181–190 of 581 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 m…
> 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 That’s the entire point. Intel is behind because their vertical market strategy of using their own fabs only for their own chips doesn’t give them enough volume compared to TSMC who has volume because they are a foundry. > ARM…
> Qualcomm is a bigger seller of processors
Yes, even for their highest end mobile chip (Snapdragon 8 Elite) the estimated OEM price seems to be under A midrange AMD EPYC 9004 chip is $4000-6000. Presumably the gross margin is also higher. So hardly a fair comparison. Of course Intel seems to be propping up it's server marketshare by dropping its margins, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are lower than Qualcomm's.
> But you notice in the case of Google
They design their own mobile SoCs though which seems like a fairly serious effort for a hobby project (although being an off the shelf design like almost all ARM chips besides Apple's maybe not)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research That's more the stock market than the US government though. You could argue the US government tries to play a long game, and often the way the US plays that game is to let the free market decide (hands off, small government). It's definitely a valid strategy and has worked extremely well in a number of other industries, but for this specific niche, l…
It is clear that the government and wall street are generally of one mind on this. One recent specific way the government contributed to this is via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which increased tax burden of R&D. They've also cut a lot of their own research funding (NIH, NSF). I can't make the argument that the government is "hands off, small government" because I simply don't see the evidence of that. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NASA seems to outsource a lot. Would you like Boeing to create the fab next door to you? What could go wrong??
You would still outsource running the fab to Intel, just have a government body overseeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would still outsource running the fab to Intel, just have a government body overseeing it.
This won’t solve the biggest challenge/problem, which is lack of talent for staffing the fab. In Arizona they had to import a bunch of temp workers from Taiwan just to train the locals. We don’t have the skills. If you want to involve the government, maybe we should be training units of the military to make their own chips.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research That's more the stock market than the US government though. You could argue the US government tries to play a long game, and often the way the US plays that game is to let the free market decide (hands off, small government). It's definitely a valid strategy and has worked extremely well in a number of other industries, but for this specific niche, l…
It is clear that the government and wall street are generally of one mind on this. One recent specific way the government contributed to this is via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which increased tax burden of R&D. They've also cut a lot of their own research funding (NIH, NSF). I can't make the argument that the government is "hands off, small government" because I simply don't see the evidence of that. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's such a stunning dereliction the US let things get to this point. It's a side effect of systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research. CHIPs act may be too little, it is certainly too late...
> systemically putting short term gains ahead of long term research That's more the stock market than the US government though. You could argue the US government tries to play a long game, and often the way the US plays that game is to let the free market decide (hands off, small government). It's definitely a valid strategy and has worked extremely well in a number of other industries, but for this specific niche, l…
Just as an example, the calculus for "where should I build a factory" comes down to "which politicians give the biggest tax incentives" and not any market dynamics.
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…
It's not just the pay, a fab operates 24x7x365 and how management turns that into work practices and life for employees.
I once interviewed at a fab that offered 'better work life balance'...and what they meant was you weren't allowed to access any email or information off site so they couldn't bug you as much. In reality, it just meant you had to actually go in to the plant if anythign went wrong.
Second, there is an AI race going on. US intelligence is taking it very seriously and views supremacy of our AI as very important. Recently, the US was pushing NVDA to start using Intel's foundry. I assume it's for national security reasons.
Finally, a couple of details from the Intel deal that were not widely discussed is that the US is taking a passive seat[1]
The government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.
There are also warrants being given whose status is based on Intel's foundry. That suggests the foundry was the interest all along.
[1]: https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
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.…