Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei - (via Reuters)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Apr 9, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-sony-job-cuts-idUSBRE83803Y20120409>

    Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei


    (Reuters) - Japan's Sony Corp is cutting 10,000 jobs, about 6 percent
    of its global workforce, the Nikkei newspaper reported on Monday, as
    new CEO Kazuo Hirai looks to steer the electronics and entertainment
    giant back to profit after four years in the red.

    The job cuts would be the latest downsizing in Japan Inc where
    companies from cellphone maker NEC Corp to electronics firm Panasonic
    Corp are trimming costs in the face of a strong yen and competition
    from rivals like Apple and Samsung Electronics.

    TV makers in particular have been hit hard by the tough business
    climate as well as sharp price falls, with Sony, Panasonic and Sharp
    expecting to have lost a combined $17 billion in the fiscal year just
    ended.

    Investors will closely monitor a briefing on Thursday by Hirai, who
    formally took over this month as chief executive from Howard Stringer,
    for further clues on how Sony plans to revamp its business.

    <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-sony-job-cuts-idUSBRE83803Y20120409>
    Bruce, Apr 9, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > You don't regain strength by cutting costs, you do it be increasing revenue.
    > But increasing revenue requires brains, whereas cutting costs does not.


    both are important.
    nospam, Apr 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > both are important.

    >
    > Then why do CEOs depend so much on cost-cutting alone?


    not all ceos are good at what they do.
    nospam, Apr 10, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >> Any businessman worth his salt conserves capital.


    That would be an investor, not a real businessman.

    >>
    >> Short term shortfalls are one thing, but a company with long term
    >> hemorrhaging is something else. The television business is brutal
    >> with few (if any) manufacturers making a profit more than thin gruel.


    Which is why a smart business develops new products and markets. Sony once
    was an innovator, (too long ago unfortunately) it seems they have now given
    up.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Apr 10, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Me Guest

    On 10/04/2012 4:26 p.m., Rich wrote:
    > Bruce<> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-sony-job-cuts-idUSBRE8380
    >> 3Y20120409>
    >>
    >> Sony to ax 10,000 jobs in turnaround bid: Nikkei
    >>
    >>
    >> (Reuters) - Japan's Sony Corp is cutting 10,000 jobs, about 6 percent
    >> of its global workforce, the Nikkei newspaper reported on Monday, as
    >> new CEO Kazuo Hirai looks to steer the electronics and entertainment
    >> giant back to profit after four years in the red.
    >>
    >> The job cuts would be the latest downsizing in Japan Inc where
    >> companies from cellphone maker NEC Corp to electronics firm Panasonic
    >> Corp are trimming costs in the face of a strong yen and competition
    >> from rivals like Apple and Samsung Electronics.
    >>
    >> TV makers in particular have been hit hard by the tough business
    >> climate as well as sharp price falls, with Sony, Panasonic and Sharp
    >> expecting to have lost a combined $17 billion in the fiscal year just
    >> ended.
    >>
    >> Investors will closely monitor a briefing on Thursday by Hirai, who
    >> formally took over this month as chief executive from Howard Stringer,
    >> for further clues on how Sony plans to revamp its business.
    >>
    >> <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-sony-job-cuts-idUSBRE8380
    >> 3Y20120409>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yes, I've got to admit, I don't know how they sell large TV's for the
    > prices they do. Compare a 55" LED/Plasma TV to a DSLR that costs the
    > same. Think of the difference in material costs, shipping, etc.
    >

    Perhaps part of the reason for this is that a cartel got busted.
    Me, Apr 10, 2012
    #5
  6. On 2012-04-10, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Eric Stevens writes:
    >
    >> But do they?

    >
    > It's hard to find examples of CEOs using any other method.


    It's hard to find in part because it's harder to see. You can cut many
    jobs in one day. It may take half a decade or longer, from inception to
    full operation, to put new capital into play. Guess which one makes the
    news.

