Intel might be too big to fail — Washington policymakers are already discussing potential solutions if the chipmaker cannot recover
Intel might be too big to fail — Washington policymakers are already discussing potential solutions if the chipmaker cannot recover
Too big to fail.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
🌈 N A T I O N A L I S A T I O N 🌈
-
💪letting it fail anyway 👍
-
Lol... We US is going to be fundinng, we should be taking equity stake for our investments.
Thats just capitalism 101. These shareholders need to fsce consequences for putting BOD that extracted 100billion dollars via share buy backs and now relying on bail outs from working people.
🤡 capitalism gonna need to face some consequences here
FAFO
-
Is it really a good idea to let Taiwan and Samsung control all semiconductor manufacturing?
-
Yes. Not Samsung but Taiwan. It would force the us to not tiptoe around China.
Also Intel is one of many, maybe the biggest name but for a Long time not the biggest player at all.
Ever read the name AMD? The ones actually behind x86 64bit and many other things?
Nvidia (even though they invest to much into a double that will pop)
ARM?
Texas instruments?
Bosh?
There is more than enough without intel.
*Apple
-
[A day after mainland China invades Taiwan]
"Fuck, why did graphics cards quintuple in price?"
-
Yeah guess what, thats why Taiwan needs protection and China enough pressure to not even think about it. Wich can only be achieved by being important to the world.
-
-
Most of the companies you’re mentioning do not have their own chip foundries. The only - and I do mean only - companies that have working lithography lines to support bleeding edge chips at massive scale are Samsung, TSMC, and Intel. Several other companies are investing in eventually gaining that capability, but right now, thats it. And these things take a LONG time to spin up and iron out the issues.
TL;DR: the problem is how few companies actually MAKE the chips, not how many companies DESIGN them.
-
I didn't think any of those companies did any manufacturing. Are we talking about the same thing? My understanding was there was only three names in manufacturing (the ones I mentioned)
What do you mean by it would force us not to tiptoe around China?
On that note, what do you think about Trump's policy against Huawei when he was president? I'm inclined to think it's a good thing despite it not being something Obama (or Clinton or Biden/Harris) would do
-
I didn’t think any of those companies did any manufacturing.
They don't. Well, TI does but not anywhere near the the node size of the three you mentioned: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node
-
By that definition Intel isn't manufacturing either, its foxcon that manufacturers for them.
-
Huh Intel has its own fabs.
-
-
-
-
I love that paranoia and xenophobia. As if a corrupt domestic company is somehow magically better than a corrupt international company.
It's been quite obvious over the past few years that yes there's potentially some risk of foreign countries trying to install spy code, but actually that doesn't seem to happen very often, and what's much more damaging to our society are large corporations that use their power to screw over the general public, and most of these large corporations are domestic.
-
It’s not xenophobia, it’s a matter of national security for every single western nation. Without Intel, x86 processor manufacturing would be limited to TSMC in Taiwan, and would only serve to further incentivise Chinese aggression over the island.
So yes, paranoia - but sometimes that can be a good thing.
-
And there's also resilience against natural disasters. Having processor manufacturing limited to one place is just a bad idea.
-
-
I mean, what did you think when you learned that the US was worried about something as basic as surgical/n95 masks during the pandemic because we simply didn't produce any domestically?
Seems absolutely silly not to think your country should have some say in how computer processors are developed. I highly recommend the book Chip War to anyone interested in learning more.
That all said, my understanding is all chip design is dependent on design software entirely owned by US companies - so there's that at least.
-
-
-
-
What does that mean exactly? Is the company expected to compete or just support existing products or be sold to other owners?
-
Let’s start with what we’re not doing. We’re not handing out money to private investors in the old “socializing losses privatizing profits” bullshit we’ve been doing since the nineties.
So, if there’s a compelling national security reason to keep the company alive, we, the state buy it. Then we, the state, run it. We run it in a way that benefits our interests as owners and customers.
Maybe a few years down the line we can find a way to sell it (or our share in it) in a way that satisfies our national security requirements and makes us a load of money. This is not unheard of, see the acquisition and subsequent sale of ABN AMRO by the kingdom of the Netherlands.
Maybe split it up, write off some parts, sell some others, keep others.
Or we strip maybe it’s IP, and license it out to contractors to get the shit we need.
We can do whatever. We own it.
-
A tech company is not like a bank though, its value is not just in assets but in expertise. Is the plan to layoff all the engineers or pay them less? Is the plan the company generates profit? What if it can’t compete anymore and is just a money sink? And if you’re just going to sell it for assets then how’s that different from letting the company go bankrupt?
And licensing it out to contractors? That just sounds like a huge money sink.
-
Listen, Intel is fucked. It’s fucked right now, and getting bought out by someone else isn’t magically going to unfuck it. Saving the company is going to take money and effort.
We can also just let it go up in flames. No skin off my back.
-
-
-
-