#strategy

The key differences between Nvidia's recent collaboration with Intel and the Itanium partnership between Intel and HP lie in the nature of the partnership, the strategic goals, and the market context.
Itanium (Intel & HP)

• Aimed at a New Architecture: The Itanium project was a joint effort to create a brand-new, 64-bit instruction set architecture (ISA) called IA-64. This was a direct attempt to challenge and replace the dominant x86 architecture, particularly in the high-end server and enterprise market. It was a massive, ground-up undertaking to redefine a computing standard.
• Focus on a Single Product Line: The partnership was centered on the Itanium processor family, with the goal of creating a "unified computing infrastructure." HP, which had been developing its own PA-RISC processors, partnered with Intel because the cost of proprietary chip development was becoming prohibitive.
• High-Risk, High-Reward: The project was a huge gamble for both companies. It required significant financial investment (billions of dollars) and a long development timeline. The success of Itanium depended on its widespread adoption, which would require software developers to port their applications to the new architecture.
• Ultimately a Failure: The Itanium project is widely considered a failure. It was plagued by delays, performance issues, and a lack of software support. In the meantime, the x86 architecture, particularly with the introduction of AMD's 64-bit extensions (x86-64), evolved to meet the needs of the server market. This led to Itanium becoming a niche product used almost exclusively by HP (and later, HPE) for its high-end servers.
  Nvidia & Intel
• A Partnership of Complements, Not Replacements: The Nvidia and Intel collaboration is not about creating a new, competing architecture. Instead, it's about integrating the strengths of their existing platforms. Intel's expertise is in CPUs and the x86 ecosystem, while Nvidia's is in AI and accelerated computing with its GPUs.
• Focus on Integration and Ecosystems: The partnership aims to create new products by combining their technologies. This includes Intel building custom x86 CPUs for Nvidia's AI infrastructure and Intel creating system-on-chips (SoCs) that integrate Nvidia's RTX GPUs for personal computers.
• Strategic and Commercial: The deal is a commercial partnership with clear business goals for both sides. For Intel, it secures a major customer for its foundry services and helps it compete more effectively in the AI market, where Nvidia has a dominant lead. For Nvidia, it gives them access to Intel's CPU and x86 ecosystem, and a potentially more secure and diversified supply chain.
• Lower Risk, High Potential: This collaboration is less of a "bet the company" move than Itanium was. It leverages existing, successful architectures and technologies. The risk is lower because they are not trying to create a new market from scratch; they are trying to gain a greater share of existing markets by offering compelling, integrated products. The investment from Nvidia in Intel stock further solidifies the financial alignment of the two companies.
  In summary, the Itanium partnership was a bold, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to create a fundamentally new computing standard to displace x86. The Nvidia-Intel collaboration, in contrast, is a more pragmatic and strategic alliance to combine the strengths of two industry leaders, leveraging their established technologies and ecosystems to compete more effectively in the evolving data center and PC markets.

maybe oct 30 2025 will outline the bigger plan going forward..

@e1+1k4876rt2

So we want to shift out of the ERP Biz and eliminate any further support for the Maintenance Biz by 2027. Yes, that's right the Maintenance biz for which Siemens by itself pays +50MM per year - a huge amount of revenue will be lost. Our leadership simply says, it's not what we want to be any more.

As was stated in the reference post above, this surely will open the door for 3rd party companies to come in and take over our maintenance biz.

Well, it has already started - have a look: https://www.stocktitan.net/news/RMNI/kbs-partners-with-rimini-street-to-accelerate-its-ai-twpgtdekm3ca.html

KBS is one of largest broadcasting corporations in Korea and they have refused to switch to S4 Hana. So not only will SAP lose the maintenance revenue from this company, it will lose them as a customer on other platforms such as AI investments.

By the time we get to 2027 we will have lost an amazing number of customers to third party maintenance providers and we will also have lost a legacy of future investments from all of our lost customers. What a brilliant idea this was !!

