Live data from Hacker News

Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

reuters.com

41–50 of 150 posts

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>big government and a fancy stock manipulation scheme. What's wrong with US gov caring about supply chain and manufacturing capability of the most needed technology right there - on American soil? It is in US' interest to be able to produce such complex tech locally

The issue for some is the driving force is military, to secure their supply chain to kill people.

It's also a major concern to have a supply chain that can be protected from foreign manipulation.

A compromised supply chain is a huge intelligence/national security risk, not just for military platforms but everything from government and commercial datacenters to personal devices used by both public and private sector individuals.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#42
post #26

Intel was not "allowed" to fail. (But Spirit Airlines was) and now the stock is at an all time high. It was only 9 months ago [0] that almost everyone here was bearish (not me [1]). Now it is the opposite. Next we will here some folks wishing they should have joined Intel when it was $20 a share. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44675965 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641

18A was Schrodinger's fab: we didn't know if it was alive or dead. Now we know it's alive.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#43

Wasn't the whole apple silicon thing about Intel being unable to keep up? Is this maybe a way to expand the affordable neo line?

Intel has been deemed a national security asset. Essential infrastructure. The government (both current and previous administrations) is doing everything it can to make sure they do keep up, at the very least. And with enough money being thrown at it, they probably will.

I've always thought letting the free market decide everything is not an optimal strategy. Protecting sovereignty of key industries like this is a good example.

What IMO is a bad strategy is the aversion to nationalization that exists in the USA. They buy billions worth of shares in key companies to inject capital during times of crisis, to later divest and refuse to be a player in industry.

China's model is much more complex. There's state-owned companies, companies where the state is a major stake-holder, and private companies too. It seems to afford them more tools to push and steer industries as they see important.

The USA is no stranger to this at smaller scales; airports are state run (at the municipal or state level). This rids them of the burden of profit, and allows them to be strategically use for the broader benefit when it makes sense.

Some are profitable; state-run doesn't necessarily mean unprofitable. But some can written off as infrastructure investments that don't make money but make other industries in the region competitive. At some point this makes sense if you want to keep pushing forward; let's stop worrying too much about making money on X, because if X is a widely-available commodity, we can instead make money on Y and Z.

I see it in Mexico too. Mexico's private healthcare is affordable and good because it has huge state-run healthcare system to compete with. State-provided healthcare isn't the best or fastest healthcare you can get, but it is free. This certainly puts competitive pressure on private healthcare companies, and in a way gives the Mexican government the best regulatory tool: the market itself. The Mexican government isn't trying to destroy private health, but via the state health enterprise it gains tools to steer and push the health industry in ways it may deem important.

Looking at the state of EVs and the car industry, I think it's clear whatever the Chinese government did to incentivize EV innovation was more effective than the federal incentives the USA government provided. At one point the USA government had a 60% stake in General Motors [1]; meaning it was nationalized, before being privatized again by 2013.

I just wonder what the USA could've done with that machinery; could they have offered a cheap EV, even if it's low quality, to push adoption, competitive pressure and get supply chains going? Could they have further commoditized certain parts to lower costs? Could they have strategically opened factories in certain locations to lower the risk and investment cost of future companies, and this way get the ball rolling on creating new auto-industry regions? We will never know, but we do know the USA's auto industry is now on the defense playing catch-up to China, and there seems to be little the USA government can do except placing tariffs and offering subsidies.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/09/government-sells-the-last-of...

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#44
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many more economic cycles until Intel is asking Apple to fab Intel-designed chips?

Even if we make the not-particularly-reasonable assumption that Apple would want to own a fab, and the wildly unreasonable assumption that they would accept any outside customers for the fab: building a fab business from scratch to something competitive would take on the order of a decade or more even for a company with Apple's resources. And if Apple bought somebody else's fab business, it seems most likely that it…

> not-particularly-reasonable assumption that Apple would want to own a fab, and the wildly unreasonable assumption that they would accept any outside customers for the fab

Isn’t running a fab only while it makes top of the line chips a bad idea because you can still make good money from it in later years?

If so, I think they, _if_ they ever want to own a fab (unlikely, IMO), they’ll want to accept outside customers for it when it has stopped being best-in-the-world.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#45
post #26

Intel was not "allowed" to fail. (But Spirit Airlines was) and now the stock is at an all time high. It was only 9 months ago [0] that almost everyone here was bearish (not me [1]). Now it is the opposite. Next we will here some folks wishing they should have joined Intel when it was $20 a share. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44675965 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44676641

Some people also thought Gamestop was a good deal at $400 after 50x-ing...but when you look at fundementals, earnings and actual projected growth and not just the hype, you see the stock for what it really is. At $20 it was a good deal because of the possibilities of long term success (which we haven't seen any actual evidence of yet), but at $125 it is way overpriced.

Another way to look at it. TSMC profit in 2025 was equivalent to Intel revenue (both about $55B), but Intel made zero dollars profit, yet somehow their market cap is now half of TSMCs.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#47
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use it to de-risk their supply chain.

Then why did the USG need to get involved to bring AAPL to the table? Sure, supply chain redundancy is good, but that wasn't enough to get AAPL interested before.

Intel chip fab facility in Arizona came online recently, probably has something to do with it, the manufacturing capability didn't exist before.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#48

Big deal, smart for all parties, really. Apple standards will make Intel step up and become a better foundry partner. Apple will gain increasingly needed diversification. US supply chain gets a boost. Should be fine for TSMC in the short to medium term. Apple not going to risk actual mainline iPhone SoC on Intel any time soon, so lion share of TSMC Apple revenue will be fine.

The biggest reason to do this is because TSMC's N2 node and future nodes will be dominated by AI chips. Since AI chips have far bigger margins than most Apple chips, Apple will get outbid by companies like Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom. Nvidia already became TSMC's biggest customer last year. Every TSMC advanced node from N5 to N2 is fully booked and running at max capacity.

It's not really realistic to make Mac, Watch, iPad chips on TSMC's best node in the next 3-4 years - assuming there is no collapse in AI. Unfortunately, this might mean we will get inferior Intel chips for our Macs. Intel nodes, as it stands, are far more power hungry, less dense, and lower yielding. Intel's own Panther Lake CPU tile is on 18A and it's extremely disappointing in terms of perf/watt and raw perf.

I still expect iPhone chips to be made on the best TSMC nodes though. I'm assuming Apple will design every future core for both TSMC and Intel, sort of like how they dual sourced with TSMC and Samsung in the past for the same generation.

Re: Apple, Intel have reached preliminary chip-making deal

#49
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we make the not-particularly-reasonable assumption that Apple would want to own a fab, and the wildly unreasonable assumption that they would accept any outside customers for the fab: building a fab business from scratch to something competitive would take on the order of a decade or more even for a company with Apple's resources. And if Apple bought somebody else's fab business, it seems most likely that it…

Yes, I suppose I was imagining the weird transition like AMD did when they split off Global Foundries. Imagine the remaining Intel being a chip designer like AMD. For someone of my age, it seems both incomprehensible and somehow inevitable. Crazy leadership choices seem to be happening so often in recent years. Honestly, I found it hard to understand why they abandoned RAM and solid state memory fab sectors too. With…

They wanted to focus resources on the very profitable top end of the market and leave the low-margin commodity business to competitors. If you repeat that cycle enough eventually you just stop competing with anyone because you’ve fired everyone who has the capacity to do that. Then it’s only a matter of time before you get eaten for lunch.
Post reply on HN