←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
mvc ◴[] No.45027203[source]
If all advanced countries follow this reasoning, where does that leave us?
replies(1): >>45027509 #
minkzilla ◴[] No.45027509[source]
Robust and redundant manufacturing spread across the world with more opportunity for innovation?
replies(1): >>45027711 #
mallets ◴[] No.45027711[source]
Trillions of dollars spent just for redundancy? Most wouldn't even succeed in building a working process, forget profitable.
replies(5): >>45029013 #>>45029726 #>>45029826 #>>45031965 #>>45034302 #
throwawaymaths ◴[] No.45029013[source]
Starfleet code requires a second backup?

In case the first backup fails.

What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?

replies(1): >>45029933 #
twoodfin ◴[] No.45029933[source]
This is too glib: If you imagine a world where every critical industry is replicated in every large nation, often inefficiently or inadequately, that’s a world where the average person is much, much poorer.

And for what?

replies(4): >>45030881 #>>45031718 #>>45032906 #>>45041851 #
j4coh ◴[] No.45030881{3}[source]
Security, perhaps.
replies(1): >>45032832 #
twoodfin ◴[] No.45032832{4}[source]
In all seriousness, that’s basically what the Soviets thought they were doing—and why—from (at least) 1945 on.

It really didn’t work out, despite sometimes giving the appearance of a plausible alternative to the capitalist world.

replies(1): >>45035221 #
1. prewett ◴[] No.45035221{5}[source]
I don’t think the problem with the Soviets was doing everything themselves, which seems to be working okay for China. The problem is that centralized planning doesn’t work, and the system dehumanized people and destroyed incentives for people to innovate.