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

321–330 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#321

Post by nine_k »

bix6 wrote: post #267
nine_k wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

VC capital is like a detonator. It seeks explosives, and when it finds them, produces spectacular fireworks that illuminate the entire industry, or even the entire world. It also ends up with a lot of duds, but it's OK by them.

What VC capital is not interested in is regular fuel, which can burn steadily and expand gradually, without a shock wave. Such companies can be quite important. Say, GitHub was such a company for many years, before it took a large VC investment and got acquired MS. Investing in such companies requires much more diligence and foresight, maybe too much predictive power to work at mass scale.

VCs' math only works because a single 1000x hit easily pays for a hundred of duds. If ROI per hit is 2-3x, and research required is 10x more deep, the prospects likely start to seem too bleak for folks with billions seeking return.

Re: US Intel

#322

Post by mpyne »

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?

Why? The efficiency gains are a matter of size of the average company, not a matter of the total number of companies.

If what you said were true, it would be cheaper for there to be only one flavor of soda (as Bernie Sanders might have put it) rather than dozens.

Competition is better for consumers than monopoly, and that applies even when the consumers are nations.

Re: US Intel

#323

Post by BeetleB »

AlphaSite wrote: post #296
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…

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.

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

Who pays more than Intel?

In this context, semiconductor jobs is referring to people actually involved with developing the fab - so Nvidia/Apple/AMD don't count.

Re: US Intel

#324

Post by mmcnl »

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…

France and The Netherlands have a combined stake of almost 40% in Air France - KLM. It's not unheard of. 10% seems very reasonable for such a critical company for US interests.

Re: US Intel

#325

Post by chatmasta »

nemothekid wrote: post #299
chatmasta wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure it would have made a difference if they hit 10nm faster. Apple has always wanted to make its own chips. Some marginal efficiencies wouldn’t dissuade them from investing in themselves. And it’s not like Intel was going to start a consumer PC business…

Re: US Intel

#326

Post by jimmydoe »

snapcaster wrote: post #303
jimmydoe wrote: post #116

So the gist is to make Intel the Huawei but for US&A

The problem with that is that Huawei makes world leading products in a lot of categories and Intel's remaining dominance is slipping. I don't see how this stake impacts any of that

My understanding is the piece argued state support as investor and customer might turn intel around.

Huawei started with much worse product and foundation than intel, but the state sponsorship kept it going, plus they have ultra hard working people and occasionally some shameless thieves, which made them where they are.

Re: US Intel

#327

Post by BeetleB »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #300
unethical_ban wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

This trope keeps getting repeated on HN.

No, the point of the top level comment and article is that no US based company will replace Intel's fabs, nor will they form a "better" Intel. This stuff is intensely capital intensive, and nothing short of a government mandate will make any other company spend so much money on such a big risk.

Trust me - if they could have, they would have. Intel's fabs have pretty much been up for sale since Pat was ousted.

The only companies that know how to use the people and the equipment are not US based. TSMC already had an opportunity to buy much of Intel's fabs, and they concluded that shifting their process to match TSMCs would be cost prohibitive.

Re: US Intel

#328

Post by simne »

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

> just like everything else being ran by the Federal Government

Well, I don't like when something ran by Federal Government, but I have similar example: when somebody ill by flu, I don't like to use antibiotics, but sometimes must use antibiotics as fast measures to save life.

That is. Previous pro-semiconductor measures was not fast enough, and Intel was in real trouble and need to use something fast, and now we have bought time to do right but slow things.

Re: US Intel

#329

Post by BeetleB »

packetlost wrote: post #179
freeopinion wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to determine the bottom 50th percentile?

it doesn't really matter as long as you retain the top 10% who do 90% of the work.

> it doesn't really matter as long as you retain the top 10% who do 90% of the work.

This isn't SW. Those ratios don't exist in the HW world.

(And to be frank, it's a myth in SW too).

Re: US Intel

#330

Post by kridsdale3 »

baq wrote: post #180
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.

only in software there's a clear, tried and tested multiple times path for 1000x ROI for an investor. thermodynamics themselves limit ROI for anything physical.

Thermodynamics is also the limiter in AI these days.
Post reply on HN