←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rickdeckard ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
dpkirchner ◴[] No.45027396[source]
Add to this the fact that given the government is now propping up a poor performing company there's no possible reason to try to create a new domestic competitor. If you do and you start becoming successful, the government can just increase their "investment" in your chief competitor and shut you down. It's ludicrous.
replies(1): >>45028443 #
201984 ◴[] No.45028443[source]
The point of the article was that there's never going to be a new domestic competitor. It would take hundreds of billions in investment to get off the ground and build a fab from scratch, and they'd be in an even worse position than Intel is currently. No external customer would want to risk using them, and they don't have the internal demand of x86 to keep going on their own.
replies(2): >>45031124 #>>45033022 #
1. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.45033022[source]
"Never" is a very strong statement... or do you expect the USA or the need for chips to stop existing in a time frame as short as half a century ?