How well our C level team is guiding the company for future growth :-)

Everyone's whining about Mark B, Sandy, Duggan, Savinay, Shannon, etc ..... But you're barking at the wrong tree. It's the board that everybody should be pi---d at. They are the ones who enabled this mess, fostered it and encouraged it until such point where it became counter-productive and too legally risky to keep Mark B in charge. Yes, all the above people contributed in no small part to this mess, but the board is the source of all evil. They are the ones who should have been fired a long time ago by investors, if said investors truly cared about this company growing. Breaking news, it's not meant to, never was. It is (was) a cash-cow and nothing else. The acquire and trim strategy was not born with Mark B. It was always the brainchild of Jenkins, Sadler and Fowlie. This is how OpenText grew since the beginning. So ask yourself what's going to change with Mark B gone? Not much. A new CEO, maybe a new ELT, a trimmed down OT but deep down you can't turn a tow truck into a ferrari, not matter how much visionary or smart you think you are on topics like AI and information management (yes, looking at you Tom J). Once OT 2.0 is more or less in a functioning order with a balance sheet that's not threatening to cut its jugular, the good old habits will come back. That said by the time that's done, the world will have changed dramatically and the amount of catch-up OT will have to do will be massive even compared to their situation today.

Gelb is not the answer. Foskett should be long retired and has no biz talking to mainstreet FIs we serve... he is a Wall Street dinosaur. The RM/Sales leader - useless and clients and his team know it. Product - zero strategy. Our competition is catching up and winning because they are NOT Fiserv or FIS. Same recycled useless people that we keep moving around. Remind me what has changed???? if you have a chance to get another job - LEAVE!

I hate stock buybacks. I think they are a sign that management has no idea what to do with their hard earned cash flow. In Chevron's case, cash flow created by prior leadership. I get the argument that if you can get a higher return from stock appreciation than the investment options, they make sense. However, when you have been buying back millions - may billions of dollars worth of stock and the stock price is middling, at best, what gives? Legacy projects create legacy cash flow - some, not all. Stock buybacks, by my read, have destroyed value because they have kept us from investing in, and worse, pursuing, legacy opportunities. What say you?

Can someone explain what the heck the corporate strategy is here? There have been so many layoffs that most teams around me were barely functional to begin with. Then came surprise voluntary severance, so now all of the most knowledgeable people are leaving voluntarily and probably won’t be backfilled. Teams are literally non functional, no one knows wtf to do, and instead of spending money on what we need (competent people) leadership is wasting money on sh-t like in person SKO and a completely pointless, expensive, disruptive IT migration. If you told me leadership was trying to go for another bankruptcy I’d believe you.
Every day I just smile and nod and try to survive because we don’t have enough resources to actually do anything … meanwhile supposedly AI will come save the day!

Anyone know how location strategy plays into union employees/locations? I get it that their current contract has them working from home, but with management being required to come back, it would stand to reason the union would follow. And the union employees locations are not part of the location announcements we've heard.

Also wondered how the Frontier acquisition fits into location strategy. Seems like some major disconnects

No need for sarcastic or ignorant comments toward any side of the playing field, please.

The world needs to spend some $540 billion a year looking for oil and gas to maintain current output by 2050 as the pace of declines in existing fields increases, according to the International Energy Agency.

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/iea_says_world_must_spend_540b_a_year_looking_for_oil_gas-16-sep-2025-181814-article/

Team, let’s get to the real meat and potatoes…when will XOM production start declining hard in Permian and Guyana fields…this will set up the next candidate company purchase..any guessing which company XOM buys…this scuttle butt…is great for improving morale…

Is CRC an oil company or an investment bank? CRC only acquires reserves. I never see CRC making large oil discoveries like traditional upstream oil and gas companies. It appears there is an acquisition arm, and then there is an arm that squeezes every dime out of the process. But there is no traditional growth through exploration.

We've been through a lot this year.
Lots of pockets and smaller waves.

It's paid off, they've managed to keep it under wraps this year.

Known Layoffs in 2025:

• 300 SEC (May 15)
• 480 Global Tech (June 10)
• 150 WHQ - IDSA, NAO, Ops, Marketing, DSM (Sept 2)

Not to mention the dozens of one-offs throughout the year.

Nike conducted several small layoffs in staggered batches.
Which must have all remained under the reporting threshold for each wave.

They strategically timed reductions to avoid hitting the “mass layoff” definition.

These are conservative and confirmed numbers impacted.

What other teams, domains or dates are missing from above?

Fiverr announced on Monday that it will lay off around 250 employees, or roughly 25% of its workforce, as part of a sweeping plan to transform the company into what its founder and CEO Micha Kaufman described as an “AI-first” business.

