Editorial Intel CEO Writes Opinion Piece on CNN Asking For Government Support

[Why_Me]

Basically all the problems arose of Intel themselves flopping so hard and being narcist till the point some Taiwan company catch them up and some other companies utilized it as the normal free market does.

And now they whine about it...

Remember when the Baltic nations begged to join NATO. I do. It's the US defense industry that keeps NATO a factor.

 

[TheLostSwede]

If this virus has taught us anything it's the fact that the global supply chain isn't what it was made out to be. It has some severe deficiencies.

Just in time has proven to be anything but that. However, some corporations clearly saved a lot of money by not having to have local stock, so who can blame huh?

Does TSMC get any breaks from the Taiwanese govt?

I'm sure they have, but this isn't about a tax break though, is it?

 

[damric]

Always socialism for the rich/corporations and everyone else is on the hook for crony capitalism.

 

[Totally]

So it looks like "TSMC does not speak ill of other companies in the industry", but it can "speak ill "of other companies CEOs at will. Very classy.

EDIT:

I don't think he has missed anything, it was the US government that has created this situation, thus the US governement should help its own local industries in facing the consequences of the trade wars. Incidentally Intel wanted to increase production in China and the White House stopped them. Some kind of reparation is in order.

White House did not stop nor had the ability to stop them without sanction. Only thing they could was let intel know their stance and risks(e.g.current and future gov't contracts) if they continued. Also do you think it's right for these corps to soak large amounts of taxpayer money only to spend it in foreign countries?

 

[enzolt]

There seems to be a lot of Intel bashing in this thread without actually understanding Intel's history and what happened with their 10nm node.
There was a lot of technical hurdles with that node, 2 years ahead of TSMC back in 2016.
They had very aggressive technical goals to meet, all the while using a new-to-them Cobalt material to help with their sub-10 process.

Lets try to read before writing something nonconstructive and just downright incorrect in the forums.

https://www.eetimes.com/intels-10nm-node-past-present-and-future/

Subsidy Tracker

Subsidy Tracker, produced by the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, is a wide-ranging database on misconduct by large and small corporations throughout the United States.

subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org

 

[Ferrum Master]

Remember when the Baltic nations begged to join NATO. I do. It's the US defense industry that keeps NATO a factor.

Politics are forbidden at TPU... I remember but fail to understand that the decision was very far from begging. I would like to imply that NATO as deterrent is not far from dead lingering ghost form Cold War era... it is a joke.

The only thing that matters is profit. This time Intel just forgot to stop licking their own balls.

What's next? Intel CEO asks Apple to reduce order quotas to leave space for them too?

 

[GoldenX]

Looks like paying to Dell, the best friend money can buy, caught up to them.
Imagine begging to be subsided because you preferred to not invest in R&D for a decade.

 

[Dr_b_]

Re-posting my response to the original piece on intel asking for public $.

"Agree that the playing field isn't level. Asian countries heavily subsidize their companies, while also relying on US security, real or imagined, to protect them. US and the rest of the world needs domestic options. If US now has to subsidize semicon, then the government must have a say in:

1) Executive compensation, who sits on the board, how much anyone is paid at that level
2) Stock buybacks, dividends, and all manner of accounting
3) Where $ is spent, and on what
4) Retail Prices
5) and maybe a whole bunch of other things.

This can't be a "just give us money, we will handle it" affair, that won't work. They will just turn around and use it to pay out big bonuses, engage in market manipulation through stock purchases and other machinations, and/or squander it."

 

[RandallFlagg]

Despite the distortions on this editorial, Gelsinger is not asking for something special for Intel.

He is asking that the CHIPS act be for US companies, not foreign ones.

The choice is really between the subsidies going to US companies, including HP GloFlo Micron and On Semi to name a few.

The alternative is that US citizens tax dollars wind up going to fund other companies like TSMC, which itself has already been heavily funded and in fact started by Taiwan's government.

Intel has not been competing against TSMC, it's been competing against TSMC and the government of Taiwan.

The US really should not be funding these types of entities with tax dollars.

Chip maker TSMC scores subsidies, picks site for US$12 billion US plant

TSMC, the main chip maker to Apple and Huawei Technologies, has moved closer to finalising a fabrication facility in Arizona to allay US security concerns and shift hi-tech manufacturing to America.

www.scmp.com

And here Japan is helping fund TSMCs research facilities :

Japan allocates $5.2bn to fund chip plants by TSMC and others

Micron and Kioxia set to get subsidies for domestic memory chip factories

asia.nikkei.com

While this is old, it details how UMC and TSMC have been funded and in fact formed by Taiwan's government from the beginning.

