4 ms·

Apple chipmaker TSMC should be a lower priority for CHIPS Act cash, says Intel

20 points by mikece 4y ago

hunglee2 4y ago
Of course they Intel would say this - direct competitor as they are for the contracts and for the talent. Smart move for the US gov would be to ignore this predictably partisan argument and provide subsidy for domestic and foreign firms alike. TSMC has been coerced into sinking in $40 Billion into US fabs - without US taxpayers cash subsidising some of that investment, it would be hard to see how TSMC would be motivated to make anything in the US
jjk166 4y ago
We want to bring capabilities to the US. If Intel is threatening to pack up and leave, why reward disloyalty? If Intel is going to maintain its US presence, then what exactly would the additional money be getting us?
John23832 4y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the CHIPS Act is to onshore American chip production. It doesn't make a delineation between American or non-American companies (though I'm sure some companies wouldn't pass). Nor should it. This is Intel promoting nationalism, imo.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I would describe it as Intel promoting Intel, possibly trying to disguise it as nationalism.
- meepmorp 4y ago
  > This is Intel promoting nationalism, imo. IMO, this is Intel using nationalism to promote Intel. They want the money, they don't want the competition, they're happy to use whatever means to gin up support.
lizknope 4y ago
I'm a US citizen that has worked in the semiconductor industry for 25 years. Since 2005 every chip I have worked on (over 75) has been manufactured overseas at TSMC or Samsung. Every time Intel decides to get into the foundry business for external customers they end up cancelling their plans in a couple of years. I can find articles from around 2002 and again around 2010. I even interviewed with Open Silicon which was started by a bunch of former Intel people that were frustrated with Intel's lack of commitment to supporting external customers. I know 3 VPs that basically said "We don't trust Intel to actually make our chips on time because when Intel's business picks up they will prioritize making their own chips over ours or they will not make as much in the foundry business and cancel it like they did before."
- bcrl 4y ago
  There is a risk that Intel gets too much money to build too many fabs too fast. If they don't manage that correctly, the could end up getting buried by the operational costs of keeping inactive fabs open because they were built with government dollars that came with strings (in the forms of jobs they have to provide) attached to them. It's a good thing AMD spun off Global Foundries 15 years ago -- they're in a far better position today than they were then. It might just about be time for Intel to do the same.
sct202 4y ago
I think it's funny that Intel is invoking nationalism when in the last 2 years they have announced hundreds of billions in offshore expansions all over the world (Malaysia, Germany, Israel, Ireland). I might support prioritizing them, if they prioritized America, but they don't seem to be.
specialist 4y ago
I categorically oppose using US taxpayer money [0] for corporate profiteering [1]. I'm fine with the US Govt taking an ownership stake. Ditto long-term purchasing agreements. [0] tax breaks, subsidies, grants, loans, whatever. [1] share buybacks (or dividends), executive bonuses, M&A sprees, anticompetitive behavior, flaunting SEC rules, etc
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
m-p-3 4y ago
IMO it would make more sense to incentivize more manufacturers to establish themselves locally, promoting competition. Intel is simply acting in its own self-interest like any other business would.
xt00 4y ago
Fundamentally Intel in the foundry business suffers from a major problem.. if their customers can design a chip that they can buy for $50-100 when Intel would normally sell them a similar-ish chip for $1000 then they’ve basically just screwed themselves.. like if Amazon says we want to have you build our ARM graviton chip with 128 cores on it, the Intel MBAs would say “well wait we sell 128 core xeons for 10k each.. we should charge Amazon $9k for that chip”.. but as a foundry the silicon area is probably more like a $100-200 chip. So you might say the ARM business was not even something Intel would touch anyway so it’s all additive business, but ultimately if a large segment of their Xeon sales turn into high core count ARM customer designed asics then it eventually hurts them.

20 points by mikece 4y ago

Of course they Intel would say this - direct competitor as they are for the contracts and for the talent. Smart move for the US gov would be to ignore this predictably partisan argument and provide subsidy for domestic and foreign firms alike. TSMC has been coerced into sinking in $40 Billion into US fabs - without US taxpayers cash subsidising some of that investment, it would be hard to see how TSMC would be motivated to make anything in the US

jjk166 4y ago

We want to bring capabilities to the US. If Intel is threatening to pack up and leave, why reward disloyalty? If Intel is going to maintain its US presence, then what exactly would the additional money be getting us?

John23832 4y ago

Unless I'm mistaken, the purpose of the CHIPS Act is to onshore American chip production. It doesn't make a delineation between American or non-American companies (though I'm sure some companies wouldn't pass). Nor should it. This is Intel promoting nationalism, imo.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I would describe it as Intel promoting Intel, possibly trying to disguise it as nationalism.
meepmorp 4y ago
> This is Intel promoting nationalism, imo. IMO, this is Intel using nationalism to promote Intel. They want the money, they don't want the competition, they're happy to use whatever means to gin up support.

lizknope 4y ago

I'm a US citizen that has worked in the semiconductor industry for 25 years. Since 2005 every chip I have worked on (over 75) has been manufactured overseas at TSMC or Samsung. Every time Intel decides to get into the foundry business for external customers they end up cancelling their plans in a couple of years. I can find articles from around 2002 and again around 2010. I even interviewed with Open Silicon which was started by a bunch of former Intel people that were frustrated with Intel's lack of commitment to supporting external customers. I know 3 VPs that basically said "We don't trust Intel to actually make our chips on time because when Intel's business picks up they will prioritize making their own chips over ours or they will not make as much in the foundry business and cancel it like they did before."

bcrl 4y ago
There is a risk that Intel gets too much money to build too many fabs too fast. If they don't manage that correctly, the could end up getting buried by the operational costs of keeping inactive fabs open because they were built with government dollars that came with strings (in the forms of jobs they have to provide) attached to them. It's a good thing AMD spun off Global Foundries 15 years ago -- they're in a far better position today than they were then. It might just about be time for Intel to do the same.

sct202 4y ago

I think it's funny that Intel is invoking nationalism when in the last 2 years they have announced hundreds of billions in offshore expansions all over the world (Malaysia, Germany, Israel, Ireland). I might support prioritizing them, if they prioritized America, but they don't seem to be.

specialist 4y ago

I categorically oppose using US taxpayer money [0] for corporate profiteering [1]. I'm fine with the US Govt taking an ownership stake. Ditto long-term purchasing agreements. [0] tax breaks, subsidies, grants, loans, whatever. [1] share buybacks (or dividends), executive bonuses, M&A sprees, anticompetitive behavior, flaunting SEC rules, etc

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

m-p-3 4y ago

IMO it would make more sense to incentivize more manufacturers to establish themselves locally, promoting competition. Intel is simply acting in its own self-interest like any other business would.

xt00 4y ago

Fundamentally Intel in the foundry business suffers from a major problem.. if their customers can design a chip that they can buy for $50-100 when Intel would normally sell them a similar-ish chip for $1000 then they’ve basically just screwed themselves.. like if Amazon says we want to have you build our ARM graviton chip with 128 cores on it, the Intel MBAs would say “well wait we sell 128 core xeons for 10k each.. we should charge Amazon $9k for that chip”.. but as a foundry the silicon area is probably more like a $100-200 chip. So you might say the ARM business was not even something Intel would touch anyway so it’s all additive business, but ultimately if a large segment of their Xeon sales turn into high core count ARM customer designed asics then it eventually hurts them.