this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
233 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3345 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what's been going on with intel the last few years? in terms of their troubles that this extremely vague article that could have been 4 sentences says nothing about.
They've had delays, manufacturing problems, design problems, strained relationships with OEMs, political infighting, brain drain, cancelled projects, huge security vulnerabilities, less interest in their (opened up to non-intel customers) foundry than expected, and their nodes – despite not actually being far behind TSMC and in some areas better – are vastly more expensive.
This is all on top of the fact that Intel is structured in a way that they cannot make money unless they are a monopoly. And now they're no longer a monopoly.
welp, good riddance to bad rubbish.
did they get antitrusted?
Well, that's the thing. They are kind of "too big to fail" and Intel is too important for the US to let it fail or even get behind the curve.
There's probably more government money headed their way. Just like there is more foreign government money headed to their competitors in other countries. It might become more of a subsidy battle between governments than a money-making competition between companies.
the curve is firmly set by Taiwan, Intel is playing catch up at best.
Intel is just the right size to fail.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
"bet", "next", "will", "if", "plan", "should".
that's a lot of faith to place in the unproven optimistically hypothetical next steps of a company way behind the firmly established innovation, dominance and reliability of TSMC semi fab.
Sure, but it's also hard to bid against a company that we all know the US government is not going to let fail.
no bidding, it's history.
Intel has been that big for decades and has been left in the dust by TSMC for decades.
the US has repeatedly invested in "too big to fail" companies and has been rewarded with recessions, housing crises, national credit demotion, crippling healthcare costs, and rampant inflation.
if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist.