core bussiness of the company, they are in it to make money, ideally offloading for a profit. If they have to stick with it they won't be to upset to destroy it's future for some good earnings reports that calls in some buyers.

 

[Valantar]

Softbank couldn't care less about the core bussiness of the company, they are in it to make money, ideally offloading for a profit. If they have to stick with it they won't be to upset to destroy it's future for some good earnings reports that calls in some buyers.

Yep, that's how capitalism operates these days. If something works really well, but isn't showing massive growth, then why not dismantle it, sell off the pieces one by one, complain that it's no longer profitable, declare bankruptcy, and write off the losses as tax-deductible business expenses? It's a f*****g travesty, really. Just look at what this practice did to the US retail industry.

 

[R-T-B]

Hi,
New term for pink slip/ laid off/ fired/ bye bye/...

Not really a new term...

 

[Bomby569]

Yep, that's how capitalism operates these days. If something works really well, but isn't showing massive growth, then why not dismantle it, sell off the pieces one by one, complain that it's no longer profitable, declare bankruptcy, and write off the losses as tax-deductible business expenses? It's a f*****g travesty, really. Just look at what this practice did to the US retail industry.

once i started to trade stocks i realized it's how it's designed. If they miss a single quartely earnings they can get fired (managment) or lose insane amounts of money (owners), so you really have to do everything you can to survive, some lie, some cut corners (fire employees),... either way something has to be done.

 

[Valantar]

once i started to trade stocks i realized it's how it's designed. If they miss a single quartely earnings they can get fired (managment) or lose insane amounts of money (owners), so you really have to do everything you can to survive, some lie, some cut corners (fire employees),... either way something has to be done.

Yeah, and that's solely down to current (US, but because of their economic importance, essentially global) legislation mandating corporations to prioritize shareholder profits above all else, under penalty of significant economic penalties. It's a pretty absurd situation, where if forced to choose between the sustainability of the business and the services it delivers, and short-term payouts to shareholders, corporations are essentially legally mandated to prioritize the latter, even if it is abundantly clear that this will harm or even fundamentally undermine the business in the mid or long term. It's just one of the many, many deep-seated absurdities that showcase just how harmful and fundamentally broken late-stage capitalism truly is, and how it is a system built entirely on the premise of hoarding wealth among the already wealthy while deconstructing what makes society work for everyone else (and thus entrenching power with the wealthy).

 

[qubit]

So when NVIDIA brings in the $$$ people can stay, but suddenly they are not needed anymore? Weren't they hired for a reason in the first place? Arm's business seems unchanged and thriving?

Maybe dumb politicians can be scared by such announcements

Do you remember the time that IBM had a successful operation in Ireland setting up something very profitable, yet they still fired staff at the end of it to make even more money?

it was 10-15 years ago I think and was so shocked by it that I still remember.

These companies work like psychopaths. Most of them, that's why the little guy always gets stitched up.

 

[sith'ari]

Lol unemployed as a capable IT guy in the ARM business?

How? I mean you'd have to be blind, stupid and oblivious all at the same time for that. And even if you are... IT is in high demand everywhere and code is code. Heck they're even pulling people from other sectors into IT right now. Actively, as in, companies paying your college/courses to go do it.

This is an utter non issue. ARM is too big to fail.. and Softbank is making a short term mistake with long term consequences. Everyone is struggling to keep their personnel on board. They probably won't get em back.

So , although the OP clearly mentions that """At this point in time, it's unclear which divisions at Arm will be the most affected""" you have already concluded that those -soon to be - fired will be among the top of ARM's stuff , thus ... companies will be ... begging them , crawling to their knees behind them and fight who wil be the first company who will hire first those employees.

Watch AdoredTV video ( Inside Intel :

) and you'll see that not all employees are of equal worth inside a company .
Many of them are "lower-level" employees (check video at 01:50 ) who struggle to keep their jobs , and i suspect that these kind of lower-level employees will be among the first ones that will get fired from ARM.