Taiwan as a nation is focused on this one industry and as a result, has come to dominate it. This goes all the way back to the 1970s.

Panel 4: The Taiwanese Approach | Securing the Future: Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Panel 4: The Taiwanese Approach: Based on the deliberations of a high-level international conference, this report summarizes the presentation...

www.nap.edu

 

[londiste]

Intel squandered profits by buying back stock instead of reinvesting in production. Let them fail.

That is a tone deaf comment. Intel has been investing in production, heavily. Also with their share prices at a considerable low, this is quite a good time to do stock buybacks.

Intel has supply chains, should we subsidize every supplier?

Aren't supply chains for manufacturing also in focus with the CHIPS for America Act?

 

[maxfly]

This plan was constructed and offered by the gubment months ago in their original gazilltrillion dollar deal. In order to give American companies a leg up and stimulate growth. Would we expect anything less from any company executive in any industry if offered such a sexy deal? He wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't lobbying for the loot. Everyone assumed at the time that the money was going to Intel...arguing about it now just seems like yesterdays news for some strange reason.

 

[londiste]

Would the opponents here also object this heavily if the same was said for example by Thomas Caulfield?

 

[RedBear]

I think you're missing the issue here. Intel's CEO has quite a lot of responsibility as the CEO over the world's biggest x86/x64 CPU manufacturer and as a CEO you don't go out an trash a whole nation on some kind of tech conference, just because you're trying to win over support to your cause. How many other US or otherwise CEO's have you seen that have gone out and told an audience outside their company that a certain country is unstable and it might be a good idea to avoid making investments there, then turns around and sends over a team to negotiate with the biggest semiconductor manufacturer in that nation?
It's tactless at best and it's really kind of silly when Intel wants to make certain products at TSCM in Taiwan.

I'm not sure about CEOs, but recently I've seen Presidents saying that we should stop consuming oil, just to ask OPEC for more oil production moments later. The contradiction is only apparent, it's one thing to warn about the risks in the middle and long term, it's another thing to satisfy your needs in the short term, I think I've already said as much.

Keyword here being "he" as in Mark Liu, current CEO of TSMC. Not the 90 year old Chang.

TheLostSwede had already pointed it out, it looks like a convenient way to escape responsibility to me. Gelsinger at least has the balls to take fire for what he says.

 

[TechLurker]

I still maintain that rather than funding Intel, the US Gov't should fund GloFo and TSMC instead; encouraging more TSMC fabs in the US, with at least one being a bleeding edge fab partially funded by Apple (given that they basically pay for everyone's R&D at TSMC in exchange for having first priority access to said bleeding edge), and having GloFo start being a bit more competitive again with a new Stateside fab or two that is leading edge (not bleeding edge). Those foundries funded by the government would also be built with the intention of being cleared for equally coveted government-specific chip production contracts (for things that don't require specialized hardening) as well as encouraging the "Made in USA" bent that both parties are trying to run.

With a stronger US TSMC presence; esp. one being a bleeding edge fab, that keeps some of the newest Node developments in the US, and with more GloFo fabs in the US that are running newer nodes, it adds yet another foundry rival to Intel and TSMC (among those producing modern nodes).

Intel frankly has more than enough money to invest on themselves; they don't need much of a handout, if at all.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Looks like paying to Dell, the best friend money can buy, caught up to them.
Imagine begging to be subsided because you preferred to not invest in R&D for a decade.

Intel is paying MDF money to all its good customers, it's how they do business and have been some it for at least the last 30 years or so.
I guess you could say it's their cashback system to loyal partners.

I still maintain that rather than funding Intel, the US Gov't should fund GloFo and TSMC instead; encouraging more TSMC fabs in the US, with at least one being a bleeding edge fab partially funded by Apple (given that they basically pay for everyone's R&D at TSMC in exchange for having first priority access to said bleeding edge), and having GloFo start being a bit more competitive again with a new Stateside fab or two that is leading edge (not bleeding edge). Those foundries funded by the government would also be built with the intention of being cleared for equally coveted government-specific chip production contracts (for things that don't require specialized hardening) as well as encouraging the "Made in USA" bent that both parties are trying to run.

With a stronger US TSMC presence; esp. one being a bleeding edge fab, that keeps some of the newest Node developments in the US, and with more GloFo fabs in the US that are running newer nodes, it adds yet another foundry rival to Intel and TSMC (among those producing modern nodes).

