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

261–270 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#261

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90
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…

Perhaps then fabs should be considered important enough for the US then that a new entity, perhaps not unlike NASA, is created to create and run these.

There are already domestic semiconductor fabs dedicated to the defense industry. The issue is that military semiconductors ceased to be cutting edge in the 80s and now everything runs on old processes for the enhanced reliability. That's perfect for most applications except when you need a low power handheld supercomputer that only TSMC can make.

Re: US Intel

#262

Post by cheema33 »

kube-system wrote: post #120

> President Donald Trump’s announcement on Friday that the U.S. government will take a 10 percent stake in long-struggling Intel marks a dangerous turn in American industrial policy. Decades of market-oriented principles have been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government ownership of private enterprise. Really? A decade and a half ago the US government owned a 60.8% of GM and none less than Barack Obama was dir…

> Really? A decade and a half ago the US government owned a 60.8% of GM and none less than Barack Obama was directing management changes.

Did US govt. actually had an ownership stake in GM? Please provide some links to this effect.

Re: US Intel

#263

Post by monero-xmr »

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.

It's about risk / reward, and patient capital. Within 10 years I am probably going to sell my SaaS business a very rich man, and I am going to self-fund a new company in hardware and / or manufacturing. America has made so many talented people wealthy very quickly over the past 2 decades, and as the low-hanging software fruit is ever-harder to find, the skilled entrepreneurs will look for new things do to, and more of us will get into hardware.

Re: US Intel

#264

Post by kazen44 »

ilikerashers wrote: post #133
marbro wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

mind you that a lot of this outsourcing is also happening inside the EU from high wage western countries to lower waged eastern countries (poland, hungary, romania etc).

Re: US Intel

#265

Post by j4coh »

twoodfin wrote: post #218
throwawaymaths wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starfleet code requires a second backup? In case the first backup fails. What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?

This is too glib: If you imagine a world where every critical industry is replicated in every large nation, often inefficiently or inadequately, that’s a world where the average person is much, much poorer. And for what?

Security, perhaps.

Re: US Intel

#266

Post by xp84 »

lantry wrote: post #152
klooney wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but the thing is, from appearances Trump seems to lack the ability to think strategically, to plan, and importantly, to find and listen to people who know things.

Even setting aside most of the culture-war stuff, which is so white-hot right now that it clouds matters, I think almost any other politician other than Trump, AOC, MTG, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting, would be more likely to do that last thing.

Trump's main issue is that he gets all excited and makes rash decisions based on the last person he talked to, compounded by the fact that he chooses who to talk to overwhelmingly based on chump change "campaign contributions" (bribes), family nepotism, or just his existing network of sycophants.

I'm saying all this neutrally toward ideology and left/right. Frankly I think life was fine domestically under both G. W. Bush and Obama, because both of them weren't impulsive and easily swayed to erratic decisions.

Re: US Intel

#267

Post by bix6 »

nine_k wrote: post #203
bix6 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say that VC funding may be an inappropriate tool for that. VCs want you to either grow fast, or fail fast. Not necessarily to bring profit fast, but to visibly capture the market (see Uber). Move fast, break things, rework things every week, trigger that wave of sign-ups. Agriculture is much slower, every iteration may be is a year, or (in tropical climates) half a year. Microelectronics is comparably slow, and e…

It shouldn’t be that way though. Venture capital is only for SaaS? It should be for technology in general. But the IRR demands are too much so it concentrates to SaaS.

Re: US Intel

#268

Post by yyyk »

nonethewiser wrote: post #129
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…

Is it just me or is the author only making an argument for why Intel is too big to fail? He says hes steelmanning the equity stake but then he doesn't argue why it's necessary. He devotes 2 sentences to CLAIMING its necessary after aruging that Intel is too big to fail. The article is basically like this: > Leading edge domestic foundry companies are a national security concern. Therefor Intel is too big to fail. OK.…

>The US can give them money as grants. Grants put skin in the game for the US because they require Intel to meet the terms.

It's not the same as taking part in decisionmaking? Intel could just say 'no' to grants. They don't have to accept the terms.

Re: US Intel

#269

Post by kube-system »

cheema33 wrote: post #262
kube-system wrote: post #120

> President Donald Trump’s announcement on Friday that the U.S. government will take a 10 percent stake in long-struggling Intel marks a dangerous turn in American industrial policy. Decades of market-oriented principles have been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government ownership of private enterprise. Really? A decade and a half ago the US government owned a 60.8% of GM and none less than Barack Obama was dir…

> Really? A decade and a half ago the US government owned a 60.8% of GM and none less than Barack Obama was directing management changes. Did US govt. actually had an ownership stake in GM? Please provide some links to this effect.

Yes, along with a number of other US companies. This was done to stabilize the economy in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. It was a very hot political topic at the time.

https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/obama-reluctant-share...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Re: US Intel

#270

Post by unethical_ban »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #89
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…

Historically Intel has engaged in illegal wage suppression. Now we bail them out for their crimes. This was a poor business decision for exactly the reasons you’re pointing out. The market is dictating their failure and we’re now undermining it.

I see your point, but isn't it fair to say Intel is too big to fail?

Not in the "lots of people would lose jobs" or "ripple effects would cause economic disruption" but in the true national security sense. What allied semiconductor manufacturers have significant cutting edge fabs in Europe?

Post reply on HN