No made up BS here as this came from articles and BC blogs. This is what they said are going to be their focus:
Anything else missed?
So there might be some small reductions for these units or none but the deep cuts will come from elsewhere. At least initially.
Ironically I’m thankful that they’ve made apparent where their priorities lay so I know where I stand.
Pretty sure if HP had more black engineers working for them they wouldn't have built a web cam that couldn't perform face detection on black faces.
"Good luck making good products with a group made of people who look like each other, promote and hire people like them. Actually, try to find one and work for them. Let's see how well this goes."
There is so much wrong with this statement.
Please give us examples of where skin color matters over skill. If you want to build a house, all you need are carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. If they are all black, the house will get built. If they are 100% Latino, white, or trans, it will still get built because they have the necessary skills to accomplish the project. If you ask a diverse group of people to build a home, but they don't have any of the required skills, will the home get built? No, of course not. Skills and ability are all that matter, their group identity is meaningless, and the make-up of the group is meaningless.
But I imagine what you are saying is it's better to have a diverse group of skilled people, but can you prove that? How can you tell the difference between a house built by a diverse group of people vs a single group of people? I doubt you can.
This is the problem with DEI thinking. It makes stupid claims about group identity mattering more than actual qualifications. The only thing we should worry about and fight against is discriminatory hiring practices. DEI is institutional discrimination mostly against asians and whites. Discrimination is wrong, no matter which groups it's against.
The reason there are more whites and asians in tech, is because they comprise the majority of the applicants. URM's represent the smallest part of the applicant pool, and for some roles they don't apply at all. But in spite of that, our DEI program insists we must slow down the hiring process and the business to find them. If you all truly cared about diversity in tech, then you would fix the problem at the source, which is increase the talent pool and applicants from URM, instead of making crazy claims about hiring unqualified URM's to meet a diversity target, will make better products.
TanzPoo is responsible for 110% of our profits.
"Diversity does not make a company successful. Good products and services make a company successful. If you really believe lack of diversity is a problem you really have to be in denial. Is simple, products that are not making a profit will be let go and if any bad product is left behind they will reorg trying to fix it to make it more profitable."
Good luck making good products with a group made of people who look like each other, promote and hire people like them. Actually, try to find one and work for them. Let's see how well this goes.
“ Diversity does not make a company successful.”
That’s not what team HR tells us
Diversity does not make a company successful. Good products and services make a company successful. If you really believe lack of diversity is a problem you really have to be in denial. Is simple, products that are not making a profit will be let go and if any bad product is left behind they will reorg trying to fix it to make it more profitable.
DEI and OCTO and HR are responsible for 80% of our revenue and profit.
Hock has made many positive comments about VCF, so that will be kept. Some of his comments were in interviews, in the UK Broadcom response document (i.e. VMware has failed to execute on VCF/Private & Mult-icloud adoption but Broadcom will succeed ~), etc.
lets be real. Anything that's not vsphere itself or vsphere related will be cut. just as simple as that.
Is this recent or old news? Because didnt they just do a tanzu reorg? I assume it's to package them off and sell em?
The BC approach to anything is really simple - do whatever drives profitable growth for the shareholders. Just remember, BC is run as a Private Equity company that designs and sells semiconductors (plus, a little legacy software).
I agree, anything they say publicly that's contrary to their actual business model is not credible, and should not be believed by fearful VMW employees. Wise up, get real.
Those are prolly safest for initial rounds. Hok likes investing in R&D and loves his engineers. Of course like all businesses they will continue to trim as they figure out the business more. He runs the business for profit after all.
Why would you believe them, though?
Broadcom says their top focus is on R&D because everyone knows they historically cut R&D. So Broadcom is doing this thing calling "lying" where they don't tell the truth in order to mislead people.
Anyone can simply look at their history if they don't believe me. Broadcom cuts R&D in every company they buy because R&D is not directly tied to profitability. But R&D is popular. So they can't admit they are going to cut it. They lie, and everyone accepts the lie and pretends to be surprised when they do the same things they've done before.
Don't believe what they say, believe what they've done.
According to a post in another thread, it’s well-documented that diversity is what makes companies successful. So I agree, DEI should be at the top of this list, otherwise Broadcom has no chance of being successful.
They missed DEI! I don’t understand why DEI isn’t at the top of that list.