undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgeorgeecollins8mo ago0 comments

Intel was very profitable until it was not. They spent over $800B on stock buybacks. That will buy you some fabs, some R&D. Its true they invested in R&D but not well. Maybe the answer was to fund an independent internal competitor to keep the org focused.

Financialization is a dead end when you face a nation state determined to control steps in you value chain. How profitable will apple be if they can’t get chips?

0 comments

jandrese8mo ago

I still think Intel missed the boat when they had the dominant process in focusing entirely on their own chips and not taking customers for third party fabbing. Samsung and especially TSMC have demonstrated conclusively that the real money is in producing chips for other companies. It might be lower margin, but the volume is undeniable and it keeps your company on its toes with node improvements.

Intel switched to a "service the stockholders before the customers" mode and they have never recovered.

freeopinion8mo ago

TSMC does not compete with their customers. Intel would. I know that is not a new idea and there are some established mitigations. But it seems it would be better if it wasn't an issue at all.

vel0city8mo ago

Samsung competes with their customers and yet they still sometimes choose Samsung. Same with IBM when they were a big competitive chip manufacturer. It probably makes the sale harder but it has been a common arrangement in the past.

convolvatron8mo ago

I worked in a CPU group that used IBM for a fab when they still had one. it was definitely an issue.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse