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

291–300 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#291

Post by hedgehog »

scarface_74 wrote: post #252
hedgehog wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

14nm is mature and would suit this purpose fine, and they have existing capacity. The business, tools, and everything else around would need to get built out.

Yes. But Intel doesn’t have any customers and do they even have 14nm fabs online and how long will take to move customers to it in the case of a disruption?

To have customers they need to do the actual work of closing deals, building the customer-facing support teams, building all the tooling integrations (PDK, simulation, etc). On the manufacturing side they have to figure out who will do all the stuff besides fab, I think they have 14nm currently in the US and Ireland but the packaging might all still be Asia. It's not something to be done in case of disruption, it's essentially starting 80% of a new company to serve customers who want a US and Europe based supplier. Government customers could work, or public/private joint venture to build commodity parts, but either way they need patient customers who can help work out the problems and pay a premium to do it.

Re: US Intel

#292

Post by thepryz »

Diog wrote: post #51

To be honest, for most Chinese people, the reason we haven't taken action regarding Taiwan is not because of TSMC, but rather our patience with the current will of the Taiwan people. However, this patience has its limits. Even if TSMC has better chips now, China mainland will surpass them next 10 years. You can compare the gap in chip technology between Chinese companies in 2015 and that projected for 2025 to see thi…

I think you point out the most important difference between China and most of the western world, or at least the United States.

China is patient. They seem to be taking a long term, intentional approach. Their goals are long term. In other words, they’ve been planting trees for decades and those trees are now beginning to provide shade. Americans, in the other hand are more concerned with their own self interest and the next financial quarter.

Re: US Intel

#293

Post by cpuguy83 »

onetimeusename wrote: post #189

The other day when the US's stake in Intel was announced, people assumed it was a political stunt. I suspected it was because of national security interests. The CHIPS act probably didn't get the result US Defense wanted quickly enough. Some details that were glossed over include that there was a chip shortage a few years ago as a result of COVID and TSMC supply chain disruptions that led to a shortage in electronics…

I mean obviously it's about chip production, but shitting on the chips act is a political stunt and nothing more.

Building fabs takes lots of money and time. Intel also doesn't have customers except themselves and have fallen far behind in the fab business and has a decade+ or mistakes to make up for.

What we have here is picking a winner and potentially insider trading/market manipulation with Trump shitting on Intel leading up the "deal".

Re: US Intel

#294

Post by mrcwinn »

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.

Why take issue with Trump alone then? Go ask Bernie Sanders. This is a peak at what socialism looks like in America. The country taking a stake is the people taking a stake. Strange bedfellows, perhaps, but anyone far anti-Trump should actually take this as a model of sorts.

Re: US Intel

#295

Post by sitzkrieg »

raziel2701 wrote: post #156
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…

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.…

you think on call doesn't exist in software? its a common squeeze and replace w h1b tool

Re: US Intel

#296

Post by AlphaSite »

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…

There are extraordinarily highly paying semi firms in the US, but neither Intel nor AMD fit that mould unfortunately.

I’ve never understood why that’s the case; they are also high leverage jobs where a few can do extraordinary work and be rewarded thus. Look at Nvidia. Their employees are well compensated and they stay and the company does fantastically.

Re: US Intel

#298

Post by pineaux »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #172
raziel2701 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

South Korea got to it: https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/brand-journal/mobility-...

Too bad Hyundai is betting on hydrogen... Thats basically dead in the water.

Re: US Intel

#299

Post by nemothekid »

chatmasta wrote: post #242
nemothekid wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the wrong way to look at it. The people in the US that you would want working in semiconductors aren't NEETs. They are at Facebook/Google/Jane Street/Citadel/McKinsey. If I am a capable person working on delivering node improvements dealing with smaller and smaller challenges as the physics issues become quantum - I will eventually start to ask myself: why am I working on the hardest physics problems in the p…

Is that true? I thought a lot of semi-conductor work is borderline blue-collar factory work and physical labor. What you’re describing is in the R&D area and also not physically dependent on being colocated in a fab. So we should have an easier time finding that talent, although we’re probably underpaying them now, as you point out.

The most salient issue with Intel in the past 10 year was their constant delay of the 10nm node process. While TMSC was constantly pushing down the Node size, Intel struggled and ceded a lot of ground to AMD & Apple. At the same time Intel struggled to develop a competitive 5G radio, and GPU.

These are all downstream of R&D. If your fab cannot shrink it's node size, then you won't get the most profitable orders.

Re: US Intel

#300

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

unethical_ban wrote: post #270
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

IMO the company can fail. It’s the people, facilities and equipment that matter. Those can get picked up by a company or companies that know how to use them.

Secondarily, a TSMC fab on US soil seems like a better investment. In the catastrophic event that Taiwan were invaded — it’s still people, facilities and equipment that remain here.

Post reply on HN