Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

271–280 of 765 posts

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#271
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure tough business but, risky compared to what? Intel?

Yeah. Risky compared to Intel. Intel manufactures chips _right now_. They have lost their process edge, but if I have to put chips into a drone tomorrow, I'm betting on Intel rather than any bag of scrappy kids. The risk that they _can't_ produce chips is the same risk as that of Hillsboro Oregon getting carpet bombed -- which is of course not 0%.

Note that there are several drone microcontroller manufacturers based in the U.S. right now - ModalAI, ARK Electronics, Rotor Riot, etc.

The thing about drones is that they actually don't require much computational power compared to modern consumer computing. It's just math - control systems, calculus, trig, waypoints, etc. All of these were solved problems in the days of the Apollo Guidance computer, and will run comfortably on chips from 2 decades ago. The STM32F722 microcontroller that is one of the most common hobbyist drone chips is built on the 90nm process node, runs at 216MHz, has 512K of SRAM, and costs about $5/chip. FWIW, it's made in France and Italy rather than China, and STMicroelectronics owns its own fabs rather than outsourcing to TSMC or Chinese companies.

If you want to do things like computer vision on the drone, the computational requirements are quite a bit higher, but you can still run something like YOLO at orders of magnitude less computational power than what you've got in a Pixel 9 or iPhone 16.

...which makes me wonder if a better strategy for the military would be to fund a wide variety of domestic chip manufacturers operating at decades-old process nodes (eg. the 65nm process node from 2005 seems to be at about the sweet spot), rather than try to prop up the one American company that can compete on cutting edge 7nm process nodes. Particularly since the experience of WW2 was that simple, robust designs that could be easily licensed to other suppliers and mass produced (eg. the Hawker Hurricane, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Grumman/GM TBF Avenger, Liberty ship, escort carrier) were much more effective at turning the tide of battle than designs that were on the cutting edge of technology (eg. the Vought F4U Corsair, Gloster Meteor, Japanese Shinano aircraft carrier). The latter were often better in absolute performance, but arrived late, in small numbers, and with teething troubles that made the former carry the bulk of the battle. The Liberty Ship, for example, used reciprocating steam engines that were 50-year-old technology in WW2, but they were "good enough" and dead simple to make.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#272

Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

They supply components for the defense industry, where foreign production isn't a viable option. No one bank is more important than that. This is also why Micron is getting a free fab for strategic redundancy despite no clear reason why they would need 2x capacity after onshoring back to Boise.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#273
post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#274
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.

The US can't employ poverty-tier labor to enable competitive margins, though. American businesses and global trade partners already largely reject Intel's foundry services.

Labor is not the key factor driving chip prices or performance. Fabs are highly automated and filled with extremely precise machinery. The maintenance and upkeep of machinery, the yield per wafer, and consumer demand drive the prices. Labor is basically a rounding error.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#275

> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips Interesting accounti…

Because this clears the way to sell Intel Foundry and separate the chip design from the chip-manufacturing businesses completely.

The CHiPs act money had claw-backs such that if Intel sold the Foundry off they had to pay the government all the money back. This new deal waives all the clawbacks and says instead the Government gets warrants, good for five years, for 5% of the company at $20/share, good once they control less than 51% of the Foundry.

Ergo, the reason for the deal is that the board wants to sell off the Foundry, and didn't want to pay back the CHiPS act money.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#277
post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

I agree. In fact, I think the government should own all utilities like they do in more socialist countries. It gets rid of price gouging, and the stabilizes the market in things that are necessary for human life.

The natural resources of the country should belong to all of us. Not just a select few.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that pretty bad, Darth Vader style changing of previously agreed on deals ? Not sure how anyone can believe anything that was agreed will hold in such an environment. :P

Yes, but its semiconductor industry so its complicated. Intel got money via grants from the chip act and via other governments. Part of the reason they got that money was to help them build the chip fans in the USA and funding research and workforce in other nations. The fact Intel has claimed its slowing construction basically is a full 180° spin and will set them back in manufacturing ability. Previous CEO strategy…

New CEO wants to keep the fabs though. It was the board chair pushing him to cut the fabs.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#279

Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

There is only 1 winner and 1 loser: Intel. It's the only chip manufacturer "left" in the US. The argument is national security: the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Whether this will happen or not can be debated, but this is what the government expects.

Exactly. Expect to see some kind of additional intervention such as forcing a certain number of chips that currently go to TSMC to go to Intel.
Post reply on HN