←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
themgt ◴[] No.45026515[source]
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 the next five, ten, or even fifteen years, the seeds of that failure will eventually sprout, just like those 2007 seeds sprouted for Intel over the last couple of years. The only difference is that the repercussions of this failure will be catastrophic not for the U.S.’s leading semiconductor company, but for the U.S. itself.

Very well argued. It's such a stunning dereliction the US let things get to this point. We were doing the "pivot to Asia" over a decade ago but no one thought to find TSMC on a map and ask whether Intel was driving itself into the dirt? "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost" but in this case the nail is like your entire metallurgical industry outsourced to the territory you plan on fighting over.

replies(19): >>45026609 #>>45026778 #>>45026847 #>>45027040 #>>45027203 #>>45027671 #>>45028085 #>>45028186 #>>45029665 #>>45029679 #>>45030185 #>>45031538 #>>45032843 #>>45034153 #>>45034357 #>>45034925 #>>45035444 #>>45035539 #>>45037189 #
JKCalhoun ◴[] No.45027671[source]
Perhaps then fabs should be considered important enough for the US then that a new entity, perhaps not unlike NASA, is created to create and run these.
replies(3): >>45027729 #>>45028837 #>>45030733 #
readthenotes1 ◴[] No.45027729[source]
NASA seems to outsource a lot. Would you like Boeing to create the fab next door to you? What could go wrong??
replies(1): >>45027761 #
rjsw ◴[] No.45027761[source]
You would still outsource running the fab to Intel, just have a government body overseeing it.
replies(1): >>45029481 #
chatmasta ◴[] No.45029481[source]
This won’t solve the biggest challenge/problem, which is lack of talent for staffing the fab. In Arizona they had to import a bunch of temp workers from Taiwan just to train the locals. We don’t have the skills. If you want to involve the government, maybe we should be training units of the military to make their own chips.
replies(3): >>45029500 #>>45029624 #>>45033065 #
ecshafer ◴[] No.45029624[source]
How many workers do we need? TSMC has 80k workers all in. 15-24 there is about 3 million US NEETs. I think that we could have a 10 year plan to get 80k people with EE/CE/NanoTech Eng/ChemEng/etc degrees. Make college free, or hell even a stipend for people to pursue "Critical Careers", heavily fund Phds in the same areas for US Citizens, and we will see workers with the skills.
replies(1): >>45030133 #
nemothekid ◴[] No.45030133[source]
This is the wrong way to look at it. The people in the US that you would want working in semiconductors aren't NEETs. They are at Facebook/Google/Jane Street/Citadel/McKinsey.

If I am a capable person working on delivering node improvements dealing with smaller and smaller challenges as the physics issues become quantum - I will eventually start to ask myself: why am I working on the hardest physics problems in the private sector for 150k/yr, when I can transition to Facebook or Jane Street, work equally (if not less) as hard and make 500k/yr?

The US has plenty of smart people. I'd argue more that the wealth inequality gap makes it _incredibly_ difficult to justify working for less, even in a field you love, when you can make top 1-4% of income doing something else.

replies(4): >>45030221 #>>45030292 #>>45030349 #>>45036507 #
1. chatmasta ◴[] No.45030221[source]
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.

replies(1): >>45032321 #
2. nemothekid ◴[] No.45032321[source]
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.

replies(2): >>45032959 #>>45034117 #
3. chatmasta ◴[] No.45032959[source]
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…
replies(1): >>45034134 #
4. SlowTao ◴[] No.45034117[source]
Hey... that Arc GPU is the one silver lining to what intel is doing recently. Is it perfect, far from it but it ain't bad.
replies(1): >>45039060 #
5. SlowTao ◴[] No.45034134{3}[source]
Yep, Apple buying PA Semi was an indicator of their intention all those years back. I suspect intel was just hoping they would fail at their ambitions.
6. vel0city ◴[] No.45039060{3}[source]
It's both an example of them finally doing something right and a showcase of their failures. Who manufactures the chip in the end? Not Intel.