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

Intel's Death and Potential Revival

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#11

Post by cheeseomlit »

pavlov wrote: post #5
xattt wrote: post #3

Folks are really cheering on Intel to win, because no one wants to be left holding the bag. We all bought Intel because we all thought it was ol’ faithful, but they’ve really, REALLY shit the bed.

What do you mean, holding the bag? Intel’s products have compatible alternatives from other vendors. If they went away, AMD would surely continue providing x86 compatible chips.

They probably mean Intel shareholders 'holding the bag' as their once-valuable stock tanks. Which is probably a lot of us through 401ks alone

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#12

Post by Dalewyn »

pavlov wrote: post #8
Dalewyn wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> “No government ownership? No public funding” And since everyone should play by the same rules, this would apply to SpaceX and Tesla too. Right?

Unlike Intel, SpaceX and Tesla actually deliver (and then some) on government grants. I'm willing to give successful parties that hold their end of the deal more benefit of the doubt. All else being equal, nationalization is overall bad for commerce (see: USPS).

But Intel? They got their fucking money and dropped the fucking ball. Fool me once? Shame on you. Not again, if Intel wants further public money then I as a taxpayer want my share of Intel as collateral for that money spent. No taxation without representation.

TSMC can get away, for now: At least they are on track to open CHIPS-funded fabs soon. If they fail too, then no further funds without ownership too.

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#13

Post by bryanlarsen »

rbanffy wrote: post #7

> up to that point most new processors came with their own instruction set Kind of. 8080 and 8085 share also the same ISA. Other families that did that were the 6502 (the 6510, the 6504), Z-80 (Hitachi's HD64180, which became the Z-180, Z-280, R800), and Texas' TMS9900, which was part of a whole family that spanned from the ill-fated TI-99/4 to the TI-990 minicomputers.

The 8088 and 8080 are not binary compatible, they're mostly source compatible.

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#14

Post by pavlov »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #11
pavlov wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, holding the bag? Intel’s products have compatible alternatives from other vendors. If they went away, AMD would surely continue providing x86 compatible chips.

They probably mean Intel shareholders 'holding the bag' as their once-valuable stock tanks. Which is probably a lot of us through 401ks alone

Oh. Well, the stock already tanked. If a stock loses 75% of its value and you barely notice, then the remaining 25% doesn’t matter either.

For most passive investors, an individual stock’s weight is a technical detail that’s handled by automatic portfolio adjustments. The total market cap of semi sector stocks is way up despite Intel, so anybody who didn’t try to actively pick winners has done well.

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#15

Post by bryanlarsen »

pavlov wrote: post #8
Dalewyn wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> “No government ownership? No public funding” And since everyone should play by the same rules, this would apply to SpaceX and Tesla too. Right?

Why? The US government funds SpaceX by buying rocket launches. They buy a rocket launch and they get a rocket launch. You don't expect the government to get a share of Ford every time they buy an F-150 for the Forest Service, do you?

And US subsidies to Tesla are consumer subsidies. Tesla doesn't get the money directly, but they definitely benefit indirectly. The important part is that Tesla only benefits if the consumer gets an EV. Tesla is not getting money for nothing, the quid pro quo is maintained.

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#16

Post by jmclnx »

I still do not really get this hand wringing over Intel.

The only thing I see are these institutional investors are very upset Intel is not like Nvidia. So they are complaining and these investors will eventually destroy Intel because their stock is not rising 500% per year.

So all this pressure on Intel since Nvidia became a thing is distracting Intel from focusing on their business. Causing more harm than good.

Re: Intel's Death and Potential Revival

#20

Post by diziet_sma »

jmclnx wrote: post #16

I still do not really get this hand wringing over Intel. The only thing I see are these institutional investors are very upset Intel is not like Nvidia. So they are complaining and these investors will eventually destroy Intel because their stock is not rising 500% per year. So all this pressure on Intel since Nvidia became a thing is distracting Intel from focusing on their business. Causing more harm than good.

Intel products have been losing x86 to AMD in servers, desktop, and laptops. x86 itself is losing market share to ARM in the server and laptop space. Intel has no foothold in the fastest growing chip space (GPUs).

Intel foundry has fallen behind TSMC to the point the latest Intel laptop chip (Lunar Lake) was manufactured using TSMC. Recent attempts to attract external client s to fab using Intel Foundry have not met expectations.

Given all this, I think quite a lot of hand-wringing is warranted.

Post reply on HN