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/my0gxhpzg

Hurry Mikey boy, follow the leader quick. Since you have no strategy, just copy the cool kid on the block.

https://insideevs.com/news/772344/exxon-mobil-ev-battery-graphite-invention-anode/

It feels like every solution is just let people go. There are so many smarter ways to boost profits without wrecking the team or morale. Leadership keeps doubling down on layoffs instead of thinking creatively, which just ends up proving their overall incompetence.

Even the market knows we have no clear strategy!

The stock won’t recover through layoffs. Maybe there’s a short-term bump, but long-term we’ve been in a downward spiral. You can’t fix anything with cuts alone, especially when they’re not strategic or tied to a real vision. This company won’t magically grow again. And after years of dumping on its most valuable resource, skilled and competent employees, you can’t expect to be an industry titan.

Microsoft has entered its fifth straight month of layoffs in 2025, with just over 40 roles cut at its Redmond headquarters this September, according to the Seattle Times. While smaller than earlier waves — including 6,000 job losses in May and 9,000 in July — the new cuts bring the total to more than 15,000 employees since the company announced an $80 billion AI investment. The latest layoffs affected engineering, product management, and legal positions, and raise questions about whether Microsoft is normalizing monthly job cuts to reshape its workforce around AI.

The company continues to defend the strategy as part of a broader transformation, pointing to declining reliance on certain roles while heavily hiring for AI, machine learning, cloud, and Copilot development. CEO Satya Nadella has described the tension between record profits and the pressure to reduce costs as the “enigma of success.” Microsoft has also rolled out a $4 billion “Elevate” program to reskill workers for the AI era, even as employees face uncertainty and fear of automation replacing traditional jobs.

These workforce changes are not unique to Microsoft — Amazon, Meta, and Google have taken similar steps — but the Redmond company’s consistent monthly layoffs highlight how aggressively it is prioritizing AI and automation over maintaining its existing headcount.

Full article: https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/fifth-month-of-layoffs-at-microsoft-whats-driving-the-cuts

Laid off over 700 employees.
The layoffs are a part of a braoder stragey.

A merger between HP and Dell could create a global technology powerhouse with unmatched scale, operational efficiency, and market reach. By combining their strengths in personal computing, enterprise solutions, and supply chain management, the merged company could drive innovation, reduce costs through economies of scale, and better compete with major players like Apple and Lenovo. Additionally, aligning their R&D efforts and customer service infrastructures could enhance product offerings and improve customer experience across both consumer and enterprise markets. The current administration may allow such a merger if it demonstrates clear benefits to U.S. competitiveness in the global tech industry, promotes domestic job growth, and does not significantly reduce competition in key market segments. Given the strategic importance of maintaining leadership in technology, regulators could view the merger as a way to strengthen the nation’s position in a rapidly evolving global economy.

If only the revolving door of CEO's and senior executives of Dixie had little forethought and understanding of where the industry was going!

Look at the Oracle results and Ellison's strategy - they built DC's anticipating the AI demand. Here we sold all the DC's and ripped them off from our asset list.

They never had strategy other than paying themselves off, by selling what was left!

With rising competition from companies like Roche and others, is continuing to downsize R&D investment truly the right strategy? We need an entrepreneurial CEO—one who is bold and visionary—to clearly articulate our genuine growth plan to investors. Instead of focusing solely on margin calculations through cuts, we should invest more now to develop groundbreaking products and outpace our rivals. I believe Wall Street would prefer a company with strong growth potential over one with lackluster expansion but improved margins from relentless cost reductions. The current share price speaks volumes: investors are not buying into Illumina’s new strategy.

Anyone else find it interesting that LS made no mention of OFSE, CCUS, etc… All I heard was that we are positioning ourselves to not feel the pressure of the oil market…

AT&T Inc. (T)
UP 32.97%
5-YEARS

VZ
DOWN 27.40%
5-YEARS

AND THESE BOZOS WANT FYBR (FOOBAR)
5 BILLION PLUS LOST ON OATH (YAHOO)

NEW LEADERSHIP ASAP! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!

in 2019, which is 6 years ago, Ford introduced the new redesign models Explorer, Escape, F150, Mustang, and Transit. The only model that is still selling above 100,000 units per year is the F150. If you look at these vehicles after 6 years, they are all still look the same.

This is the main reason why Ford vehicles sales are down. Why would anyone want to buy a new vehicle that looks like the ones from 6 years ago.

