Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Honesty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 426 posts

Re: Intel Honesty

#331

Post by dang »

closeparen wrote: post #50

>Their pay in the Bay Area is double tsmc in taiwan for equivalent roles in raw dollar terms but the ppp differences means your better off working for tsmc in Taiwan than intel in the Bay Area. That’s not a joke. Intel are literally incapable of attracting talent from Taiwan right now. There's some whiplash in hearing constantly how the US is a corporate-dominated oligarchy, and then also seeing trillion-dollar indus…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41448341.

Re: Intel Honesty

#332

Post by laaserboy »

From the article, “William Shockley, one of the inventors of the transistor at Bell Labs”.

William Shockley did not invent the transistor in 1947. He was not on the patent and was in Europe at the time of the invention. John Bardeen and Walter Brattain were on the patent. Shockley shared the Nobel Prize due to work in 1948 on the transistor effect.

Source: https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/analog/article...

Re: Intel Honesty

#333

Post by Qwertious »

astrange wrote: post #218
spockz wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a large reason why many of our larger municipalities now forbid to buy a home in their zone if it isn’t (going to be) your primary residence. It seems to be working quite well.

The only thing that matters is how many homes there are; stuff like this and vacancy taxes has barely any effect. The main reason to do it is if you want to appear to solve the problem without actually trying to solve it. The main reason anyone would own two SFHs is that you need to do this in order to move. If you sell your first home before moving you're homeless. And after that it can take a long time to find a bu…

>The only thing that matters is how many homes there are

Cost of construction also matters - it reduces the renter's BATNA which reduces bargaining power.

Re: Intel Honesty

#334

Post by Qwertious »

kortilla wrote: post #281
scarface_74 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many of the traditional demographics of tech workers do you think want to move to Florida? It is currently my home state and I work remotely. But I’m older. I would never want to live here if my wife were younger or I thought there was any chance we wanted to become pregnant.

Why would you have difficulty becoming pregnant in Florida?

Nobody said anything about difficulty becoming pregnant. Florida has abortion bans, and that has knock-on effects on e.g. if a woman miscarries, the doctor is required to report any "suspected abortions" and CYAs and now you're in jail for having had a normal medical problem.

Re: Intel Honesty

#335

Post by jack1243star »

starspangled wrote: post #318
ska wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years for a hardware startup to get really going isn't unusual. One of the other reasons VC likes SAAS. Hardware startups are cash intensive and slow boils, typically.

They weren't a startup for 20 years, they were a huge company with billion dollar fabs, thousands of workers, and they were exchanging technology lead with other silicon manufacturing companies many times (back before 2020s, mid/late 2010s, TSMC was not undisputed leader). UMC was a Taiwan foundry that started even before TSMC and it eventually folded.

>UMC was a Taiwan foundry that started even before TSMC and it eventually folded.

What are you even talking about...

Re: Intel Honesty

#337

Post by Panzer04 »

eric-hu wrote: post #216
bluecalm wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel stock is as high as it was 15 years ago when they had total market domination. Now they are at the brink of collapse. The market is way bigger today but still, I would take a dominant player over a failing one every day. Another way to look at it: Intel market cap is 83B, AMD's market cap is 228B. Do you think Intel is expected to make 1/3 of the money AMD is going to make in coming decades? I see no reason to…

> Another way to look at it: Intel market cap is 83B, AMD's market cap is 228B. Do you think Intel is expected to make 1/3 of the money AMD is going to make in coming decades? I see no reason to be as optimistic. Nit: market cap is not earnings. That's stock price * shares outstanding. This year's earnings looks like this: Intel, 3 months ended: Jun 29, 2024 > Net income (loss) (1,654) https://www.intc.com/news-event…

Intel's revenue is 54B to AMD 22B. If Intel's CPU division was spun off, I see little reason to believe AMD deserves a 3x premium to that - and you get IFS with Intel as well right now!

Granted, IFS is the millstone hanging around their neck right now, unless they can fix it.

Re: Intel Honesty

#338

Post by Panzer04 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #46
nightski wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying you are wrong but personally I'd view the stock as an attractive perk right now since it is so low. Whereas if I were joining a company such as Nvidia I'd honestly be kind of worried. Historical performance isn't really a great indicator here.

By what metric do you consider INTC to be low? I took a look because I'd be happy picking up some cheap INTC, but it still looks expensive to me.

Their revenue is >twice AMD's. If IFS disappeared they'd probably have a better valuation than they do right now solely based on processor performance, but their success in the foundry business is probably contributing negative value to their market cap (presumably because it's soaking up so much cash for nil returns)

Intel upside right now is possibly very high, if they can fix the foundry. Their current stock is pricing in complete catastrophe, rightly or wrongly (TSMC is priced at 750B mkt cap, for perspective). Yes, intel isn't as successful as TSMC right now, but only ten years ago intel foundry was better than TSMC.

I don't know where they'll go. But I feel you have much better risk/reward with intel right now.

Re: Intel Honesty

#339

Post by Panzer04 »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #33
davidw wrote: post #5

The geopolitical bit of all this is the real wild card. No one really knows what's going to happen there.

Yeah, you've got Apple, Nvidia and AMD heavily exposed to that geopolitical risk, but seemingly not willing to help lessen it by investing in US fabs. Whenever I note this people here and elsewhere say "they're smart to be fabless" but somebody's gotta run fabs and more fabs need to be run in the US and quickly. I realize industrial policy isn't in vogue these days but it might be a good idea for the future of US sem…

I thought historically companies always wanted "second sources" for things like this.

Surely all the fabless semis can't be blithely running off a cliff with TSMC as their only parts source? That would be a catastrophic risk to take down the track if there's only a single vendor for advanced chips and they've decided to hike prices and collect all of the benefits alone from their advanced processes and share none of them with their customers.

Re: Intel Honesty

#340

Post by Panzer04 »

cs702 wrote: post #84

The OP makes a compelling case that Intel's foundry operations have fallen so far behind that they are no longer economically viable on their own, in the face of current market forces, i.e., Intel's foundry business may not be able to earn a positive return on the tens of billions of dollars of capex now required to catch up with TSMC. If the US truly views having a domestic foundry as critical to national security,…

They aren't competitive right this moment, I suppose. Is that a reason to completely give up on all of the embedded knowledge inside the Intel IFS organisation?

Surely at some point you can make the argument that it's worth the investment for possible returns in the future, even if it costs a crazy amount of money right now. Trying to replicate what Intel has as another player would be even more exorbitant, presumably.

Post reply on HN