←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 7 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 #
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 #
troad ◴[] No.45027324[source]
We have developed an economy oriented around selling one another websites, and we are only belatedly noticing that none of our enemies seem to have followed.
replies(7): >>45027642 #>>45028398 #>>45028427 #>>45029093 #>>45030180 #>>45033231 #>>45034237 #
bix6 ◴[] No.45027642[source]
It’s ridiculous. It’s so easy to find VC funding for software but heaven forbid you try and make agricultural innovations. Biotech is slightly better but still a struggle. Hardware only counts right now if it’s defense tech but even then people would rather have another SaaS.
replies(11): >>45028120 #>>45028279 #>>45029393 #>>45029752 #>>45030756 #>>45031234 #>>45031996 #>>45033895 #>>45035157 #>>45036279 #>>45036762 #
nine_k ◴[] No.45029752[source]
I'd say that VC funding may be an inappropriate tool for that. VCs want you to either grow fast, or fail fast. Not necessarily to bring profit fast, but to visibly capture the market (see Uber). Move fast, break things, rework things every week, trigger that wave of sign-ups.

Agriculture is much slower, every iteration may be is a year, or (in tropical climates) half a year. Microelectronics is comparably slow, and even more unforgiving about making mistakes. Building robots does not scale ls easily as producing chips, let alone software.

These areas need a different model of investment, with a longer horizon, slower growth, less influence of fads, better understanding of fundamentals. In some areas, DARPA provided such investment, with a good rate of success.

replies(2): >>45030957 #>>45031616 #
fxtentacle ◴[] No.45031616{5}[source]
Yeah, it's almost as if prioritizing returns on investment over EVERYTHING!!! else has bad side-effects for the economy as a whole.
replies(2): >>45033116 #>>45037012 #
1. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.45033116{6}[source]
It seems really unlikely so many elements of American society decided to prioritize returns simultaneously… but more like those who didn’t… eventually couldn’t compete anymore and left the market.

Leaving behind only those completely focused on returns.

replies(1): >>45033473 #
2. Fade_Dance ◴[] No.45033473[source]
I'd reframe that slightly. There is a vast foundation of stable, optimized businesses that are in commoditized/low-growth ares. They function as the underpinnings of the American economy.

When turning the spotlight to capital that is seeking returns, it is true that these areas may be mediocre places to deploy fresh capital, but it doesn't mean that these players aren't competing, and they will probably be cranking out sheet metal and port cargo logistics optimization well after 90% of the AI startups fold.

The caveat is of course Private Equity, which is about 10 trillion in assets. They can derive high returns from these areas, but it requires leverage.

replies(2): >>45036518 #>>45037083 #
3. graycat ◴[] No.45036518[source]
Okay, "logistics optimization"???

In the US there have been a few, i.e., apparently less than 20, universities with an applied math program up to date in and teaching optimization.

Sooooo, anyone at all seriously interested, long, for decades, would, could, should visit some of those math programs, meet some of the profs, get recommendations for their former students, call them, chat, and offer a job better than their current lawn mowing, fast food restaurant kitchen cleaning, or car washing. Instead of just the US, might also consider Waterloo in Canada. Actually the Chair of my Ph.D. orals committee specialized in optimization in logistics. After sending 1000+ beautifully written resume copies and hearing back nothing, can begin to conclude that optimization is not a hot field and for highly dedicated optimizers who want to sleep on a cot in a single room, forgo bathing, most days eat bread, other days peanut butter, have no children, wife, or family contact, don't own a car, and must get any needed medical care from some of the last resort special clinics. Ah, real optimization!

4. rswail ◴[] No.45037083[source]
Not only leverage, but also destabilizing those optimized businesses to harvest the capital assets from their balance sheets to pay for the leverage, while destroying the underlying business.

PE is arguably much worse than VC. VC's business model is well understood and by taking VC funding, you are committing to their expected returns.

PE is, usually, unsolicited and is designed to exploit what appears to be a "lazy" balance sheet, but which is actually a stable business producing output and providing a reasonable ROI.

PE has very few redeeming features.

replies(2): >>45038287 #>>45043829 #
5. galangalalgol ◴[] No.45038287{3}[source]
PE played a part in manufacturing leaving the US. Often the buyouts were of sick companies, and it was just the optimum way to monetize their death. But without PE not all of them wouldnhave eventually died, and it would have given policy makers more time to react to what was happening.
replies(1): >>45045253 #
6. nostrademons ◴[] No.45043829{3}[source]
They're very much yin and yang. PE's operating model is to take businesses that are operating inefficiently, squeeze all the inefficiencies out, sell off assets that would be more productive under other management, and basically strip the company bare. If it kills the company, that creates fertile ground for new startups funded by VC.

Think of PE as the decomposers of capitalism, and VC as its seeds. Most people don't like to think of it that way because they don't like to be reminded that death is a part of life. But if you view capitalism as a living ecosystem and your role within capitalism as someone to accelerate growth and then accelerate death so that new growth can take its place, it all makes sense. And you can probably profit pretty handsomely from it, because most people don't view capitalism like that and instead seek stability in the dying parts.

7. MichaelZuo ◴[] No.45045253{4}[source]
It’s just natural that nobody wanted to pay for outdated machines and tooling in developed countries.

Labor costs, permits, fees, etc., means that buying used just doesn’t make sense unless it’s almost free.

Whereas developing countries were willing to pay a lot more, sometimes as much as 50 cents on the dollar compared to brand new equipment and they would send a team to rip it out too.

I’ve heard that applied to almost everything too heavy to move by forklift during the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.