←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 10:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.243s | source
Show context
rickdeckard ◴[26 Aug 25 11:31 UTC] No.45025088[source]▶
> "The single most important reason for the U.S. to own part of Intel, however, is the implicit promise that Intel Foundry is not going anywhere."

If the last 8 Months of this year has shown something, it's that every decision the US takes could be considerate, but as likely also completely random and reversed and bent at any moment in the future.

Accepting those risks in order to sell in the US-market (assuming it would be required) requires that the US-market also provides the commercial rewards.

For now I don't see that this is secured in sufficient volume to justify such an investment, considering that it will take YEARS for Intel to actually become a viable foundry and have a customer product ready to be produced there. And I'm not even talking about the potential cost-increase vs. an established high-volume foundry...

replies(2): >>45026700 #>>45028304 #
3D30497420 ◴[26 Aug 25 14:00 UTC] No.45026700[source]▶
> every decision the US takes could be considerate, but as likely also completely random and reversed and bent at any moment in the future.

This my main problem with this investment. I can certainly appreciate the benefit of US government investment to ensure "homegrown" production capabilities. However, this depends a lot on a level of understanding, intelligence, and planning from the US federal government which is monumentally lacking. If no one trusts Intel now, I cannot begin to imagine how anyone would view Intel plus the current US government as more trustworthy.

Just look at the current approach to tariffs as a good example for how current "industrial policy" is being carried out. Unpredictable, vengeful, and declared with little plan or forethought. Why should we expect any differently from other policies?

replies(4): >>45026868 #>>45027396 #>>45029854 #>>45033269 #
1. rickdeckard ◴[26 Aug 25 14:14 UTC] No.45026868[source]▶
I frankly look forward to see whether the US will actually CARE how Intel will conduct its business, instead of simply trying to just reap benefits from it.

Everything can for now be put under the umbrella of "US semiconductor sovereignty", but actually making this happen involves much more strategic planning and investment from the government.

For example, I doubt that Intel has sufficient experience as a foundry to support design-finalization for ARM, they are JUST starting NOW with this.

So who will pay for closing such gaps? Would they force e.g. Apple to use Intel as foundry and swallow all the associated cost, or would they rather accept Apple to source from a TSMC fab (which is built in US for the big customers like Apple and nVidia)