I still find it remarkable that 10-20+ years of profit after profit can in no way make up for a few disappointing quarters in a way that prevents divestment from entire industries.

It’s not like Intel is going bankrupt, it’s that Intel is cutting down dead trees (for them). Usually you do something about sick trees/plants and don’t wait for them to die. Intel has dominated the market for too long which has created a certain amount of “comfort” in Intel. In other words, they should have intervened earlier, for example, in New Urban Communities, since they have recently seen a lot of strange “New Urban Communities” products…

Of course, a company can always expect growth/profit, as long as it does not focus on a single product/market. Of course, calculator makers can’t expect to grow if everyone has a smartphone… “Shoemaker, stick with your last one!” This is very bad advice for the company. Maybe good advice for someone. You see Nvidia, for example, being very active in branches other than just consumer GPUs, which have responded well to the AI ​​market. Look at Apple over the past 20+ years, they haven’t just stopped at iPods… they’re now also developing their own chips (and more and more of their own parts), which are in different branches of hardware, but also a lot in software And services…

By the way, there is a very big difference between expecting/desiring endless profit and not preparing for bad years. I think big tech companies have enough money to ride out some bad years. But why continue to operate an underperforming production line or retain employees you don’t need?

“Endless” is practically possible with a larger world population and inflation. Always more people and always more money available to buy things. The question, of course, is whether you’re making things that enough people will want to buy.