    --
    Bruce Guenter <> http://untroubled.org/
    Bruce Guenter, Apr 10, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Me Guest

    Me, Apr 11, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > I had one of those once, about 4-5 computer generations ago. Now I run
    > > an I7.

    >
    > The old machine would be usable if it weren't for software bloat, which has
    > absorbed all hardware performance improvements in the past few decades.


    no it hasn't. my systems today run *much* faster than what i had just a
    few years ago and *way* faster than what i had 10 or 20 years ago, and
    that's *with* the bloat.

    > On an old IBM PC, it took five or six seconds to open a document. On the
    > latest PCs, which have hardware a million times faster, it takes fix or six
    > seconds to open a document.


    if that's the same document, something is wrong.
    nospam, Apr 16, 2012
    #8
  9. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > no it hasn't. my systems today run *much* faster than what i had just a
    > > few years ago and *way* faster than what i had 10 or 20 years ago, and
    > > that's *with* the bloat.

    >
    > The major source of delay in modern computer systems is disk I/O,


    depends on the task and with ssd, that's no longer the case.

    > and while
    > disk I/O increases with each new version of software,


    not necessarily

    > disk access times have
    > hardly changed at all since the 1970s.


    oh yes they have, as have disk speeds. sata is *way* faster than the
    crappy ide that existed 10-20 years ago and certainly what existed in
    the 1970s.

    > Thus, almost all the waiting you do in
    > front of a desktop PC is either waiting for disk I/O or waiting for network
    > I/O. Very few processes are CPU-bound these days.


    actually a lot are.

    > > if that's the same document, something is wrong.

    >
    > What's wrong is that the software has bloated just as much as the hardware
    > speed has increased. Worse yet, disk speeds have not improved,


    they've dramatically increased.

    > and modern
    > software does a lot more disk I/O.


    actually it does a lot more cpu/gpu for the fancy graphic effects.
    nospam, Apr 16, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > I have seen it consistently. Something like a browser might do 1000 disk I/Os
    > as it starts up.


    what matters is after it starts up.

    > > oh yes they have, as have disk speeds. sata is *way* faster than the
    > > crappy ide that existed 10-20 years ago and certainly what existed in
    > > the 1970s.

    >
    > No, they have not. I'm not talking about capacity or transfer rates, I'm
    > talking about access time, which has hardly changed at all and is by far the
    > major bottleneck for disk performance.


    access time is *much* faster now, especially on ssd.

    > Most I/Os are very small transfers, so they hardly benefit from faster
    > transfer rates at all. What holds them back is the access time, and it's
    > terrible.


    it's not terrible.

    > > they've dramatically increased.

    >
    > No, they haven't. In the 1970s access times were around 30-40 ms. Today they
    > are around 7-10 ms. That's only a four-fold increase in speed, compared to six
    > or seven orders of magnitude for CPU speeds.


    in the 1980s, drives had 60-80ms access times and today, ssd has
    effectively 0 ms access time.

    > > actually it does a lot more cpu/gpu for the fancy graphic effects.

    >
    > Desktops can spend 80% or more of their total processor time generating
    > visuals, but they nevertheless are not normally CPU-bound.


    depends on the task.
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #10
  11. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic


    >> > I had one of those once, about 4-5 computer generations ago. Now I run
    >> > an I7.


    >> The old machine would be usable if it weren't for software bloat, which has
    >> absorbed all hardware performance improvements in the past few decades.


    > no it hasn't. my systems today run *much* faster than what i had just a
    > few years ago and *way* faster than what i had 10 or 20 years ago, and
    > that's *with* the bloat.


    Well, I've used word processor on computer systems of 30 years ago
    and have been exposed to current "Word" on current computers.
    I see little if any speed increase in e.g. spell checking.
    It should be 2^20 (over 1 million times) faster. OK, maybe
    today's spellchecking does more, but not 1000 times the slowdown
    more and it's still not 1000 times faster.

    >> On an old IBM PC, it took five or six seconds to open a document. On the
    >> latest PCs, which have hardware a million times faster, it takes fix or six
    >> seconds to open a document.