Maybe place blame where it's due - with the leadership of a massively profitable silicon architecture design corporation that suddenly decides to throw a tantrum because they didn't get their merger fantasy approved?

That's your own opinion and that's fine , so perhaps let me also keep my own opinion as well

 

[Vayra86]

So , although the OP clearly mentions that """At this point in time, it's unclear which divisions at Arm will be the most affected""" you have already concluded that those -soon to be - fired will be among the top of ARM's stuff , thus ... companies will be ... begging them , crawling to their knees behind them and fight who wil be the first company who will hire first those employees.

Watch AdoredTV video ( Inside Intel :

) and you'll see that not all employees are of equal worth inside a company .
Many of them are "lower-level" employees (check video at 01:50 ) who struggle to keep their jobs , and i suspect that these kind of lower-level employees will be among the first ones that will get fired from ARM.



That's your own opinion and that's fine , so perhaps let me also keep my own opinion as well

Like you so adequately put, you're best off sticking to your own opinion on that one then. I never said anything about top or bottom personnel. I'm saying that in a general sense, there is an abundance of jobs and shortage of people. That is no different from top or bottom of food chain and in fact, yes, it are the simpler programming/support jobs that are in high demand as much as higher profile jobs.

When you start linking AdoredTV for truth I'm instantly out of this discussion The bottom of the barrel is just that, I think TPU is of somewhat higher intelligent standards.

 

[Valantar]

That's your own opinion and that's fine , so perhaps let me also keep my own opinion as well

Yeah, nah, sorry, opinions aren't sacred or immune to criticism. You're obviously more than welcome to criticize mine if you want to.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Softbank couldn't care less about the core bussiness of the company, they are in it to make money, ideally offloading for a profit.

Yup, that is why ARM needs to be taken back to the UK. Sometimes business is business. Other times business needs to be handled with care and with forward thinking & innovation put before profits.

 

[Diverge]

So when NVIDIA brings in the $$$ people can stay, but suddenly they are not needed anymore? Weren't they hired for a reason in the first place? Arm's business seems unchanged and thriving?

Maybe dumb politicians can be scared by such announcements

But the CEOs and VIP need extra raises and bonuses to combat inflation, and prepare their golden parachutes if they can position the company to be sold. The people who do actual work are expendable from their POV - always has been and always will be. The remainers will just need to work 2x harder... <Insert some corporate mumbo jumbo here>...

 

[trsttte]

1000 soon-to -be unemployed famillies ...
well i'm confident that those Regulators who strived to block the nVIDIA/ARM deal ,they will also .. "strive" to find those people a new job ,so sad , things could have been totally different for those people with nVIDIA's billions thrown at ARM R&D.
--P.S. :Unlike ARM's employees , ATi 's employees had been more fortunate since no Regulators opposed -back then- AMD from gaining control of both the CPU I.P. & GPU I.P. when they allowed them to buy-out ATi and use ATi's I.P. for their own benefit
(unlike nVIDIA who would keep the licensing business model for the ARM I.P. )
Oh well...

That surely must be a joke... Like we haven't seen enough "keep the current model" takeovers where 2 or 3 years after all promises get thrown out the window. They didn't need to own arm other than to control and choke a thriving and important ecosystem. It's a very common practise that would cause major pains to basically all industries and fortunately it was an attempt so brazen and shameless that regulators around the world saw through to it very quickly.

Softbank seems to be acting like a bear with a sore head or teenager throwing a tantrum. Tells me they need to grow up and that ARM would indeed be better off NOT a part of Softbank. ARM(and the world) would likely be best served by her majesty's government bringing the company back under UK ownership where sensible business management can take place.

As long as it's not fucking nvidia!

Softbank couldn't care less about the core bussiness of the company, they are in it to make money, ideally offloading for a profit. If they have to stick with it they won't be to upset to destroy it's future for some good earnings reports that calls in some buyers.

