3 ms·
> Intel should have been allowed to fail, its fabs spun off and many of its unprofitable ancillary products shut down or sold If Intel had failed, the fabs wou
by BeetleB 2y ago
> Intel should have been allowed to fail, its fabs spun off and many of its unprofitable ancillary products shut down or sold
If Intel had failed, the fabs would have shut down, not been spun off. Intel's fabs are the primary reason Intel has poor financials - continually running on a loss. Intel's Product division makes a profit - always has - and can survive.
The Bailout is all about propping the fabs, not the products. Letting Intel fail really does equate to losing semiconductor capability in the US. There's no other US company that comes even close to Intel's fabs.
The market is harsh to Intel - it's essentially saying "There's no room for number 2"
- mmmBacon 2y agoYeah, no. Firstly nobody can use Intel’s fabs because they can’t really provide a PDK the way TSMC can. So Intel’s fabs are fundamentally not competitive as it stands because they are almost impossible for anyone but Intel to use. Who cares what their equivalent process is if it can’t be commercialized? A break up would force them to get their act together as a commercial fab. The fabs are substantial capital and would have been spun out in the same way IBM spun out their fabs into Global Foundry. Someone with knowledge of how can turn these things profitable. The bailout props up a failing mismanaged entity and encourages its moribund status quo. Moreover the US taxpayer shouldn’t foot the bill for Intel’s mismanagement. The era of x86 dominating compute is clearly over and hence your last point is anachronistic.