| | | Tenchu's Thoughts - This is NOT a Good Deal for Intel
Brumar, the more I read about this "deal," the less I like it.
(MAGA cultists, you can stop reading right there and dismiss the rest of my post as "blah blah blah." I'm not interested in your blathering.)
First of all, Intel gets nothing out of it.
The funds that were used to "purchase" the government's stake in Intel were already issued or pledged to the company via the CHIPS act. Trump no doubt threatened to claw back those funds unless LBT accepted an "offer he couldn't refuse."
Second, Intel isn't going to be made more competitive as a direct result of Trump's ownership.
Will the CPU design teams become more productive and more motivated to win as a result of TACO man?
Will more customers consider Intel Foundry to fab their chips over TSMC or Samsung?
Will Intel finally be able to release an AI accelerator (a.k.a. GPU) that has more than a snowball's chance of competing against products from nVidia or AMD?
Third, Trump is now motivated to punish Intel's competitors.
That includes nVidia, TSMC, Samsung, Qualcomm, and yes, especially AMD. (Remember, this thread is entitled "Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices," but this very post is going to circle back to AMD.)
This means if you want to build an AI data center around nVidia, Trump will come in and tax you for not considering aMeRiCaN-mAdE Intel chips.
If you want TSMC to fab your chip designs, against Trump will punish you for not putting aMeRiCa fIrSt.
Want a Qualcomm-designed Snapdragon in your laptop instead of an Intel CPU? Tough luck, Trump will tax Snapdragons because they're not made in the You Ess of Ay.
"But but I don't want Intel POS. I want AMD CPUs. I want nVidia GPUs. They perform better than Intel's parts." Sorry chump, but for the regime who thinks AI is pronounced "A-1," parts is parts. (tm. Elmer Phud)
Counterpoint: Intel's survivability is guaranteed, BUT ...
... Intel's survivability wasn't really a concern, at least among shareholders. Otherwise INTC stock would be below $10/share.
AMD shareholders from 10-15 years ago should be VERY familiar with being in the "under $10/share" category, as any company whose shares are worth that much have real questions of survivability.
Trump ensured that Intel is now "too big to fail" because fostering domestic semiconductor manufacturing is indeed a national interest. It is a vital security concern on the level of domestic steel and domestic energy production.
But you know who else treated Intel as "too big to fail"? That's right, Trump's predecessor, Brandon. So Trump really didn't change the game here.
All Trump did was bully Intel and demand "Where's MINE?"
And that can only have negative consequences for Intel, especially given that Trump is a delusional megalomaniac who can't do anything right, except con over 70 million voters into thinking he's a "dealmaker."
Tenchusatsu |
|
