News Former Intel CEO says splitting Intel isn’t good for the U.S.

[Admin]

Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett said splitting off Intel's manufacturing division as its own company could make it uncompetitive and lag behind the other chip makers.

Former Intel CEO says splitting Intel isn’t good for the U.S. : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

Instead of breaking up Intel, he suggests that Intel and the U.S. government should focus on what matters most for semiconductor companies — technological leadership.

tl;dr "Give Intel more $$ to try and brute force their way to dominance"?

Gov shouldnt have to fund a company as if they cant do it themself why doesnt Gov just fund a new company themself and own it entirely?

 

[ThisIsMe]

tl;dr "Give Intel more $$ to try and brute force their way to dominance"?

Gov shouldnt have to fund a company as if they cant do it themself why doesnt Gov just fund a new company themself and own it entirely?

That’s one way to interpret it. I mean if the government sent everyone a check for some amount of money, I’m certain you’d cash it.

However, maybe he was suggesting that the government should not support foreign organizations nor domestic organizations that don’t actually make anything and rely solely on foreign organizations to make their products. Instead, it should support its only leading edge domestic manufacturing organization. You know, like what he literally said.

About your last thought, it can’t.

 

[ezst036]

The CHIPS act has become nothing but routine crass corporate welfare.

Gimme, gimme, gimme. So insulting. Yay for the lobbyists though.

 

[thestryker]

tl;dr "Give Intel more $$ to try and brute force their way to dominance"?

Gov shouldnt have to fund a company as if they cant do it themself why doesnt Gov just fund a new company themself and own it entirely?

Ah yes the approach that doesn't take into account subsidization that happens globally or the way wall street works. In a rational world you'd be right, but that isn't the world we live in.

Pat laid out a plan when he became CEO and everyone seemed to be onboard. Intel split out fabrication financials (it's obvious this was a money loser when they're having to buy extremely expensive equipment while maintaining existing and not being able to use the new until it's ready which means idle fabs) and suddenly everyone is freaking out because foundry isn't making money. Intel's valuation tanks and they start doing typical corporate stuff to stem the bleeding even though it's usually bad for long term health. If none of this happens the fab delays probably don't happen either.

Government subsidies to get fabs built out with any speed is basically necessary at this point. The thing that needs to be done is putting guardrails on those funds to make sure they're being used to do exactly that rather than just line shareholder pockets.

There is no way spinning off the fabs today ends with a leading edge fab down the road. If 18A ends up being a success and Intel brings in enough customers to fill the fabs they have that's when the conversation about spinning off starts to make sense. It isn't until the "12" node with UMC is completed that it really makes sense though as that will be able to leverage all of the existing DUV equipment for an industry standardized node.

 

[hotaru251]

Ah yes the approach that doesn't take into account subsidization that happens globally or the way wall street works. In a rational world you'd be right, but that isn't the world we live in.

Pat laid out a plan when he became CEO and everyone seemed to be onboard. Intel split out fabrication financials (it's obvious this was a money loser when they're having to buy extremely expensive equipment while maintaining existing and not being able to use the new until it's ready which means idle fabs) and suddenly everyone is freaking out because foundry isn't making money. Intel's valuation tanks and they start doing typical corporate stuff to stem the bleeding even though it's usually bad for long term health. If none of this happens the fab delays probably don't happen either.

Government subsidies to get fabs built out with any speed is basically necessary at this point. The thing that needs to be done is putting g guardrails on those funds to make sure they're being used to do exactly that rather than just line shareholder pockets.

There is no way spinning off the fabs today ends with a leading edge fab down the road. If 18A ends up being a success and Intel brings in enough customers to fill the fabs they have that's when the conversation about spinning off starts to make sense. It isn't until the "12" node with UMC is completed that it really makes sense though as that will be able to leverage all of the existing DUV equipment for an industry standardized node.

issue is who would use their fabs (and at scale enough to be profitable) when even Intel wont make their own CPU's there and instead outsource them to TSMC?

By not making your own cpu's you are admitting you can't do that great yet and why would anyone want to trust that?

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Unlike what AMD did, spin off their foundries and sell the majority of ownership to the UAE (and are now public), Intel is wanting to spin off the fabs as a wholly owned subsidiary, like Intel Ireland (now 49% owned by Apollo), or vastly majority owned subsidiary, like Mobileye. It'd be better for Intel as they could acquire additional funds by making them public, it'd make them more attractive to contractors since they'd be just fabricators, and it'd make a takeover or merger easier as there would be no assets to shed.

 

[thestryker]

issue is who would use their fabs (and at scale enough to be profitable) when even Intel wont make their own CPU's there and instead outsource them to TSMC?

By not making your own cpu's you are admitting you can't do that great yet and why would anyone want to trust that?

This is nonsense. LNL is the only product which was designed not using an Intel node. ARL was a decision based on a node cancelation.

The only manufacturing process Intel isn't using is 20A which they claim is due to focusing on 18A which makes sense (whether true or not). MTL is Intel 4, SRF/GNR are Intel 3 and CWF/PTL are 18A. The reason canceling 20A makes sense is that with MTL Intel has to keep EUV machines making a singular product on Intel 4 which means those can't be used for Intel 3 and the same would have been the case with 20A/18A. Intel is trying to open up leading edge foundry services with 18A and having capacity available is paramount for this.

 

[ToBeGood]

The CHIPS act has become nothing but routine crass corporate welfare.

Gimme, gimme, gimme. So insulting. Yay for the lobbyists though.

According to Intel Financial Report, Intel still yet received 1c from the CHIPS act as of Q2 2024.

<Mod Edit - delete off topic political>

 

[LordVile]

Splitting nvidia would be more beneficial at this point