←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 #
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 #
nine_k ◴[] No.45032891[source]
VC capital is like a detonator. It seeks explosives, and when it finds them, produces spectacular fireworks that illuminate the entire industry, or even the entire world. It also ends up with a lot of duds, but it's OK by them.

What VC capital is not interested in is regular fuel, which can burn steadily and expand gradually, without a shock wave. Such companies can be quite important. Say, GitHub was such a company for many years, before it took a large VC investment and got acquired MS. Investing in such companies requires much more diligence and foresight, maybe too much predictive power to work at mass scale.

VCs' math only works because a single 1000x hit easily pays for a hundred of duds. If ROI per hit is 2-3x, and research required is 10x more deep, the prospects likely start to seem too bleak for folks with billions seeking return.

replies(1): >>45034922 #
0xDEAFBEAD ◴[] No.45034922[source]
People in this thread act like VC is the only way to raise capital. Ever heard of getting a business loan? Even a lot of companies in the Valley could probably get one more easily than they might think, if they're profitable. You don't have to give up equity either.
replies(2): >>45035175 #>>45038359 #
BobbyTables2 ◴[] No.45035175[source]
Yeah, but how does one get a business loan, with real stuff at stake, when VCs are burning money like there’s no tomorrow?

I especially dislike the way VC funded startups use VC dollars to effectively be a “loss leaders” for years to choke out the rest of the market.

Who wants to risk their own capital or privately pooled funds against THAT?

replies(1): >>45035291 #
0xDEAFBEAD ◴[] No.45035291[source]
>how does one get a business loan, with real stuff at stake

Show them your finances and collateral to demonstrate that you'll be able to pay off the loan.

>I especially dislike the way VC funded startups use VC dollars to effectively be a “loss leaders” for years to choke out the rest of the market.

It's a fair point, but it's a point which does not apply to the industries we are discussing, which do not receive VC investment.

I actually really like your point about Masayoshi Son-style investments which are just an attempt to entrench a monopoly. I'm no socialist, but if socialists called for identifying and taxing such investments, I wouldn't object. The trick is to distinguish between the WeWorks of the world, and the Boom Supersonic type companies which genuinely need gobs of capital for breakthrough innovation.

replies(1): >>45038352 #
galangalalgol ◴[] No.45038352[source]
Wouldn't being aggressive about antitrust chill auch investments in the first place? Uber wouldn't have been so eager to overcome lyft if it knew that it would mean getting broken up or fined into unprofitability.
replies(1): >>45039113 #
1. 0xDEAFBEAD ◴[] No.45039113[source]
That's another approach. However, I think it's worth distinguishing if a company acquires market dominance because of merit, vs because it got a big infusion of cash.

I somewhat dislike antitrust because it requires judgement calls on the part of regulators. I prefer simple, elegant rules. Just like in software development. Law should ideally be elegant, just like code.