Ford will ax the Escape and Transit, the Mustang is iconic so Ford will hold on to it even though Ford loses money making the Mustang.

@OP+1k4876rt2 Bumping this post forward...This post had it all right.

Just how bad is it for SAP? Well our stock price has plummeted 12 % in just the last month and shows no sign of a rebound. It is tracking straight down.

But go have a look at what Oracle is doing just today... Stock is on par to set a record - it is up since opening this morning 35%. All due to some very big scores on AI - and where is SAP while others are winning ?? Your guess is as good as mine. This kind of beat down would not have happened under previous leadership teams.

We are planning of dumping our Maintenance Biz, which was responsible for most of our stable revenue over the last several decades and no indication as to what platform will replace this significant revenue stream.

It's hard to watch.

As was stated in the referenced post, CK and DA had better get their act together real soon, or SAP will be lost for good against our competitors.

https://www.channelfutures.com/channel-sales-marketing/broadcom-hands-services-business-over-to-partners

1) Capital misallocation
non-primary business ventures, cost cutting, stock buybacks

2) Failed management
misguided programs, general incompetence, arrogance, strategic blunders, bureaucratic processes, focus on politics

I would say cost cutting in the wrong areas is the major one. The other failures are somewhat recoverable

I didn’t think it was possible but Go Go has made a good move. The purchase of Cenovus 50% stake in WRB should have been done a long time ago.
It just goes to show that even a broken clock is correct 2 times a day.

And some Med Advantage markets.

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/insurance/mh-elevance-health-medicare-advantage-plans-2026/#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways,offset%20their%20prescription%20drug%20costs.

What would turn this place around? New leadership? New strategy? Something else?

For anyone thinking the change to Sycamore is going to lead us to better things anytime you need to be ready. They’re preparing to walk the new CEO through the budget for this year but aren’t letting anyone with actual insights into the room. He’s going to be fed a load of BS that can’t be delivered and everyone will be left with the fallout.

Unless the new owners want to actually hear from the few of us that have ideas to reinvent this company, the beatings will continue.

Is the drag on this great company.

That surpassed even the most optimistic scenario, no thanks to super expensive public cloud hyper scalers who got greedy.

I think the government is more modern than Dell. The initiatives they drive to modernize are basic engineering practices that our management rejects, because our management teams at the SVP level and up have no idea about technologies or industry practices. The operational models they’ve put into place in ISG and CSG are steps backwards. They couldn’t possibly be more bureaucratic and foolish. Just huge power grabs made from people who have no idea what they’re doing and are so philosophical and unrealistic it’s embarrassing in practice.

Meanwhile you add the layoffs, cut throat attitude and poor strategy and you’ve got yourself one of the worst businesses of all time.

Dell is a company stuck in the 90s that has no strategy, poor management and terrible engineering practices. They don’t really want to modernize although they like the word.

It’s pathetic and sad.

Yes, lot's of companies are announcing layoffs

But can anyone really understand our org structure?
What the end goal or strategy is?

Why the obsession with hiring cast-offs from other OEM at all levels? Are they trying to informally gain access to benchmarking practices of other companies? External hires have done nothing but bring more confusion and problems. Company is being driven into the ground.

The AHM Q&A is heavily moderated filtering out awkward/inconvenient questions (checked myself). It is literally impossible to get a realistic picture of the business out that hype without admitting the existing issues. The ultimate fact is the share price is stagnant/dwindling for a number of years now but everytime there are excuses from the people who must take strategic decisions and are allegedly a talent that nobody wants loosing at the very expensive price. The question needs to be asked - "Are these people (CA and the gung) even cut to lead anything/anyone?" What do you think, folks.

A similar sized company with a Portland footprint just conducted layoffs and a reorg. It was completed in 1 day. Why does it take Nike 5 months to cut a few hundred jobs and role out a new org structure and strategy that’s been known at the VP level since the beginning of the year?

Speaking of d-mb acronyms: What does “fields of play” mean anyway?

Tennis and basketball are played on a court. Running happens on a trail or track. Even in soccer (football) the playing area is more commonly referred to as a ‘pitch.’

This is the kind of inane rebranding that resulted in losing our focus and did zero to stem the loss of market share.

I applaud the move back to aligning with Sport. We should NEVER have left the category offense.

Once this is over hopefully this will allow us to all row in the same direction. And hope that it’s not too late.