I don't understand this, I mean, I understand it but I think it's so stupid and shortsighted. They have a stable company producing a stable recurring revenue that basically dominates a very important market and they want to get rid for a quick buck? During a very likely economic downturn? (the war is new, but inflation and stagflation fears are certainly not).

 

[sith'ari]

That surely must be a joke... Like we haven't seen enough "keep the current model" takeovers where 2 or 3 years after all promises get thrown out the window. They didn't need to own arm other than to control and choke a thriving and important ecosystem. It's a very common practise that would cause major pains to basically all industries and fortunately it was an attempt so brazen and shameless that regulators around the world saw through to it very quickly.

As long as it's not fucking nvidia!

You are aware that ARM has been already sold once , right ?
It was a UK company which has been sold to a Japanese one (Softbank). What exactly would prevent Softbank back then to do what you describe(underlined) ?
Yet , everyone didn't care about such risks during the 1st sell .
I had made many comments about the nVIDIA/ARM deal , and i won't bother to repeat myself .
nVIDIA would have thrown tons of billions in R&D for evolving ARM since it's for the benefit of nVIDIA to have both a CPU division and a GPU division being strong for the sake of their own designs( i'm referring to their recently released "Grace" DPUs )if not for anything else ,just like AMD has done since their purchase of ATi.
But nevertheless ,this ship has sailed , so let's see what will happen from now on with ARM which has already announced that they will fire 15% of their employees , everything is already seems to be much much better for ARM now that is away from the - how did you put it so elegantly ? - ""fucking nvidia""

 

[trsttte]

You are aware that ARM has been already sold once , right ?
It was a UK company which has been sold to a Japanese one (Softbank). What exactly would prevent Softbank back then to do what you describe(underlined) ?
Yet , everyone didn't care about such risks during the 1st sell .

They're an investment bank. I don't know the details and context in which the deal was made but they are not competing in the semiconductor market, there was no obvious risk of them using the ownsership of arm to stifle competion in the space.

I had made many comments about the nVIDIA/ARM deal , and i won't bother to repeat myself .
nVIDIA would have thrown tons of billions in R&D for evolving ARM since it's for the benefit of nVIDIA to have both a CPU division and a GPU division being strong for the sake of their own designs( i'm referring to their recently released "Grace" DPUs )if not for anything else ,just like AMD has done since their purchase of ATi.

That's whishfull thinking at best and disregards the fact that there's nothing stopping Nvidia from developing their own CPUs using ARM designs. Apple did it, Qualcomm did it, many others did it, what's stopping nvidia!?

They would throw billions in R&D at ARM but what motivation would they then have to license those designs to competitors instead of selling their own products? What's also stopping them from throwing billions at R&D with ARM based design (like they're actually doing namely with the new design center in Israel)

But nevertheless ,this ship has sailed , so let's see what will happen from now on with ARM which has already announced that they will fire 15% of their employees , everything is already seems to be much much better for ARM now that is away from the - how did you put it so elegantly ? - ""fucking nvidia""

It will continue doing what it did before. It's unfortunate that the new ceo decided to start his tenure with such a stupid petty thing but that's business, anyone leaving shouldn't have any problems finding another job.

 

[sith'ari]

1)They're an investment bank. I don't know the details and context in which the deal was made but they are not competing in the semiconductor market, there was no obvious risk of them using the ownsership of arm to stifle competion in the space.


2)That's whishfull thinking at best and disregards the fact that there's nothing stopping Nvidia from developing their own CPUs using ARM designs. Apple did it, Qualcomm did it, many others did it, what's stopping nvidia!?

3)They would throw billions in R&D at ARM but what motivation would they then have to license those designs to competitors instead of selling their own products? What's also stopping them from throwing billions at R&D with ARM based design (like they're actually doing namely with the new design center in Israel)

4)It will continue doing what it did before. It's unfortunate that the new ceo decided to start his tenure with such a stupid petty thing but that's business, anyone leaving shouldn't have any problems finding another job.

