I hope they lose billions on this deal. I know I’m only going with AMD now. It’s not much, but I do buy all the tech for my company. Servers, laptops, etc… will all be AMD going forward.
Intel details everything that could go wrong with US taking a 10% stake
Submitted 12 hours ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
Not having competition is not a good thing. I hope a third player comes along.
bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Heck of an industry to break into.
grue@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Literally illegal. Only AMD and Intel have the patent cross-licensing rights to make x86 chips. There used to be a third company (Cyrix and subsequently VIA), and (maybe?) still is, but it hasn’t been relevant to the desktop CPU market in decades.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
Competitor is already here. Apple and Ampere are making ARM systems that fit most users needs. There are ARM servers. But people don’t want to switch.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Would TSMC be considered a competitor to AMD?
mereo@piefed.ca 7 hours ago
I've been building computers since 1999, and I've noticed that the industry is cyclical. I've purchased CPUs from both Intel and AMD. We need Intel to succeed, otherwise AMD will dominate the x86 processor market.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
The architecture is in its swan song anyways. Let AMD ride it into the sunset and bid it good riddance.
killerscene@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
intel must still be hanging on purely based on corporate computers? or is there something else they are a large part of?
this just be in my bubble, but i feel like anyone i know over the last 15 years has been exclusively getting AMD, whether theyre tech savvy or just a regular consumer.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
15 years? absolutely not. At the very least Skylake was very popular 5-10 years ago.
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 hours ago
Defense contracting.
They do a a good amount of of military industrial contracting and work for 3 letter agencies on data processing/ high performance computing.
They also got awarded government funding in 2024 to build logic chips for the military in-country.
Not enough to sustain the company, but such “sensitive” programs may not be allowed to show up in revenue reports or have to be assigned to other areas or so.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Their new GPU has a pretty solid price/performance.
CPU is shit though
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Can confirm my work laptop has an Intel chip
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Ars is making a mountain out of a molehill.
James McRitchie
Kristin Hull
These are literal activists investors known for taking such stances. It would be weird if they didn’t.
a company that’s not in crisis
Intel is literally circling the drain. It doesn’t look like it on paper, but the Fab/chip design business is so long term that if they don’t get on track, they’re basically toast. And they’re also important to the military.
Intel stock is up, short term and YTD. CNBC was ooing and aahing over it today. Of course there are blatant issues, like:
However, the US can vote “as it wishes,” Intel reported, and experts suggested to Reuters that regulations may be needed to “limit government opportunities for abuses such as insider trading.”
And we all know they’re going to insider trade the heck out of it. But the sentiment is not a bad idea. Government ties/history are why TSMC and Samsung Foundry are where they are today, and their dead competitors are not.
oneser@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Really, cos the graph looks like they bounced back to near 12 month highs?
suigenerix@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Good point. But would the share price otherwise have been higher without the government discounted purchase? Share dilution, law of supply and demand, etc are all decent arguments the shareholders could make.
And there’s now increased risk that the purchase could cause future strategic and market challenges, especially internationally.
Plus it’s not just a share price issue. For example, the fact that shareholders have had their voting power diluted is arguably a concern.
granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 10 hours ago
Investors should be going after executives who ran into the ground.
Also, intel could've refused the money. Nobody forcing them to take 11 billion of taxpayer dollars
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
What backlash, exactly? The stock is up
FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Think long term. What kind of regulatory capture is going to happen? Protected companies stagnate instead of innovate. That 10%? That’s not a cash deal. It’s not revenue for the share holders. It’s basically the value of all the CHIPS deal and other things that Intel was already getting. They literally gave 10% of the company away for free.
And it’s illegal. And it’s communism. It’s everything Republicans hated when the Obama administration gave Solyndra a loan. This is pure corruption and will end badly for everyone.
The stock is up. But that’s not because this is good. It’s up because investors didn’t think this through. Short term profit vs long term fail.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
And it’s communism.
COOOOOOOOMMMUUUUUUNIIIIIIISSSSSMMMMMMMM!!!
This ain’t gonna be that buddy, this is capitalist maneuvers the whole way. Either funds will be shoveled into private pockets or the value of this will be juiced to support the extrajudicial shit that’s going on.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
I agree with everything you said. But none of it is a rebuttal to what I said
favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
How is this legal?
dan1101@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Also how is not socialism? Imagine the wailing from Repugnants if the Democrats did this.
Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 1 hour ago
Public ownership of companies for the benefit of the public is a form of socialism, but Trump’s fascist oligarchy serves only the wealthy elites. Oligarchs hijacking democracy for their own benefit isn’t socialism.
ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Beyond the greater issues of corruption, at face value there’s no reason the government buying up a company with important strategic value you should be illegal