←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cuttothechase ◴[] No.44990065[source]
Genuine question-

How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help?

Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !?

Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

replies(20): >>44990113 #>>44990135 #>>44990144 #>>44990162 #>>44990212 #>>44990285 #>>44990292 #>>44990294 #>>44990525 #>>44990551 #>>44990715 #>>44990722 #>>44991025 #>>44991107 #>>44991139 #>>44991204 #>>44991545 #>>44992843 #>>44993129 #>>45014149 #
fishgoesblub ◴[] No.44990135[source]
I don't expect a good reason given the history of this Administration, but a reason in my mind to save Intel is there's only 3 license holders for x86 CPUs. Intel, AMD (American), and VIA (Taiwanese). A dead Intel leaves a single American company that is able to make x86 processors, and a monopoly for actually good x86 CPUs. But somehow I suspect there's no logical reason for this besides lining the pockets of those in the Administration.
replies(6): >>44990222 #>>44990268 #>>44991105 #>>44991191 #>>44991534 #>>44992204 #
1. JustExAWS ◴[] No.44991191[source]
While there are other good reasons to save Intel, if it went under, someone could still buy the license. I can’t imagine why anyone would want a license to x86 in 2025. It’s not like all of the companies designing custom chips are going to be falling over themselves to design use the x86 ISA.