    > if that's the same document, something is wrong.


    Yep: software bloat.

    How long does it take to boot and shutdown your computer?
    Especially when it's a long used XP with lotsa things
    installed, that can take minutes.

    Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 17, 2012
    #11
  12. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > <> wrote:


    >> > no it hasn't. my systems today run *much* faster than what i had just a
    >> > few years ago and *way* faster than what i had 10 or 20 years ago, and
    >> > that's *with* the bloat.

    >>
    >> The major source of delay in modern computer systems is disk I/O,


    > depends on the task and with ssd, that's no longer the case.


    Even with SSDs that's the case. Even if they saturate a
    6GBit SATA-III connection (which they don't), RAM is still a
    couple times faster.

    And even SSDs aren't always fast with random access. They
    can get even really slow with writing, after some time.

    >> and while
    >> disk I/O increases with each new version of software,


    > not necessarily


    in 95%.

    >> disk access times have
    >> hardly changed at all since the 1970s.


    > oh yes they have, as have disk speeds. sata is *way* faster than the
    > crappy ide that existed 10-20 years ago and certainly what existed in
    > the 1970s.


    In other words, SATA and modern (non-flash) HDDs are faster
    the same way a cyclist is faster than pedestrian.
    Unfortunately everything else has changed from pedestrian to
    supersonic planes in the same time.


    >> Thus, almost all the waiting you do in
    >> front of a desktop PC is either waiting for disk I/O or waiting for network
    >> I/O. Very few processes are CPU-bound these days.


    > actually a lot are.


    Name a lot that are common in office, gaming or photographic use.


    >> > if that's the same document, something is wrong.


    >> What's wrong is that the software has bloated just as much as the hardware
    >> speed has increased. Worse yet, disk speeds have not improved,


    > they've dramatically increased.


    Compared to the rest, they've slowed down dramatically.

    >> and modern
    >> software does a lot more disk I/O.


    > actually it does a lot more cpu/gpu for the fancy graphic effects.


    There's tons of CPU and especially GPU power to waste on
    fancy graphic effects.

    In the last 20 years, computers got 8,000 times faster.
    And since RAM and HDD sizes increased much as well, more time
    efficient algorithms can be used --- use lookup tables instead of
    computing everything every time over and over because you don't
    have the storage for it, for example!

    You should see at least 10% of that speedup in any application
    that were possible back then ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 17, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > How long does it take to boot and shutdown your computer?


    i have no idea. i do it so rarely that it doesn't really matter how
    long it takes. i don't even remember the last time i rebooted.

    > Especially when it's a long used XP with lotsa things
    > installed, that can take minutes.


    so what? how often are you booting that this is even an issue?

    what matters is how long it takes to get work done. it's a lot faster
    now.

    > Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...


    guess how long it took to read an application off cassette or floppy
    and run it to do whatever you wanted to do? *that* is what matters, not
    booting.
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #13
  14. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Mxsmanic


    >>> On an old IBM PC, it took five or six seconds to open a document. On the
    >>> latest PCs, which have hardware a million times faster, it takes fix or six
    >>> seconds to open a document.

    >
    >> if that's the same document, something is wrong.

    >
    > Yep: software bloat.
    >
    > How long does it take to boot and shutdown your computer?
    > Especially when it's a long used XP with lotsa things
    > installed, that can take minutes.


    My newer computers take a lot less long. Much of the difference is in
    the BIOS, too, not in Windows.

    > Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...


    My knee-jerk reaction is "who cares?". I never had anything to do with
    those early generations of home computers because they were so
    completely inferior to what I was used to working with at work.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 17, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...

    >
    > My knee-jerk reaction is "who cares?". I never had anything to do with
    > those early generations of home computers because they were so
    > completely inferior to what I was used to working with at work.


    how long does it take to boot a mainframe, especially one that does so
    off tape?

    there were mini computers where you had to toggle in a tiny boot loader
    *each time* you booted so that it could read the actual system from
    tape or disk.
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #15
  16. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...

