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

Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 734 posts

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#261

Post by ac29 »

sabujp wrote: post #153

semi stocks are at all time lows and PE levels. Don't let this doom and gloom piece prevent you from buying more

Note that the typically given P/E ratio is a backwards looking number, not forwards.

Intel trades at 5.5x PE for the last 12 months but 12.1x PE for the next 12 months (estimated, obviously). Intel specifically is also not at an "all time low" - they IPO'd in 1971 and have grown significantly since then.

I agree there are some bargains to be had in semi stocks, but keep in mind things may very well get worse before they get better.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#262

Post by beambot »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #253
iancmceachern wrote: post #221

It's the people, the talent, the knowledge that drives any industry like this. The US government, US, we, gave Intel and some other companies a huge sum of money to stay awesome. Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business. So, wouldn't we have been better off as a society of we had just offered thT CHIPs money as a startup find and asked a bunch or people from I…

We honestly should nationalize intel, raytheon, boeing, and lockheed martin. Probably others too. It makes no sense to develop our sensitive technology and reserve some resources solely to feed the parasite that is the profit margin.

What makes you think the government could run them better...?

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#263

Post by ansible »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

I disagree. We've already passed the tipping point for tech, and investment will continue to accelerate. This is true for various form of artificial intelligence, and the rest of tech.

Businesses in general started to see the appeal around the time that the Google Assistant, Cortana, Alexa and Siri started to become actually useful and desired by the general public. Because of that, there will continue to be a push to extend and enhance those capabilities.

The current systems can turn a normally worded question into a web search, and present the results in a pleasing manner. The next step is to extend the ability of the systems to actually understand wider and wider ranges of questions. We are still a ways away from having free-flowing conversations with our computers, but there are many steps along the way that are useful of themselves. Advancing this technology is a competitive advantage, and becomes key to drawing in and keeping people in one of the various tech ecosystems (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple).

In the wider business world, people are finding new and better ways to apply this technology.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#264

Post by kjkjadksj »

mastax wrote: post #136
Isinlor wrote: post #22

China already declared that it will use force in Taiwan if "possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted". From Chinese Anti-Secession Law: Article 8: In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or t…

Chinese law should almost never be considered something that constrains the government, and especially not in grandiose cases like this. The government will do as it pleases, regardless of the law. That is more of a strong press release than a binding proposition. However, I am not arguing that China is not serious about retaking Taiwan. They are deathly serious.

They are not retaking Taiwan. They never had Taiwan. Taiwain is the last bastion of the democratic government of china.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#265

Post by reportingsjr »

paulmd wrote: post #246
sylware wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"spare capacity" ? what do you mean ? Taiwan and South Korea are enough to supply the world demand? Well, it is still hard to get your hands on top-notch chips at a reasonable price whatever the news is saying...

> Well, it is still hard to get your hands on top-notch chips at a reasonable price whatever the news is saying... it's really not and actually the slowdown is so bad that AMD has had to reduce production, as well as other companies reducing memory/flash wafer starts etc. it's not just intel or fake news, availability really hasn't been a problem for a year or more at this point, and if anything we're starting to shi…

It depends on what you're looking at. I develop electronics hardware, and it is still incredibly difficult to get a lot of ICs.

Texas instruments still has not caught up, and their chips are used just about everything, including on graphics cards.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#266

Post by jmeister »

vkou wrote: post #241
nonrandomstring wrote: post #236

We've reached or are approaching "peak tech". The other day we were discussing Pablo Azar, "Computer Saturation and the Productivity Slowdown" (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, October 6, 2022) [1] Simply reinventing systems and deliberately obsoleting stuff to create fake demand is over. The metaverse isn't hoing to happen. People are fatigued with tech. We're entering a different era in wh…

We may need this, but the stakeholders holding the purse strings don't. And they are the ones who will decide what gets built. It's how we end up with shit like grocery self-checkout machines and robots answering customer support calls. Nobody likes being yelled at by a robot who doesn't understand the situation, except the decision-makers buying the machines. This isn't peak tech, not by a longshot. This is just Int…

>We may need this, but the stakeholders holding the purse strings don't. And they are the ones who will decide what gets built.

It has never been easier to build a business(software). Labor is abundant, and the tech boom has created a million Medicis willing to throw money at wild things. Look at FTX fund for example.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#267

Post by kjkjadksj »

beambot wrote: post #262
kjkjadksj wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We honestly should nationalize intel, raytheon, boeing, and lockheed martin. Probably others too. It makes no sense to develop our sensitive technology and reserve some resources solely to feed the parasite that is the profit margin.

What makes you think the government could run them better...?

You could run them exactly how they are structured today if you want. Youd reap savings by not having shareholder profits to maintain and could use that money that would otherwise be wasted on luxury spending for major shareholders for more R and D.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#268

Post by brnt »

nly wrote: post #54
ethbr0 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voters in a democracy tend to react better to dollars-spent than bodybags-returned. So support via the former will always be the more tenable position for a democracy.

The best way for the EU to 'fight' russia would be to not be dependent on it for energy. Russia can also do what it likes because of the constant nuclear threat. Russia has nukes that work, whereas the likes of the UK has a single nuclear sub that occasionally gets stuck on a sand banks. The Russians probably know where it is at all times.

Fortunately there are other nuclear powers in the EU.

It was one EU country in particular that was very vulnerable for a few separate reasons for the Russian gas politics, but they have seen the errors of their ways at long last.

Dependence on Russian energy is significantly reduced and there more than every intention to reduce this to zero. Note that the intention was always there, gas was only ever a stopgap between now and fully renewable.

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#269

Post by formercoder »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #253
iancmceachern wrote: post #221

It's the people, the talent, the knowledge that drives any industry like this. The US government, US, we, gave Intel and some other companies a huge sum of money to stay awesome. Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business. So, wouldn't we have been better off as a society of we had just offered thT CHIPs money as a startup find and asked a bunch or people from I…

We honestly should nationalize intel, raytheon, boeing, and lockheed martin. Probably others too. It makes no sense to develop our sensitive technology and reserve some resources solely to feed the parasite that is the profit margin.

No thanks, I’ve been to the DMV

Re: Intel and the $1.5T chip industry meltdown

#270

Post by iancmceachern »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #230
iancmceachern wrote: post #221

It's the people, the talent, the knowledge that drives any industry like this. The US government, US, we, gave Intel and some other companies a huge sum of money to stay awesome. Then they announce huge layoffs to get rid of a lot of thr talent, people, heart of their business. So, wouldn't we have been better off as a society of we had just offered thT CHIPs money as a startup find and asked a bunch or people from I…

Targeted layoffs might be the best thing long-term. From my limited perspective of having recently worked at Intel, they had a lot of dead weight. There was a lot of talent, but it was also diluted by a lot of management and bureaucracy. I honestly don't know if layoffs are an effective solution to this, but IMHO they could definitely benefit from lower headcount and greater urgency.

Thanks for this. I see that perspective and from my experience in larger tech corps it jibes.

I'm still trying to reconcile it with the CHIPs thing. Intel on one hand is admittedly bloated and inefficient, and so is choosing to reduce its headcount and therefore bandwidth to do work.

So what is the CHIPs money going to. Typically when you invest in something like this you are buying people's time to do the work and also materials and supplies to build the stuff like factories, etc. So if we are lowering headcount it's not going to labor.

I suspect as you say it's more about changing worker types, like getting rid of skillsets they don't need so they can hire those they do like people to build semi plants here.

So, in my mind, the only way it adds up is if Intel goes on a big hiring spree soon. Otherwise, where did the money go? We can buy equipment to build plants but who builds them?

Post reply on HN