Live data from Hacker News

The technology industry is rife with bottlenecks

economist.com

1–10 of 45 posts

Re: The technology industry is rife with bottlenecks

#3
In many cases, and even more so in the most critical components, there is no second tier of suppliers. There is no market for second tier components. Using second tier components would subtract so much value that OEMs in highly competitive businesses, like Apple or Samsung, can't even consider such substitutions.

So we can't "go it alone." That may be a feature, not a bug.

Re: The technology industry is rife with bottlenecks

#8
I'm still royally $EXPLETIVE_HERE about Analog Devices buying Linear Technology a couple of months ago. AD and LTC used to be the mutual second source suppliers for critical components in lots of my projects. For almost every part AD had there was a matching counterpart in LTC's portfolio and vice versa. And often enough I could design my PCBs in a way that they even could be populated with either chip, depending on availability. Most of the ICs are still available in their AD and LTC variants, but I wonder for how long.

I've similar feelings about the acquisition of National Semiconductor by Texas Instruments (primary and second source for high speed ADCs).

Re: The technology industry is rife with bottlenecks

#9
post #7

The thing that truly worries me is that once these countries are no longer dependent on each other it will be easier for them to get into war with each other.

Retaliation / MAD is a non trivial idea that leaders of nations should understand.

I only worry of a cornered politician or spoiled Heir that would ignore this.

Re: The technology industry is rife with bottlenecks

#10
post #7

The thing that truly worries me is that once these countries are no longer dependent on each other it will be easier for them to get into war with each other.

That line of thinking didn't stop World War I from happening[1].

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0...

"Political scientists often argue that international economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war. Nations that might otherwise be inclined to fight can be deterred, informed or transformed by economic interdependence.

World War I has been called the “Achilles Heel” of such theories. In the decades before the war, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in international economic interdependence, both through trade and capital flows. Yet war not only broke out, but the scale of its destruction was unprecedented. Economic liberalism went into retreat. How could anyone sustain the notion that trade could prevent war when the most destructive war in history had followed an era of expansive international trade? For decades, scholars and policymakers alike pointed to World War I as providing strong evidence against the liberal case."

Post reply on HN