Cisco lays off 6,500 workers, execs Networking giant Cisco Systems is going to get 11,500 employees smaller. After Wall Street closed today, Cisco said that it was going to cut 6,500 workers to get its costs more in line with its revenue streams, and added that it was selling off a set-top box manufacturing plant in Mexico with 5,000 employees to Chinese …
It's ashame to see what has become of the technology industry in the united states. You can look back and in-vision what things could of been but there is a stark reality behind it all.
People will finance/spend $30-$50 thousand dollars on an automobile that they probably won't want to drive more than 3-5 years.
Modestly that works out to be $666/month not including insurance.
Now the same people shop at walmart and buy the cisco junk for $50. They wouldn't be willing to pay $500 for it even though the same equipment will be in use probably at least 5 years at a cost of around $8/mo.
The people outsourced their own jobs. Here is the end result.
Mcdonalds has been hiring 50% of all new hires in the states. Cisco employees can you say would you like fries with that?
I say this when Comcast is charging upwards of $7/month modem rental fees for equipment you never own and I can assure you isn't manufactured in the states.
So your problem with the IT industry in the US is the consumers? How does that make any sense at all? Consumers the world over want the most for their money, myself included. If that means purchasing a processor, phone, or router made in china, then, so what? The real problem, in my opinion, has nothing to do with consumers and everything to do with asinine economic policies.
lost me on your point.
If you have 20 staff and 2 managers, you lay off 5 staff and 1 manager, you have lost 25% staff and 50% of management, so of course by the fact you are showing it clearly means you are top heavy (oo eer). or maybe not.
In most places you have more staff than managers, so it will always look squewed.
1:2100 ratio ?
"Cisco has had a voluntary early retirement program in place, and 2,100 workers had already taken Chambers and his chief operating officer Gary Moore up on the offer."
More execs need to be fired. Unforunately, most of the shares will be held by investment companies / pension funds - and they are run by execs who will be looking after their own kind. Will Chambers take full responsibility ?
So who's is taking market share from Cisco or are people and companies simply buying less?
The cloud boom will require more cheap, functional, horizontally scalable networking equipment from vendors other than Cisco whose product lines don't require you to stack them 5 layers deep to connect one web server to your backbone provider and don't sting you $50,000 per node for the service processor with the features you actually want on it.
The whole point of cloud economics is that you commoditise all the expensive stuff and make it cheap, Cisco can't function in that market as they rely on charging horrific margins to customers who haven't realised that they can go to someone else and get pretty much the same thing but without the Cisco price premium. Of course that also means that they need some network engineers who saw through the sales pitch as they qualified on their "how to spend 10 times as much as you needed to whilst building a network" CCNA course.
business speak, in which "not growing fast enough to meet what we want" is supposed to be the same as 'we're losing money".
so since they're not getting more and more fast enough, but are still into the black and climbing, it's justification to knock a few thousand families deep into the red.
The same folks that seem to think that not taking something is the same as giving, seem to believe that not growing fast enough is the same as shrinking.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
