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

421–430 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#421

Post by BobbyTables2 »

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.

Fully agree.

I feel like anything relevantly practical is denied investment.

But when it comes to anything flashy and hip, a train of dump trucks filled with cash couldn’t deliver money as quick as the VC dollars that flow into to startups with no business model and no hope of being profitable…

Yeah, I get that startups should invest profits and not actually make profits for a while… But when they’re on their 4th round of funding with thousands of employees… shouldn’t they at least try to be a bit more financially responsible?

Re: US Intel

#422

Post by esafak »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #333
headcanon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar, My major in university was computer engineering (as opposed to pure CS or EE) because I wasn't sure if I wanted to go into a hardware or software profession. I ended up going with software since all the interesting opportunities were there, whereas most jobs in hardware seemed to be working for stodgy old companies barely making six figures if I was lucky.

Exactly the same for me. It's made me one of the only leaders in my Software Org that actually knows what happens below the level of the instruction set. I can talk about the power and heat implications of algorithmic decisions. But mostly nobody cares, theres always enough money to buy more servers.

That's the thing with knowing thing other people don't; they might not be able to appreciate it.

Re: US Intel

#423

Post by BobbyTables2 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #409
nine_k wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People in this thread act like VC is the only way to raise capital. Ever heard of getting a business loan? Even a lot of companies in the Valley could probably get one more easily than they might think, if they're profitable. You don't have to give up equity either.

Yeah, but how does one get a business loan, with real stuff at stake, when VCs are burning money like there’s no tomorrow?

I especially dislike the way VC funded startups use VC dollars to effectively be a “loss leaders” for years to choke out the rest of the market.

Who wants to risk their own capital or privately pooled funds against THAT?

Re: US Intel

#424

Post by prewett »

SlowTao wrote: post #385
axus wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world collectively (mostly the US) spends trillions on national defense, that spending is unnecessary if we all just got along. I think you're right that everyone spending money on local semiconductor industries is even more wasteful.

Unfortunately, that defense allows hoarding wealth. If the wealth was more evenly distributed globally, there would be little reason to defend against raids. This is how places like the US despite having 4% of the population have about a quarter of the material and energy consumption. Not to single them out, I am in Australia, it is a similar ratio. I am not defending this situation, just highlighting its role.

Not all wars are about raiding, especially in the modern era. Putin isn’t interested in Ukraine’s wealth. Nor would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be about money.

Re: US Intel

#425

Post by elliotto »

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…

If Volkswagen goes under, the Lower Saxony government likely loses an income stream.

If Intel goes under, Taiwan becomes the battleground for WW3.

Re: US Intel

#426

Post by prewett »

twoodfin wrote: post #314
j4coh wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think the problem with the Soviets was doing everything themselves, which seems to be working okay for China. The problem is that centralized planning doesn’t work, and the system dehumanized people and destroyed incentives for people to innovate.

Re: US Intel

#427

Post by esafak »

hrq wrote: post #277
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…

I believe something similar is happening in drug development right now. It may take less than 5, 10, 15 years to see the impact to the US. But from someone who has a vantage point to see it across many parts of the industry, including having seen the evolution of Intel / TSMC, I think it is a very similar story. Right now is like 2007 (or maybe even a bit later) for therapeutics. In the future, we will look back on t…

What's happening exactly?

Re: US Intel

#428

Post by 999900000999 »

I'm not an expert, but I would of vastly preferred a fund to start a bunch of smaller fab companies.

Most systems don't need start of the art processors. Get some minimal fabs set up for RISC V chips. If we removed the profit motive, how much does this cost ?

Alternatively... Even a refurbished GameCube can probably run a basic rest API server.

If anything we have enough EWaste that we can probably just recycle what we have. At least for most applications.

Re: US Intel

#429

Post by ronsor »

999900000999 wrote: post #428

I'm not an expert, but I would of vastly preferred a fund to start a bunch of smaller fab companies. Most systems don't need start of the art processors. Get some minimal fabs set up for RISC V chips. If we removed the profit motive, how much does this cost ? Alternatively... Even a refurbished GameCube can probably run a basic rest API server. If anything we have enough EWaste that we can probably just recycle what…

My ideal situation is one where anyone can fab simple processors at home the same way you can 3D print almost any small object with under $5000 in total expenses.

Unfortunately that seems far away.

Re: US Intel

#430

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #423
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in this thread act like VC is the only way to raise capital. Ever heard of getting a business loan? Even a lot of companies in the Valley could probably get one more easily than they might think, if they're profitable. You don't have to give up equity either.

Yeah, but how does one get a business loan, with real stuff at stake, when VCs are burning money like there’s no tomorrow? I especially dislike the way VC funded startups use VC dollars to effectively be a “loss leaders” for years to choke out the rest of the market. Who wants to risk their own capital or privately pooled funds against THAT?

>how does one get a business loan, with real stuff at stake

Show them your finances and collateral to demonstrate that you'll be able to pay off the loan.

>I especially dislike the way VC funded startups use VC dollars to effectively be a “loss leaders” for years to choke out the rest of the market.

It's a fair point, but it's a point which does not apply to the industries we are discussing, which do not receive VC investment.

I actually really like your point about Masayoshi Son-style investments which are just an attempt to entrench a monopoly. I'm no socialist, but if socialists called for identifying and taxing such investments, I wouldn't object. The trick is to distinguish between the WeWorks of the world, and the Boom Supersonic type companies which genuinely need gobs of capital for breakthrough innovation.

Post reply on HN