1)""No obvious risk"" doesn't equate ""no risk"" , since they can be deals under the table.

2)Oh come on , that's what i wanted to avoid , repeating my past comments ... i was asked the same thing at youtube so i'll copy/paste my answer since i'm bored writting similar things :
"""""About the AMD/ATi - nVIDIA/ARM comparison , yes ,nVIDIA can use an ARM licence , but they probably are in a major dissadvantage when it comes to compete at the "producion cost" of the total package. Someone who owns their own I.P. (AMD/Ati ) can control their all-in -one solution at a cost of their choice. Obviously nVIDIA which needs to pay for a licence to a 3rd company isn't able to totally control such things ,thus they have to compete in a dissadvantage , thus just like i said , ""the regulating authorities create unfair competition"" by not allowing nVIDIA what they did allow for AMD in the past : to have both CPU & GPU I.P. at their control.
Show less
"""""""

3)signed cotracts can guarantee such things , just like the 20year(if i'm not mistaken) contract that nVIDIA currently has with ARM.
I told that many times , that's why contracts exist !!

4)I keep seeing this confidence(not only from you but from other as well) about reassured jobs , reassured payments , reassured life and i'm amazed.
If things are so easy indeed , from now on ,every time i read about fired people i'll ... celebrate instead of being sad !! let's order some bottles of champagne guys for those fired people !! their next payment is guaranteed to be the exact same or even better than their previous one !! i obviously don't have any statitics about such things , but anyone who has can share it with the rest of us in order not to feel sad for fired employees anymore

 

[trsttte]

1)""No obvious risk"" doesn't equate ""no risk"" , since they can be deals under the table.

2)Oh come on , that's what i wanted to avoid , repeating my past comments ... i was asked the same thing at youtube so i'll copy/paste my answer since i'm bored writting similar things :
"""""About the AMD/ATi - nVIDIA/ARM comparison , yes ,nVIDIA can use an ARM licence , but they probably are in a major dissadvantage when it comes to compete at the "producion cost" of the total package. Someone who owns their own I.P. (AMD/Ati ) can control their all-in -one solution at a cost of their choice. Obviously nVIDIA which needs to pay for a licence to a 3rd company isn't able to totally control such things ,thus they have to compete in a dissadvantage , thus just like i said , ""the regulating authorities create unfair competition"" by not allowing nVIDIA what they did allow for AMD in the past : to have both CPU & GPU I.P. at their control.
Show less
"""""""

3)signed cotracts can guarantee such things , just like the 20year(if i'm not mistaken) contract that nVIDIA currently has with ARM.
I told that many times , that's why contracts exist !!

4)I keep seeing this confidence(not only from you but from other as well) about reassured jobs , reassured payments , reassured life and i'm amazed.
If things are so easy indeed , from now on ,every time i read about fired people i'll ... celebrate instead of being sad !! let's order some bottles of champagne guys for those fired people !! their next payment is guaranteed to be the exact same or even better than their previous one !! i obviously don't have any statitics about such things , but anyone who has can share it with the rest of us in order not to feel sad for fired employees anymore

1) "No obvious risk" doesn't in fact equate with "no risk" but is certainly a hole lot better than "certain and absolute risk"

2) What does AMD/ATI has to do with Nvidia/ARM!? Did either AMD or ATI have control of an IP shared and licensed to hundreds of different companies in more than a dozen different markets?

No? Ok then...

AMD was allowed to buy ATI just like Nvidia was able to buy 3dfx (a lot more problematic if you ask me since they were direct competitors). If Nvidia wants to cut the cost of not owning their entire architecture like you mention they can go ahead and create their own, no need to "steal" the one everyone else is using (which once again illustrates the entire problem! they would get an unfair advantage and control over ARM IP that hundreds of different companies already use and depend on)

Contrary to how Nvidia tryed to frame it, this is not about Nvidia vs AMD/Intel who both control their ISA, this is about Nvidia vs the entire world who uses and depends on ARM IP - from a smartphones to cars to a freaking washing machine.

