3 ms·

Interesting take, but wouldn't also have the chance to attract the exactly right people too? Renegades, outcasts who dreamed too big for Nvidia or never got the

by mrtksn 2y ago

Interesting take, but wouldn't also have the chance to attract the exactly right people too? Renegades, outcasts who dreamed too big for Nvidia or never got the opportunity at TSMC maybe? There are many comeback stories, Apple being a particularly great one.

freeqaz 2y ago
There are also a lot of geopolitical interests in helping Intel succeed. As much as investors might balk at Intel today, the amount of money that Western governments can toss at the problem is effectively infinite. (Looking at Defense contractors as an example; horrendously inefficient, but tax revenue is effectively perpetually guaranteed to keep flowing.) It's silly to frame it this way, but even though the US and allies pay gobs for planes like the F-35, it's also what continues to allow the stream of taxable money to continue. I view Intel in a similar light. Even if they stay inefficient, there will still be money for a long time because the West needs a way to be self-sufficient. The cost of not having a backup is too high (tens of trillions of dollars when I last looked into it). It's a weird market that doesn't obey a lot of the conventional rules of capitalism. Yes, it would be better if Intel were able to compete without government subsidies, and maybe they will. But even if they don't it's very unlikely they'll totally crater because of how central this "power" is, and TSMC will never cede full control of their latest tech until the UN recognizes Taiwan as a distinct entity from China (imo).
- bcrl 2y ago
  However, subsidies always come with requirements for companies to fulfill. While it may sound great that Intel is getting billions of dollars in money to build and operate new fabs in the US, those fabs come with massive operating expenses. Unless Intel finds a whole lot of new product to run through those fabs, and soon, the subsidies could end up putting Intel in an even worse financial hole than it is already. Intel needs to change its internal culture to get back on a path towards success. I don't know if any CEO is capable of fighting and winning that battle within the span of a few years, and time is running out. Part of what impresses me about TSMC are some of the anecdotes that have trickled out about how they approach process R&D. TSMC runs experiments 24/7 with each team building on the results of the previous shift. This allows it to iterate much faster than many competitors. It is that kind of dedication and drive that Intel needs to push its leading edge manufacturing capabilities back into world class status, but that isn't the kind of change that can be achieved purely by throwing money at the problem.
- XorNot 2y ago
  The F-35 is actually an extremely affordable 5th generation fighter aircraft. It is cheaper per unit then some 4th generation aircraft now.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    Yes, the F-35 costs just $34,000 per flight hour. That's much cheaper than, say, Pat Gelsinger whose total comp was $86,000 per hour in 2021.
  - etempleton 2y ago
    Not to mention from the US Govt perspective it keeps thousands of people employed in well paying jobs and extends domestic expertise and capabilities.
- rob74 2y ago
  Well, the current US administration was committed to helping Intel succeed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act), not so sure about the incoming one. Maybe that also played a part in the decision?
- rolandog 2y ago
  Exactly. It's a "too big to fail" with a touch of "what are you gonna do, let me go bankrupt?" situation.
sydbarrett74 2y ago
Too bad Andy Grove is dead.
AdrianB1 2y ago
Such people are not hired by this companies, the hiring process is strongly against them. Also such people have better things in life to do and fight for, not the worst of the corporate world and a board of pokemons.
rob74 2y ago
I don't want to belittle Apple's success, but managing the turnaround at Apple didn't require the kind of long-term planning and commitment that investments in semiconductor manufacturing require.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I wouldn't be so sure about that. Apple is a huge hardware machine, and has been, since Day One. They not only have to deal with manufacturing hardware, but also promotion and distribution, which is not for the faint of heart. Most of Intel's work is B2B, while Apple is B2C. Steve Jobs was particularly good at playing The Long Game; something American CEOs generally suck at.
  - brookst 2y ago
    While it’s true that hardware was a central part of Apple’s turnaround, it was the comparatively simple and quick hardware of designing boards with off the shelf parts (at the time). That’s actually closer to software than the “hire the bulldozers to break ground for the building that is designed from blueprints to house the highly custom machines designed to make the chips using the fab processes that we’re betting the company on” kind of hardware. At its core, Intel (like TSMC) is more of a manufacturing company than a tech company.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
      I was thinking more about the long-term planning that Jobs was so known for. He would develop product lines that would take years to break even. Not all were able to make the cut. I worked for a Japanese corporation, and most of their initiatives had decade-long timelines. US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s).
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s). I don’t understand this platitude because the largest and most profitable businesses in the world, US tech and pharma companies, have very long timelines. Amazon took 20+ years to literally build infrastructure, the early investors of Facebook were not looking for a 3 month payday, they invested billions for the 10+ year payday. See the HN threads for when Zuckerberg paid for Instagram and WhatsApp, with so many wondering how he would recoup the enormous investment. Apple probably plowed billions into watches AirPods and M processors for years before it saw a return, going so far as to lend money to TSMC for many years with no guarantee of TSMC being able to make the product they wanted. Tesla, Alphabet’s Waymo bet, Uber, Nvidia, so many publicly listed businesses have a years long timelines Same for US pharma, it takes decades to get a product to market, with a high chance it never does.
7speter 2y ago
I think attracting these sorts of minds also depends on the resources a company can provide to them. Right now intel is keeping their belt tight. Iirc, there was a whole team of brilliant engineers who were working on a RISC V project let go from Intel late summer/early fall. I’ve read about talks regarding a sort of brain drain occuring.