Intel frankly has more than enough money to invest on themselves; they don't need much of a handout, if at all.

OnSemi, TI and a few others should most likely be involved as well, considering they're key chip makers for the automotive industry, plus both companies already own fairly advanced foundries. However, $52 billion is only going to get you so far...

Would the opponents here also object this heavily if the same was said for example by Thomas Caulfield?

Who? The thing is, none of the other companies that seemingly will be able to get a share of this money, are writing opinion pieces on CNN or are trying to make sure they get the most attention, so they can get the biggest share of the money on offer.

It's also a bit curious that GloFo is counted as a US company, as they're not incorporated in the US and most of their fabs are outside of the US.

Everyone seemingly forgot about Samsung as well... Is it a matter of Korea good, Taiwan bad now?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Intel is paying MDF money to all its good customers, it's how they do business and have been some it for at least the last 30 years or so.
I guess you could say it's their cashback system to loyal partners.

This is standard practice in multiple industries.

"AMD President and CEO Lisa Su calls the channel an ‘incredibly important part’ of the chipmaker’s strategy, setting in motion a plan to double MDF, channel staff and funded positions for top solution provider partners."

Lisa Su’s Channel Awakening: Why Partners Could Be AMD’s ‘Largest Growth Opportunity’

In an interview with CRN, AMD President and CEO Lisa Su says the channel an ‘incredibly important part’ of the chipmaker’s strategy.

www.crn.com

Everyone seemingly forgot about Samsung as well... Is it a matter of Korea good, Taiwan bad now?

It's about US tax dollars funding US Semiconductor manufacturers, not foreign ones. Samsung can be subsidized by Korea if they so wish (assuming they aren't already), just as TSMC is subsidized by Taiwan.

 

[TheLostSwede]

This is standard practice in multiple industries.

"AMD President and CEO Lisa Su calls the channel an ‘incredibly important part’ of the chipmaker’s strategy, setting in motion a plan to double MDF, channel staff and funded positions for top solution provider partners."

Lisa Su’s Channel Awakening: Why Partners Could Be AMD’s ‘Largest Growth Opportunity’

In an interview with CRN, AMD President and CEO Lisa Su says the channel an ‘incredibly important part’ of the chipmaker’s strategy.

www.crn.com

Again, why are replying to me? I told you, you're on my ignore list.

Channel MDF and MDF to the motherboard and system makers isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison now though, is it? The channel doesn't make products.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, why are replying to me? I told you, you're on my ignore list.

I'm just pointing out your duplicity and hypocrisy. Taiwan can subsidize TSMC and UMC but the US cannot subsidize US semi manufacturers? I will keep on responding to your disinformation. If you are ignoring me, why are you responding to me?

Channel MDF and MDF to the motherboard and system makers isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison now though, is it? The channel doesn't make products.

AMD does all of these things. You don't make a chip and just throw someone a spec sheet. AMD is providing support for their partners from the board makers and OEMS, right down to the distributors like Ingram.

And besides, AMD has nothing to do with the US funded CHIPS Act, so I don't know why you brought them up other than to try to enlist brand loyalists who don't know the difference between TSMC and AMD.

 

[Steevo]

So it looks like "TSMC does not speak ill of other companies in the industry", but it can "speak ill "of other companies CEOs at will. Very classy.

EDIT:

I don't think he has missed anything, it was the US government that has created this situation, thus the US governement should help its own local industries in facing the consequences of the trade wars. Incidentally Intel wanted to increase production in China and the White House stopped them. Some kind of reparation is in order.

Reparation? No

The US government should impose heavier tariffs on imported tech products, it will eventually even the playing field for manufacturing to come back to the US

There is a huge labor advantage that creates a drain on the US economy when we are literally borrowing money from Asia to buy Asian made goods for and from companies that only care about profit while exploiting humans and the enviroment of other countries.

It also creates a necessity of a global supply chain that can be broken and damage countries reliant on those products.

 

[Ferrum Master]

There is a huge labor advantage that creates a drain on the US economy when we are literally borrowing money from Asia to buy Asian made goods for and from companies that only care about profit while exploiting humans and the enviroment of other countries.

Are you talking about Apple? They even evade taxes through Ireland? They don't care about anything as long it produces profit but unlike any others don't whine about it.

The idea is... why Intel is better than Apple that is totally fabless and simply doesn't care about anything as world revolves around them not vice versa and nothing indicates they are worried about anything because of their large and faithful user base and closed ecosystem, now truly one with their own in house design silicon.