3) Because that worked so well in the past and does wonders for the future when the contract ends lol

4) I don't understand what you mean, this is not some smaller blue collar industry where jobs are harder to find and salaries are always low, we're talking leading edge semi conductor development. Like others already mentioned, they'll have a very easy time finding a new job because there's currently a MASSIVE lack of qualified people in that area, or any IT-esque area for that matter. Of course we shouldn't applaud or celebrate in any way when people loose their jobs but let's not make a drama out of it or pretend they'll have a hard time getting back on their feet when they work in the kind of industry they work in

 

[Valantar]

1)""No obvious risk"" doesn't equate ""no risk"" , since they can be deals under the table.

No, but Nvidia certainly has far stronger incentives to control ARM licencing in an anticompetitive way than any actor without a material interest in chipmaking.

2)Oh come on , that's what i wanted to avoid , repeating my past comments ... i was asked the same thing at youtube so i'll copy/paste my answer since i'm bored writting similar things :
"""""About the AMD/ATi - nVIDIA/ARM comparison , yes ,nVIDIA can use an ARM licence , but they probably are in a major dissadvantage when it comes to compete at the "producion cost" of the total package. Someone who owns their own I.P. (AMD/Ati ) can control their all-in -one solution at a cost of their choice. Obviously nVIDIA which needs to pay for a licence to a 3rd company isn't able to totally control such things ,thus they have to compete in a dissadvantage , thus just like i said , ""the regulating authorities create unfair competition"" by not allowing nVIDIA what they did allow for AMD in the past : to have both CPU & GPU I.P. at their control.
Show less
"""""""

I believe Apple, Amazon and Ampere (the server chip vendor, not the GPU architecture) might want a word with you. None of them seem to have much of a problem working with a third-party owned IP or instruction set for their custom and semi-custom core designs, nor do they seem to have a problem with licencing costs involved. Heck, Nvidia used to make their own ARM cores until Qualcomm forced them out of the mobile market through some very shady practices.

3)signed cotracts can guarantee such things , just like the 20year(if i'm not mistaken) contract that nVIDIA currently has with ARM.
I told that many times , that's why contracts exist !!

Contractual restrictions like this are nearly always easily circumvented. If the contract demands keeping current licencing terms, that can severely disadvantage customers in the future for myriad reasons. If they mandate a certain spirit or tone to the agreements, that is essentially unenforceable. Etc., etc.

4)I keep seeing this confidence(not only from you but from other as well) about reassured jobs , reassured payments , reassured life and i'm amazed.
If things are so easy indeed , from now on ,every time i read about fired people i'll ... celebrate instead of being sad !! let's order some bottles of champagne guys for those fired people !! their next payment is guaranteed to be the exact same or even better than their previous one !! i obviously don't have any statitics about such things , but anyone who has can share it with the rest of us in order not to feel sad for fired employees anymore

I don't believe in any such assurances, but again, please place the blame where it's due: with the CEO throwing a tantrum because his merger fantasy didn't come true. Literally nothing has changed in terms of ARM's sustainability as a business, their profitability, or their prospects for growth. This is purely a punitive action, done to prove a dumb ideological point ("look what happens when you don't let corporations do what they want! Waaaa!") that has literally no basis in reality outside of such intentional harm from leadership and shareholders.

 

[sith'ari]

AMD was allowed to buy ATI just like Nvidia was able to buy 3dfx (a lot more problematic if you ask me since they were direct competitors). If Nvidia wants to cut the cost of not owning their entire architecture like you mention they can go ahead and create their own, no need to "steal" the one everyone else is using (which once again illustrates the entire problem! they would get an unfair advantage and control over ARM IP that hundreds of different companies already use and depend on)

If this nVIDIA/ARM deal would keep be ongoing i would continue this discussion ( as i said , i have already made many comments about this deal , i lost count how many) , but as a long-term nVIDIA fan&customer , since this deal has fallen , i have no personal interest to continue discussing about this deal , since from now on it's a waste of my time to keep talking about something that won't happen.

