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

151–160 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#151

Post by raziel2701 »

RealityVoid wrote: post #130
makestuff wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah seeing the innovations DJI is making in agriculture makes me wonder why VCs do not want to fund other startups like it. I know the margins are worse and it takes way more capital to fund hardware companies, but that has to be better than funding another chat-gpt wrapper. I guess that is why I am not a VC though lol.

They're just hard. What is the US robotics startup that you would use as an example of success? iRobot? It barely broke even.

How is boston dynamics doing? They do very cool stuff but it feels like they struggle commercializing their technology. I remember they were once bought by google I think? And then spat out...

Re: US Intel

#152

Post by lantry »

klooney wrote: post #138
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.

I'm not so sure that things would settle down if trump was out of the picture. Trump is obviously an active force, but even if he is gone, the forces that led to his rise will still exist. In other words, even without trump there is a strong anti-elite, anti-expert, nationalist/isolationist movement in the US. Waiting for trump to die or go away is foolish.

Re: US Intel

#153

Post by blueplanet200 »

sailfast wrote: post #114

I’m confused. Why is equity required when the current loan guarantees were perfectly adequate? The only answer is that the USG wanted more control and leverage than was required to achieve national security objectives. Kinda negates the whole approach to the article in my opinion.

Were the current loan (and grant) guarantees perfectly adequate? Citation needed.

In some investors view they were not.

> "The deal certainly has the appearance of the government clawing back the remaining portion of the previous grant, as the government is getting equity not previously contemplated for dollars already committed," Morgan Stanley analysts "The trade-off, in our view, is that the company will have the flexibility to optimize its own business model without commitment to public service objectives, which may or may not include foundry services at 14A as articulated on the last earnings call

https://www.investopedia.com/intel-stock-keeps-getting-a-boo...

Re: US Intel

#154

Post by _DeadFred_ »

belter wrote: post #28
zoeysmithe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a real folly in capitalist countries thinking they can be self-sufficient walled castles. Capitalism by its nature will seek out the lowest cost be it in labor or manufacturing. That means often means outsourcing. Our system has no breaks for this. In fact it works actively for this, hence the neolib ideal of "just move towards efficiencies, and let the chips fall where they may." This is ideal under capitali…

To quote Dave Chappelle: "I want to wear Nike shoes...I don't want to make them!"

'and I'm happy to make money off the jokes about/normalize the little girl that has to work in a sweet shop in a tropical climate doing it for basically nothing'.

Current American culture can be pretty ugly.

Re: US Intel

#155

Post by marcosdumay »

rich_sasha wrote: post #46

I am torn on this. On the one hand, I strongly agree with this article. This kind of state ownership never brings anyhing good. I don't see how this is different. On the other, it is hard to deny how impressive the new wave of Chinese manufacturing is. No longer are they just making knock offs of Western products with stolen IP. BYD for example seems genuinely innovative, a top product. There are many other examples.…

> Or, Nvidia is concerned because China can mandate that the whole country pivots to using Chinese GPUs

The US can do that too, it's not the ownership structure that is stopping them.

In fact, the US used to do a lot of that before the 70s.

Re: US Intel

#156

Post by raziel2701 »

georgeburdell wrote: post #23
themgt wrote: post #7

I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for t…

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…

Amen brother! And the work-life conditions are also much better in software. I remember in grad school an executive from a big semiconductor company (I think it was ON semi) was complaining to the EE department that most students are now pursuing EE as a CS degree and very few went into hardware so they claimed the talent pool was small.

How about paying more then?

Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.

When I interviewed at intel the position they were offering was to be the "owner" of a tool and I'd be on call.... Yeah no thanks, I get a PhD just to be owned by some company?

Re: US Intel

#157

Post by AnimalMuppet »

monknomo wrote: post #121

the president unilaterally extorting 10% ownership out of a company isn't going to build the kind of system that competes with anyone. Big business can't really thrive under this kind of thing any more than corner stores can thrive under a protection racket.

Didn't the US pay $9.8 billion? Intel's market cap is $106 billion, so $9.8 billion for 10% is buying at a slight discount.

If that data is correct, how did the US "extort" ownership?

Look, I'm as terrified of Trump's overreach as the next guy. I could easily see him extorting partial ownership of companies. But I don't see this as being that.

Can you make a convincing argument otherwise?

Re: US Intel

#158

Post by 9dev »

dwarksidle wrote: post #91
9dev wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Icarus is flying high this time of year, it seems. Don't forget that some of these traditional business minds have seen the Soviet's planned economy crumble in real-time not too long ago. They may also have taken note how virtually all human-managed funds tend to do worse over time than market-driven index funds. Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure…

> Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure is stunning. So you make this comment right after making a really reductive, ignorant comment on the Soviet planned economy collapse? Yeah I'm 49. I was there. Watched Soviet Union fall on live TV. Berlin wall too. After years of intentional outside effort to force it to fall. Market-driven has worked because m…

Since you felt the need to contact me with additional insights via email, I don’t want to withhold these from the wider HN community:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 8:15 AM Michael E—— wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45027006

I was old enough to live through the fall. What your reductive ignorance excludes is years of intentional effort by the US and allies to collapse the Soviet Union, while they censored their own media to sell capitalism and markets, while also behaving as awful as Soviets and China around the world with their military.

> Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure is stunning.

Oh, we agree on this. You of course no better because it worked for you. Survivorship and selection bias. Still at the end of the day, one of billions with no real obligation on the rest of us to provide you healthcare or give a shit if you end up in the ditch, broke. I for one appreciate the America not making me give a shit you exist.

-- Michael E——

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 17:17 Michael E—— wrote:

Without outside influence to collapse the Soviet union and Soviets maintaining control of their media telling their people their system must survive, does it still collapse?

Rhetorical question, idgaf you even exist, ignorant ass.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 18:31 Michael E—— wrote:

Won't know/show up if you end up broke in an alley eating ass to survive.

That kind of not care.

Thoughts and prayers but you're one of billions of meat suits, statistically irrelevant.

-m

Sent

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 19:22 Michael E—— wrote:

Aw blue language that does not venerate you.

Points remain valid.

-m

Sent

Re: US Intel

#159

Post by thisisit »

rich_sasha wrote: post #46

I am torn on this. On the one hand, I strongly agree with this article. This kind of state ownership never brings anyhing good. I don't see how this is different. On the other, it is hard to deny how impressive the new wave of Chinese manufacturing is. No longer are they just making knock offs of Western products with stolen IP. BYD for example seems genuinely innovative, a top product. There are many other examples.…

> No longer are they just making knock offs of Western products with stolen IP. BYD for example seems genuinely innovative, a top product. There are many other examples.

I think many people really underestimate this part. If you watch Back to the Future, they sort of deride Japanese goods as cheap knock offs. Later Japanese became an innovation powerhouse. Same thing happened with China. Previously derided for low quality knock-offs is now known for innovation.

No one seems to have the state-run enterprise explanation for Japan but everyone does with China. Because of Chinese Law. While state help is necessary for companies to succeed that alone is not enough.

In the long term small improvements can enable innovation. But if you get stuck on coasting on laurels for a long time it leads to decline in innovation and especially motivation. And when I mean not only in releasing new products but also in manufacturing and other related areas.

Re: US Intel

#160

Post by davedx »

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.

No, we outsourced it for the same reason we outsource anything else: because someone else, somewhere else, is doing it for cheaper. It has nothing to do with the profitability of the manufacturing company and everything to do with the costs of the products and services to their customers
Post reply on HN