6 ms·

> I think that's a great thing. I don't want companies to stay giant in perpetuity... Except that semiconductors are a national security issue at the moment.

indymike 4y ago
> Except that semiconductors are a national security issue at the moment. Maybe too big is a national security issue, too. Too big to fail is a real problem for any part of our economy.
- icapybara 4y ago
  Computer chips are a product that is only possible to produce at the largest scales. Everything, from the supply chain to design to manufacturing, is a globalized effort. You’ll never have small mom and pop fabs.
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    If everyone realizes it's a national security issue, that might change. Sure, US, EU and China have players in the industry and can attract fabs with a bit of incentive, but what if Russia or India or Pakistan or Brazil or Iran want to ensure a steady supply even under sanctions? Some of them might open up smaller fabs that might not be economically viable but are of strategic importance.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      Doesn’t Malaysia have fabs? Singapore?
  - bluGill 4y ago
    You could fab chips in your basement. However your costs per chip would be in the tens of thousands each for basic chips. Large scales allows making those same chips for less than a dime each.
    - icapybara 4y ago
      You'd still need chemicals, a pure substrate, a chip design that's been converted into a manufacturing process, a UV aligner, spin coater, etc... can't do everything in your basement. You have to trade with others.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > Computer chips are a product that is only possible to produce at the largest scales Perhaps, or perhaps we're dealing with monopolization.
feanaro 4y ago
Luckily there are many, many countries in the world with no semiconductor industry of their own who benefit from no single company or country staying as the perpetual, unchallenged giant.
beebmam 4y ago
100%. It's worth considering that some of these people laid off may consider working for authoritarian governments if they were well compensated (or are ideologically aligned), and that's a huge national security risk too. Hope they aren't dumb enough to lay off engineers with important knowledge. Please tell me that US representatives have already met with Intel on this.
- xwolfi 4y ago
  I work in an authoritarian country (Hong Kong) and it s not what you think. You cant transplant a well paid foreigner expecting a breakthrough: his entire team will spend their time enforcing the red tape to teach him to adapt and by the time the money dries out they ll either have an obedient clone of the rest or a frustrated quitter. Plus, dictatorships arent against the US per se, they re against the US convincing the populace they too could act like americans, and are extremely dependent on that Schrodinger state where you re both the factory for the US and a public political opponent. Symbiotic parasite pretending to be the host's alternative. Plus the US might change heads at the top, but it s hardly a safe ally to have. Ukraine nearly went to complete disaster thanks to Trump and having morons elected there is a security risk for many too...
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    we have temporarily made peace with dictatorships before. the bigger concern is china wants the #1 spot in world power and we will oppose any nation that tries to beconme more powerful than us.
zhengyi13 4y ago
Eh, I think they always were; we're just finally being forced to pay them better attention.
twelve40 4y ago
yeah but it's not a good reason to prop up or keep bloating non-competitive corporations. Bloating Intel is not likely to result in another tsmc.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Except that semiconductors are a national security issue at the moment. Perhaps this is too much of a radical idea, but if a company is so critically important that it can't be allowed to falter without government support, then it should be nationalized. At the very least the government support should be made explicit, and large, critically important companies should be forced to pay much higher insurance, i.e. the equivalent of what banks need to pay for FDIC insurance. Sick of the whole "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" mindset.

indymike 4y ago

> Except that semiconductors are a national security issue at the moment. Maybe too big is a national security issue, too. Too big to fail is a real problem for any part of our economy.

icapybara 4y ago
Computer chips are a product that is only possible to produce at the largest scales. Everything, from the supply chain to design to manufacturing, is a globalized effort. You’ll never have small mom and pop fabs.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  If everyone realizes it's a national security issue, that might change. Sure, US, EU and China have players in the industry and can attract fabs with a bit of incentive, but what if Russia or India or Pakistan or Brazil or Iran want to ensure a steady supply even under sanctions? Some of them might open up smaller fabs that might not be economically viable but are of strategic importance.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Doesn’t Malaysia have fabs? Singapore?
- bluGill 4y ago
  You could fab chips in your basement. However your costs per chip would be in the tens of thousands each for basic chips. Large scales allows making those same chips for less than a dime each.
  - icapybara 4y ago
    You'd still need chemicals, a pure substrate, a chip design that's been converted into a manufacturing process, a UV aligner, spin coater, etc... can't do everything in your basement. You have to trade with others.
- indymike 4y ago
  > Computer chips are a product that is only possible to produce at the largest scales Perhaps, or perhaps we're dealing with monopolization.

feanaro 4y ago

Luckily there are many, many countries in the world with no semiconductor industry of their own who benefit from no single company or country staying as the perpetual, unchallenged giant.

beebmam 4y ago

100%. It's worth considering that some of these people laid off may consider working for authoritarian governments if they were well compensated (or are ideologically aligned), and that's a huge national security risk too. Hope they aren't dumb enough to lay off engineers with important knowledge. Please tell me that US representatives have already met with Intel on this.

xwolfi 4y ago
I work in an authoritarian country (Hong Kong) and it s not what you think. You cant transplant a well paid foreigner expecting a breakthrough: his entire team will spend their time enforcing the red tape to teach him to adapt and by the time the money dries out they ll either have an obedient clone of the rest or a frustrated quitter. Plus, dictatorships arent against the US per se, they re against the US convincing the populace they too could act like americans, and are extremely dependent on that Schrodinger state where you re both the factory for the US and a public political opponent. Symbiotic parasite pretending to be the host's alternative. Plus the US might change heads at the top, but it s hardly a safe ally to have. Ukraine nearly went to complete disaster thanks to Trump and having morons elected there is a security risk for many too...
- collegeburner 4y ago
  we have temporarily made peace with dictatorships before. the bigger concern is china wants the #1 spot in world power and we will oppose any nation that tries to beconme more powerful than us.

zhengyi13 4y ago

Eh, I think they always were; we're just finally being forced to pay them better attention.

twelve40 4y ago

yeah but it's not a good reason to prop up or keep bloating non-competitive corporations. Bloating Intel is not likely to result in another tsmc.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Except that semiconductors are a national security issue at the moment. Perhaps this is too much of a radical idea, but if a company is so critically important that it can't be allowed to falter without government support, then it should be nationalized. At the very least the government support should be made explicit, and large, critically important companies should be forced to pay much higher insurance, i.e. the equivalent of what banks need to pay for FDIC insurance. Sick of the whole "privatize the profits and socialize the losses" mindset.