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

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#131

Post by qwytw »

JustExAWS wrote: post #122
qwytw wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile CPUs are almost a commodity these days and fairly low margin especially compared to server chips. Most people really don't care what chip does their phone has and its almost always "good enough" relative to the price. IMO that's much less of a case for laptop and desktop (let alone server). Even if people don't understand the technical details e.g. Apple's superior performance per watt (or its implications at…

This is demonstrably not true. TSMC is ahead because of the volume of mobile and that happened on the back of a lot of investment from Apple - who does make high end chips. Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.

> This is demonstrably not true.

In what way?

TSMC doesen't design or sell the chips. If they have limited capacity they will of course charge more for manufacturing mobile chips if they can sell the capacity to Nvidia/AMD/Apple instead.

ARM chips (and that's pretty much by design based on ARM's business model) are close to being a commodity.

Apple is of course an exception but they are not directly part of the CPU market. And ARM and Qualcomm are barely bothering trying to compete with them because there doesen't seem to be a lot of point. They themselves are pivoting to datacenter because there is just more money to be made there.

> Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.

I guess that's complicated. It seems like an optimal strategy if you are a chip designer (e.g. Nvidia or AMD vs Qualcomm). Not so much if you are a fabricator. Of course Intel being both makes things a lot harder for them.

Re: US Intel

#132

Post by kube-system »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #84
ModernMech wrote: post #5

I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. It's going to be interesting hearing everyone who spent decades spilling volumes about the evils of communism and the failure of the USSR quickly pivot to being champions of state capitalism.

You're mixing up communism and nationalization[1]. I suppose those are related concepts, but since communism ostensibly serves the working class, I'd expect to see nationalization under communism/socialism to start with things like health-care, civilian infrastructure, and agriculture, whereas under fascism (which famously also nationalizes), I'd expect the industries which help the state expand (military and militar…

I don't think the person you replied to is mixing them up, but instead, criticizing others who use "communism" as a blanket term for most any government involvement in the market.

Re: US Intel

#133

Post by ilikerashers »

marbro wrote: post #77
Neywiny wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and everything else. We outsourced manufacturing of almost everything then are surprised when the people doing it for decades are better than we were.

We outsourced manufacturing because it's not very profitable. The Mag 7 make 50x as much money as TSMC. Apple and Microsoft are the most profitable businesses in history.

The EU outsourced manufacturing without any Mag 7.

I'm sure it'll work out well for us...

Re: US Intel

#134

Post by freeopinion »

packetlost wrote: post #62
georgeburdell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may add my view as a formerly high-achieving semiconductor worker that Intel would benefit greatly from having right now, a lot of us pivoted to software and machine learning to earn more money. My first 2 years as a software engineer earned me more RSUs than a decade in semiconductors. Semiconductors is not prestigious work in the U.S., despite the strategic importance. By contrast, it is highly respected and r…

If Intel were well managed they would purge like 2/3rs of the managers and anyone in the bottom 50th percentile and then pay whatever it takes to get people skilled in their core industry back, training the remaining people as necessary to fill in gaps for the future. They literally cannot have a culture that encourages the now-traditional job hopping that is so pervasive in American business culture. They can't affo…

Who gets to determine the bottom 50th percentile?

Re: US Intel

#135

Post by convolvatron »

dwarksidle wrote: post #4

[dead]

I think it's time for the people shouting so urgently about the new world order to own up and actually paint a picture for the rest of us here. because from a 'traditionalist' perspective it really looks like things are just failing and being burned down. I don't see a phoenix, maybe you can you can point it out?

Re: US Intel

#136

Post by nonethewiser »

This article says its steel-manning the equity stake but its actually an argument for Intel being "too big to fail" and then conflating that with an equity stake.

I do find his argument for Intel being "too big to fail" compelling, for whatever it's worth. But it was kind of surprising to only see 1 sentence at the end claiming the equity stake is necessary. I thought we were actually going to get an analysis on the deal and the dynamic it would create.

Re: US Intel

#137

Post by klooney »

bix6 wrote: post #87
troad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have developed an economy oriented around selling one another websites, and we are only belatedly noticing that none of our enemies seem to have followed.

It’s ridiculous. It’s so easy to find VC funding for software but heaven forbid you try and make agricultural innovations. Biotech is slightly better but still a struggle. Hardware only counts right now if it’s defense tech but even then people would rather have another SaaS.

A16Z gets a lot of guff for their bad politics, but their "American dynamism" portfolio, if a little defense heavy, seems great

Re: US Intel

#138

Post by klooney »

rickdeckard wrote: post #2

> "The single most important reason for the U.S. to own part of Intel, however, is the implicit promise that Intel Foundry is not going anywhere." If the last 8 Months of this year has shown something, it's that every decision the US takes could be considerate, but as likely also completely random and reversed and bent at any moment in the future. Accepting those risks in order to sell in the US-market (assuming it w…

Best case, we get President Vance before 2028 and things settle down.

Re: US Intel

#139

Post by freeopinion »

jandrese wrote: post #118
georgeecollins wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel was very profitable until it was not. They spent over $800B on stock buybacks. That will buy you some fabs, some R&D. Its true they invested in R&D but not well. Maybe the answer was to fund an independent internal competitor to keep the org focused. Financialization is a dead end when you face a nation state determined to control steps in you value chain. How profitable will apple be if they can’t get chips?

I still think Intel missed the boat when they had the dominant process in focusing entirely on their own chips and not taking customers for third party fabbing. Samsung and especially TSMC have demonstrated conclusively that the real money is in producing chips for other companies. It might be lower margin, but the volume is undeniable and it keeps your company on its toes with node improvements. Intel switched to a…

TSMC does not compete with their customers. Intel would. I know that is not a new idea and there are some established mitigations. But it seems it would be better if it wasn't an issue at all.

Re: US Intel

#140

Post by skmurphy »

Key graf: "The problem facing the U.S. is not simply the short-term: the real problems will arise in the 2030s and beyond. Semiconductor manufacturing decision-making does not require nimbleness; it requires gravity and the knowledge that abandoning the leading edge entails never regaining it."
Post reply on HN