    >>
    >> My knee-jerk reaction is "who cares?". I never had anything to do with
    >> those early generations of home computers because they were so
    >> completely inferior to what I was used to working with at work.

    >
    > how long does it take to boot a mainframe, especially one that does so
    > off tape?


    Minutes generally; altough I never worked with one that booted off tape
    other than during installation.

    > there were mini computers where you had to toggle in a tiny boot loader
    > *each time* you booted so that it could read the actual system from
    > tape or disk.


    The "Rim Loader" code is silk-screened on the front panel of the
    PDP-8/I, for example -- and that's my screen background, so I'm looking
    at it right now. (I also used one some from 1970-1977). Seeing it, the
    sequence of instructions is even familiar -- 6032, 6031, 5357, 6036,
    ..... (That loaded in the BIN loader from paper tape, which then loaded
    the actual OS you were going to run.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 17, 2012
    #16
  17. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > there were mini computers where you had to toggle in a tiny boot loader
    > > *each time* you booted so that it could read the actual system from
    > > tape or disk.

    >
    > The "Rim Loader" code is silk-screened on the front panel of the
    > PDP-8/I, for example -- and that's my screen background, so I'm looking
    > at it right now. (I also used one some from 1970-1977). Seeing it, the
    > sequence of instructions is even familiar -- 6032, 6031, 5357, 6036,
    > .... (That loaded in the BIN loader from paper tape, which then loaded
    > the actual OS you were going to run.)


    forgot about paper tapes. that high speed paper tape reader on the
    pdp-11s (maybe even the pdp-8s) was way cool to watch.
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #17
  18. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > there were mini computers where you had to toggle in a tiny boot loader
    >> > *each time* you booted so that it could read the actual system from
    >> > tape or disk.

    >>
    >> The "Rim Loader" code is silk-screened on the front panel of the
    >> PDP-8/I, for example -- and that's my screen background, so I'm looking
    >> at it right now. (I also used one some from 1970-1977). Seeing it, the
    >> sequence of instructions is even familiar -- 6032, 6031, 5357, 6036,
    >> .... (That loaded in the BIN loader from paper tape, which then loaded
    >> the actual OS you were going to run.)

    >
    > forgot about paper tapes. that high speed paper tape reader on the
    > pdp-11s (maybe even the pdp-8s) was way cool to watch.


    I think they were the same, or very similar. Fan-fold tape moved
    through remarkably fast.

    But most of our 11s were disk-based, so we very rarely booted from
    tape. The 8 was used standalone more often, and hence booted from tape
    more often. (We had DECTape on them both. I probably still have my
    reel in a box somewhere, but no reason to think anything intereswting is
    on it.)
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 17, 2012
    #18
  19. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    > > forgot about paper tapes. that high speed paper tape reader on the
    > > pdp-11s (maybe even the pdp-8s) was way cool to watch.

    >
    > I think they were the same, or very similar. Fan-fold tape moved
    > through remarkably fast.


    it sure did.
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #19
  20. "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > How long does it take to boot and shutdown your computer?
    > Especially when it's a long used XP with lotsa things
    > installed, that can take minutes.
    >
    > Guess how long it takes to boot a C64 ...
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    Perhaps you should try a more recent version of Windows, Win-7 or Win-8?
    They boot and shutdown noticeably quicker. XP is over 10 years old now
    (but I'm still using it as well).

    David
    David J Taylor, Apr 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. V.S.
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    3,351
    Reginald Dwight
    Dec 24, 2003
  2. Harv
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,241
  3. Paul D. Sullivan
    Replies:
    89
    Views:
    1,663
    John Turco
    May 30, 2007
  4. Knut Arvid Keilen

    I offer you 300.000.000.000 NOK by law. Who is the bidder?

    Knut Arvid Keilen, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    478
    Moldy Cheese
    Dec 13, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    211
    Joe Makowiec
    Feb 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page