I would not argue if someone would mention Samsung, as it is very government(read bribery) backed and deep even into military as it does produce a lot more things ranging dishwashers to tanks and are not comparable to Intel really, because the latter become stagnant and lost their 3 years tech leadership, they only thing they had as trump card really, because any other product has failed to take off for them besides the old venerable x86 derivates. Event their network division has lost their premium knack for top end products and some other parties deliver the same cheaper and last products are more errata filled than usual. Itanium huge flop, Larrabee flop, Optane 99% flop, you expect new GPU's will be OK? I am highly skeptic considering Raja is at the helm.

They want market crippling, I am not talking about AMD here as their direct x86 competition, but Qualcomm and Apple that are in the same sandbox and kinda doesn't play the drama as this CEO lately does.

It has nothing to do with geopolitics it is all greed, they lost the edge to their own US competitors that utilized the market opportunities and try to stir up things and hid the obvious fact, they dropped the ball hard and lost the edge. It is all circus play, nobody cares for patriotism, US inhouse manufacturing etc there, it is all money talk...

 

[RedBear]

Reparation? No

The US government should impose heavier tariffs on imported tech products, it will eventually even the playing field for manufacturing to come back to the US

There is a huge labor advantage that creates a drain on the US economy when we are literally borrowing money from Asia to buy Asian made goods for and from companies that only care about profit while exploiting humans and the enviroment of other countries.

It also creates a necessity of a global supply chain that can be broken and damage countries reliant on those products.

Tariffs would result in higher prices for the US consumers in the short term, contributing directly to a widening of the digital divide between high income and low income families, and they could cause a tit for tat reaction from other countries. The impact of direct incentives is easier to distribute and it's basically the same tactic deployed by the Asian countries, so it would be unlikely to cause a tit for tat response, unlike tariffs.

 

[Steevo]

Tariffs would result in higher prices for the US consumers in the short term, contributing directly to a widening of the digital divide between high income and low income families, and they could cause a tit for tat reaction from other countries. The impact of direct incentives is easier to distribute and it's basically the same tactic deployed by the Asian countries, so it would be unlikely to cause a tit for tat response, unlike tariffs.

The tariff money could be redirected through many of the existing bloated welfare AKA economic redistribution of wealth programs. VS giving already profitable companies more money to redistribute to their already overpaid upper management, so they can avoid taxes.

 

[silentbogo]

This.

https://www.eetimes.com/with-chips-act-us-risks-building-a-white-elephant/

The last sentence of that article kinda sums it all up. Reminds me of the situation with Ukrainian power grid infrastructure. Govt. had grand plans for total infrastructure overhaul, but when it came to power grid - companies[oligarchs] responded : "you want it - you pay for it". The initial plan was to make consumers pay for it directly (higher electricity cost), but the govt came up with insidious plan to incorporate it into taxes for SMB and still make consumers pay (indirectly), without even knowing about it.

The US government should impose heavier tariffs on imported tech products, it will eventually even the playing field for manufacturing to come back to the US

You are thinking of it backwards. It's not about "being cheaper", it's about being able to "make", or at least "have" stuff. If you increase import taxes, it'll only make chips more expensive, because US still has no manufacturing capabilities to replace all of that silicon with all-'murican equivalent.
Another big part of that bill is having something akin to strategic reserves. So, if you have a big shortage like right now, you can strongarm companies to shift priorities. I've briefly glanced at the bill, and as far as I understand they don't care which company moves production to US, they only care about it being manufactured stateside. Intel is a bit sweaty, because that grant will prioritize the company that's willing to invest more of their own capital to make that happen. I can't find a link, but just a few weeks ago I stumbled upon one of the interveiws with TSMC exec about their plans on US manufacturing, and he said something along the lines: "Intel is investing a lot of money, but Intel is not investing enough". Pat is definitely getting saltier, cause their $44bn plan preemtively relied on these incentives, before there was any competition in the one-horse-race.
I might be very-very wrong [again], but I think this grand project is not as much about "Made in USA", but more about "Made for USA".

Couldn't read the whole 2300-sumptin' pages, but it's full of interesting things (especially Sec. 3213).

 

[erocker]

Ugh... Our company that makes billions wants billions more in free money from the government... Gimme a break.

 

[TheUn4seen]

So, corporate monkey wants his bananas. Boo-hoo.
To be honest though, the world's reliance on China is outright scary, even more so given the fact they're an oppressive regime based on one of the world's most destructive ideologies, obviously going for number one economy fairly soon. I, however, fail to see how handing money to Intel could help anyone but Intel.