It’s been a mixed week for Intel, and it looks like the processor giant will be ending it on a low note.
Intel remains positive
Reuters is reporting that the Santa Clara, Calif.-headquartered company will be reducing its workforce by roughly five percent this year.
Intel’s most recent annual report, for 2012, states that Intel’s workforce stands at approximately 105,000. The Reuters report cites that this figure is now closer to 107,000.
Intel leadership was already on the defensive on Thursday following a mixed fourth quarter earnings report.
CEO Brian Krzanich admitted during the conference call that enterprise figures didn’t live up to expectations because Intel “overestimated the rate of recovery among corporate buyers.”
He also warned analysts and investors to expect “a slower recovery in enterprise over the course of 2014.”
The processor giant reported earnings of 51 cents a share on revenue of $13.8 billion. But Wall Street was looking for earnings of 52 cents a share on revenue of $13.72 billion. Analysts had been particularly counting on strong data center results.
As a result, Intel shares took a dip in after-hours trading.
But Krzanich remained optimistic about 2014, particularly keen on plans that aim to grow Intel’s tablet volume from the 10 million mark achieved in 2013 to more than 40 million by the end of 2014.
ZDNet reached out to Intel for comment. We will update this post once we hear back.
UPDATE: Intel spokesperson Chris Kraeuter confirmed to ZDNet that Intel “employment will come down by about five percent this year.”
“I can confirm that we’re making critical decisions to align our resources to meet the needs of our business,” Kraeuter continued.
However, Kraeuter refused to comment about which departments and geographical regions would be affected, only to note that “we re-prioritized some activities” and that the layoffs will progress over the course of 2014.
Kraeuter later clarified that the reduction could also include “redeployments, voluntary programs, retirements, and through attrition” versus layoffs entirely.