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

311–320 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#311

Post by CharlieDigital »

bdangubic wrote: post #308
simne wrote: post #307

I really wonder, why so much noise about this case. I agree, semiconductors are extremely important in current world, but did you know, Volkswagen AG is partially owned by State of Lower Saxony (~ 11.8%)? Also worth to remember cases of Rolls-Royce, Ericsson, and some other unfortunate Western companies, important for many humans, but once became unable to stay economically viable. (BTW it make me laugh, when I got i…

we must do something, to make Western produced semiconductors more competitive. and letting Federal Government in on this is sure to make this happen - just like everything else being ran by the Federal Government

To be fair, US government is pretty good at strategic weapons; best in history. So if you view chips through that maybe it all works out.

Re: US Intel

#313

Post by HankStallone »

simne wrote: post #307

I really wonder, why so much noise about this case. I agree, semiconductors are extremely important in current world, but did you know, Volkswagen AG is partially owned by State of Lower Saxony (~ 11.8%)? Also worth to remember cases of Rolls-Royce, Ericsson, and some other unfortunate Western companies, important for many humans, but once became unable to stay economically viable. (BTW it make me laugh, when I got i…

The noise is 99% due to who is president. If President Bernie Sanders were doing exactly the same thing, most of the people complaining about it would be singing praises to his foresight, and most of the people cheering for it would be screaming about socialism. It's completely team-based.

Re: US Intel

#314

Post by twoodfin »

j4coh wrote: post #265
twoodfin wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In all seriousness, that’s basically what the Soviets thought they were doing—and why—from (at least) 1945 on.

It really didn’t work out, despite sometimes giving the appearance of a plausible alternative to the capitalist world.

Re: US Intel

#315

Post by epolanski »

scarface_74 wrote: post #205
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…

The issue is that Intel manufacturing chips in the US wouldn’t have solved the chip problems with cars for instance. What TSMC traditionally does is keep trailing edge fabs online that are fully depreciated and use those to produce chips that don’t need to be leading edge. It wouldn’t make sense to create a new fab for trailing edge chips. Car manufacturers aren’t going to all of the sudden start using 2mm expensive…

Modern cars are powering multiple (as in 3+) screens at the same time, including games, streams and videoconferencing.

Re: US Intel

#316

Post by AceJohnny2 »

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…

This is the same reason France keeps propping up STMicroelectronics and their fab in Crolles, France (near Grenoble).

There is strategic importance in maintaining home-grown capability.

(it's also the same reason France keeps propping up many other industries, and sells weapons/jet fighters to other countries...)

Re: US Intel

#317

Post by epolanski »

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.…

People who think that china makes crap products has probably never been in china in the last 5+ years and their knowledge about their products end up with Shein or Temu crap.

Re: US Intel

#318

Post by BlueTemplar »

slipperydippery wrote: post #204
Loudergood wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMD definitely gave them a scare several times before that.

I had a Duron chip that, for like two full years in the early '00s, would've required an Intel chip about double the price to beat it. That was wild. I assume the Celeron line in particular only hung on through that period via contract-inertia and brand recognition, because it was a total joke next to Duron, on a bang-for-your-buck basis. Like I did (at the time) high-end gaming on it, back when gaming used to someti…

We've been back to gaming (even of the first/third person kind !) taxing CPUs too for several years now.

(Though I blame developers being lazy with optimisation as well as games also being released on console for this.)

Re: US Intel

#319

Post by epolanski »

OT: am I the only one who thinks booting Gelsinger was a huge mistake? Semiconductor business is not one you steer in few years, everything is planned years ahead and he had the right ideas imho.

Re: US Intel

#320

Post by HankStallone »

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…

Yeah, behind all the partisan chaff, serious people think falling behind in AI could be disastrous. Getting locked out of it altogether because you lost your only source of advanced chips would be even worse.
Post reply on HN