←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 9 comments | | HN request time: 1.162s | 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 #
georgeburdell ◴[] No.45026847[source]
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 relatively well remunerated in the countries doing well in it.

From this lens, the silver lining of the software layoffs going on may be to stem the bleeding of semiconductor workers to the field. If Intel were really smart, they’d be hiring more right now the people they couldn’t get or retain 3-5 years ago

replies(18): >>45027292 #>>45027313 #>>45027324 #>>45027461 #>>45027669 #>>45028613 #>>45029549 #>>45029983 #>>45030061 #>>45030126 #>>45030276 #>>45031422 #>>45031876 #>>45032206 #>>45033575 #>>45033652 #>>45033654 #>>45036422 #
deepsquirrelnet ◴[] No.45027669[source]
Historically Intel has engaged in illegal wage suppression. Now we bail them out for their crimes.

This was a poor business decision for exactly the reasons you’re pointing out. The market is dictating their failure and we’re now undermining it.

replies(1): >>45031093 #
1. unethical_ban ◴[] No.45031093[source]
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?

replies(2): >>45032345 #>>45033986 #
2. deepsquirrelnet ◴[] No.45032345[source]
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.

replies(2): >>45032969 #>>45034102 #
3. BeetleB ◴[] No.45032969[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>45033176 #
4. deepsquirrelnet ◴[] No.45033176{3}[source]
Because there’s many ways to raise capital, but very few ways to get talent.

You’re arguing about logistics under the current economic rules while simultaneously defending a change of rules.

When you put that on the table, then there’s a lot more ways to overcome the obstacles of today that aren’t being discussed.

If a company’s management becomes a risk to national interests, then giving them more money with no added oversight is not really solving anything.

replies(1): >>45033283 #
5. BeetleB ◴[] No.45033283{4}[source]
Oh I agree that this may not be a solution.

Where I disagree is that if Intel fails, something better (US based) will replace them. It won't.

replies(1): >>45033619 #
6. Fade_Dance ◴[] No.45033619{5}[source]
If we're already into the realm of the US government taking huge equity stakes and forming state corporations, maybe they could help form a new JV after a theoretical Intel failure. That's no less major a step to take.

In the scenario where Intel fails (which would primarily be centered around defaulting on the 50 billion of debt that they built up and can barely service), the US gov could offer strong tax incentives to players who want to form up a new national fab company. Give it favored status essentially (again, if the US is already crossing fairly extreme lines of having US state owned corporations, this doesn't seem so extreme in comparison).

You already have Private Equity interests that are starting to consume Intel. Ex: some of the new fabs are funded by Brookstone, and they have sold off a portion of the profit from the venture, and then collateralized the transaction with the hard assets and put Private Equity at the top of the bankruptcy cap stack.

I think that if the US gave some incentives, the pieces would fall into place extremely quickly. PE would do the actual capital funding in a heartbeat if they had sweetheart tax incentives, and Japan/SK/TSMC would also get involved. Presumably - given the style of the current admin - the "deal" would be "you get favored status by taking part in this project. We will give strong tax benefits to also drive profit. If you turn it down, expect to see tariffs and calls go unanswered while your competition has a direct line."

7. AngryData ◴[] No.45033986[source]
If they are "too big to fail" then they shouldn't exist because they are also a national security issue. Either let them fall apart and fund everyone but them, or split them apart into multiple companies with new leadership.
replies(1): >>45044950 #
8. chrsw ◴[] No.45034102[source]
China taking Taiwan might finally force us to get our act together.
9. unethical_ban ◴[] No.45044950[source]
That sounds like you expect a competitive, free market for things as complex as the world's cutting edge CPU or nuclear weapons or fighter jet technology. I think when it gets as specialized and capital intensive as those things, a true free market is less likely to exist.