by mrtksn 2y ago

freeqaz 2y ago

There are also a lot of geopolitical interests in helping Intel succeed. As much as investors might balk at Intel today, the amount of money that Western governments can toss at the problem is effectively infinite. (Looking at Defense contractors as an example; horrendously inefficient, but tax revenue is effectively perpetually guaranteed to keep flowing.) It's silly to frame it this way, but even though the US and allies pay gobs for planes like the F-35, it's also what continues to allow the stream of taxable money to continue. I view Intel in a similar light. Even if they stay inefficient, there will still be money for a long time because the West needs a way to be self-sufficient. The cost of not having a backup is too high (tens of trillions of dollars when I last looked into it). It's a weird market that doesn't obey a lot of the conventional rules of capitalism. Yes, it would be better if Intel were able to compete without government subsidies, and maybe they will. But even if they don't it's very unlikely they'll totally crater because of how central this "power" is, and TSMC will never cede full control of their latest tech until the UN recognizes Taiwan as a distinct entity from China (imo).

bcrl 2y ago
However, subsidies always come with requirements for companies to fulfill. While it may sound great that Intel is getting billions of dollars in money to build and operate new fabs in the US, those fabs come with massive operating expenses. Unless Intel finds a whole lot of new product to run through those fabs, and soon, the subsidies could end up putting Intel in an even worse financial hole than it is already. Intel needs to change its internal culture to get back on a path towards success. I don't know if any CEO is capable of fighting and winning that battle within the span of a few years, and time is running out. Part of what impresses me about TSMC are some of the anecdotes that have trickled out about how they approach process R&D. TSMC runs experiments 24/7 with each team building on the results of the previous shift. This allows it to iterate much faster than many competitors. It is that kind of dedication and drive that Intel needs to push its leading edge manufacturing capabilities back into world class status, but that isn't the kind of change that can be achieved purely by throwing money at the problem.
XorNot 2y ago
The F-35 is actually an extremely affordable 5th generation fighter aircraft. It is cheaper per unit then some 4th generation aircraft now.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Yes, the F-35 costs just $34,000 per flight hour. That's much cheaper than, say, Pat Gelsinger whose total comp was $86,000 per hour in 2021.
- etempleton 2y ago
  Not to mention from the US Govt perspective it keeps thousands of people employed in well paying jobs and extends domestic expertise and capabilities.
rob74 2y ago
Well, the current US administration was committed to helping Intel succeed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act), not so sure about the incoming one. Maybe that also played a part in the decision?
rolandog 2y ago
Exactly. It's a "too big to fail" with a touch of "what are you gonna do, let me go bankrupt?" situation.

sydbarrett74 2y ago

Too bad Andy Grove is dead.

AdrianB1 2y ago

Such people are not hired by this companies, the hiring process is strongly against them. Also such people have better things in life to do and fight for, not the worst of the corporate world and a board of pokemons.

rob74 2y ago

I don't want to belittle Apple's success, but managing the turnaround at Apple didn't require the kind of long-term planning and commitment that investments in semiconductor manufacturing require.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Apple is a huge hardware machine, and has been, since Day One. They not only have to deal with manufacturing hardware, but also promotion and distribution, which is not for the faint of heart. Most of Intel's work is B2B, while Apple is B2C. Steve Jobs was particularly good at playing The Long Game; something American CEOs generally suck at.
- brookst 2y ago
  While it’s true that hardware was a central part of Apple’s turnaround, it was the comparatively simple and quick hardware of designing boards with off the shelf parts (at the time). That’s actually closer to software than the “hire the bulldozers to break ground for the building that is designed from blueprints to house the highly custom machines designed to make the chips using the fab processes that we’re betting the company on” kind of hardware. At its core, Intel (like TSMC) is more of a manufacturing company than a tech company.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    I was thinking more about the long-term planning that Jobs was so known for. He would develop product lines that would take years to break even. Not all were able to make the cut. I worked for a Japanese corporation, and most of their initiatives had decade-long timelines. US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s).
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      > US companies tend to have 3-month-long timelines (I have no idea why /s). I don’t understand this platitude because the largest and most profitable businesses in the world, US tech and pharma companies, have very long timelines. Amazon took 20+ years to literally build infrastructure, the early investors of Facebook were not looking for a 3 month payday, they invested billions for the 10+ year payday. See the HN threads for when Zuckerberg paid for Instagram and WhatsApp, with so many wondering how he would recoup the enormous investment. Apple probably plowed billions into watches AirPods and M processors for years before it saw a return, going so far as to lend money to TSMC for many years with no guarantee of TSMC being able to make the product they wanted. Tesla, Alphabet’s Waymo bet, Uber, Nvidia, so many publicly listed businesses have a years long timelines Same for US pharma, it takes decades to get a product to market, with a high chance it never does.

7speter 2y ago

I think attracting these sorts of minds also depends on the resources a company can provide to them. Right now intel is keeping their belt tight. Iirc, there was a whole team of brilliant engineers who were working on a RISC V project let go from Intel late summer/early fall. I’ve read about talks regarding a sort of brain drain occuring.