The final comment i'll make is regarding your comparison ( nVIDIA/3dFX Vs AMD/Ati )
The AMD/Ati has tons more importance , since the regulators have allowed AMD(an only CPU company until then) to create their all-in one solution by allowing them to buy ATi's GPU I.P.
nVIDIA by acquiring 3dFX didn't expand into another sector( CPU I.P.) like AMD was allowed to do , thus this deal has much less importance than the AMD/ATi deal.
As for the underlined sentence , by paraphrasing your words ... AMD also could go ahead and create their own GPU I.P. but instead they preffered to go "steal" ATi 's I.P. that's what nVIDIA tried to do as well with ARM...
Anyway , this will be my last comment on the matter , since ,as i said it's a waste of my time to keep talking about something that won't happen ...

I believe Apple, Amazon and Ampere (the server chip vendor, not the GPU architecture) might want a word with you. None of them seem to have much of a problem working with a third-party owned IP or instruction set for their custom and semi-custom core designs, nor do they seem to have a problem with licencing costs involved. Heck, Nvidia used to make their own ARM cores until Qualcomm forced them out of the mobile market through some very shady practices.

If they wanted to control their all-in one platform cost they could make their own offer and compete with nVIDIA but they chose not to .
If they don't want to make a bid it's not something that interests me , it's their own problem...
Anyway , as i said above , i'm done talking about a failed deal , i don't care anymore...

 

[trsttte]

The AMD/Ati has tons more importance , since the regulators have allowed AMD(an only CPU company until then) to create their all-in one solution by allowing them to buy ATi's GPU I.P.
nVIDIA by acquiring 3dFX didn't expand into another sector( CPU I.P.) like AMD was allowed to do , thus this deal has much less importance than the AMD/ATi deal.
As for the underlined sentence , by paraphrasing your words ... AMD also could go ahead and create their own GPU I.P. but instead they preffered to go "steal" ATi 's I.P. that's what nVIDIA tried to do as well with ARM...

That's completely wrong. Companies are allowed (and incentivized lol, gotta drive those profits for shareholders) to expand and grow into different markets, there's nothing wrong with that. AMD saw potential in acquiring ATI/ATI saw potential in a buyout from a AMD so it went ahead. Same number of companies were doing GPUs before and after the deal. Many similar deals happen all the time, like recently AMD buying Xilinx, Nvidia buying Mellanox, Marvel buying Inovium, Qualcomm buying Nuvia, etc etc etc.

That's not to say this deals don't pose any concerns but they are very different issues to ARM that EVERYONE depends on.

AMD also didn't steal ATI away from anybody, they continued to launch graphics cards like they did before, now under a different name. (where this argument has some legs to stand is laptops and current pseudo certifications like Intel Evo and AMD Advantage that will require more and more vertical solutions, as time goes on driving nvidia out of the market, but though concerning that's a tomorrow problem. It's also something that has been going on since forever with purchase agreements and other shady deals between all parts, no one is really a saint here)

Now the nvidia/3dfx deal was very anti competitive, they reduced competition in the market and reduced the number of companies doing that type of product.

 

[Bomby569]

I don't understand this, I mean, I understand it but I think it's so stupid and shortsighted. They have a stable company producing a stable recurring revenue that basically dominates a very important market and they want to get rid for a quick buck? During a very likely economic downturn? (the war is new, but inflation and stagflation fears are certainly not).

It's all about ROI, sure then can get whatever % by holding ARM, and be aware nothing is certain, someone or something can came along and make ARM irrelevant. Or they can sell for the profit and move along for the next target and with that money buy some other company they think can be made more profitable at any cost, downsize it, make the financial look better, flip it, rinse and repeat, and i assure it's a much lucrative bussiness and less risky.