←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.408s | 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 #
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 #
bix6 ◴[] No.45030957[source]
It shouldn’t be that way though. Venture capital is only for SaaS? It should be for technology in general. But the IRR demands are too much so it concentrates to SaaS.
replies(2): >>45032891 #>>45036629 #
1. graycat ◴[] No.45036629[source]
Early on, with a good technical background, I guessed that, of course, the key to success in technology was some good technology but soon discovered that VCs just want to make money, a lot of money, quickly, and otherwise will hear from the investors in their fund.

Just heard of Palmer Luckey. Hmm! Money? No big staff, not much equipment, essentially just one person?? $1B+, quickly? Example: Taylor Swift. Did she ever hear of Linux???

replies(1): >>45047668 #
2. graycat ◴[] No.45047668[source]
Addition: Omitted the reports that Swift is worth $1B from her singing.