| |
| ▲ | lokar 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Intel is not getting any money that legislation (law) had not already allocated to them. The transfer of shares to the Gov is just a shakedown. | | |
| ▲ | givemeethekeys 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Just? You mean they should have received the stupidly large sum of money without anything for the tax payer? | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes? That's what grants are. The government is buying a domestic chip industry with that money. | | |
| ▲ | givemeethekeys 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Why shouldn’t they get some equity in return for giving money to a for profit company? | | |
| ▲ | Spivak 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. And this amendment was written in blood, in the early 19th century the state nearly bankrupted itself investing in and taking stake in private companies. * The state can't risk taxpayer money on ventures that might not pay off or lose them
money. How the state "gets around this" is by issuing zero recourse loans. The advantage is that when economic development money is handed out there's not an asset on the balance sheet. It's treated like it was spent. The value the state gets from spending the money has to be independently worth it for taxpayer without considering financial returns. * It eliminates a whole category of conflicts of interests where the government will get squeamish regulating or punishing bad behavior because it would hurt the taxpayers' investment. * It also eliminates vectors for corruption as well as the negative effects of the government having direct influence over specific businesses. No backdoor regulations from the state's ownership stake that don't go through the legislature. So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing. | | |
| ▲ | andrekandre 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about.
completely agree, private sector should be private and public be public, and the two should never co-mingle (and that includes politicians owning stocks and bonds etc)... right now there is so much corruption (sorry, "investment") it boggles the mind > I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.
because they are competing with china and they are wiping the floor with the competition, so they feel they need to do the same i assume | |
| ▲ | justin66 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm a bit biased because my home state is Ohio and they have it in their constitution that the state can't have a stake in any private company and can't even lend credit to any private company. The Ohio government works around this by cooperating with private “development corporations.” |
| |
| ▲ | lokar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m not a fan, but it’s been going on for a very long time. It’s not all that different from development tax incentives which are very common. I think the grants had some requirements to build up domestic production. | |
| ▲ | dmix 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should be doing neither. America is the last place that is short of capital for industry investments where it requires gov taxes going to it, they have a huge domestic financial market and tons of foreign investment (but those require legitimate plans, not national security woo woo). This is just propping up weak megacorp industry like they did with Boeing, instead of fostering real progress. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure.. calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop, but TI doesn't have the capitalization structure to bring up a fab for the types of chips people say they want. I mean sure... If you want to make 28nm chips, they're fine, and you can do a lot with 1 and 2 GHz parts, but... We keep saying we want to make the chips in the states that they're making in Shenzhen and Taipei... And honestly, a $1.6B grant from daddy warbucks may not be enough to prevent TI from taking the money and dropping out of the program in a few years. And this comes from a place of love... My family's been invested in GSI for almost 100 years | | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop calculators have consistently been a minor percentage of TI’s business (~5% of profits per source below). I doubt MSP430s in particular amount to a huge percentage either one random source: https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-... (this is pretty easy info to find) | | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I can assure you that TI's margins on calculators and MSP430s are much higher than their margins on DAC*s. | | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Depends on which line of DACs. And calculators are an almost irrelevant amount of TIs revenue. They don’t report it individually, but it’s categorized under the miscellaneous “other” bucket which is only 6% of their business and includes DLP and “other charges” related to M&A. $947 million with all those other things means you’re talking about probably 100-300 million in revenue. There’s other businesses within TI that do more revenue than that by themselves. | | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Saying "TI makes money on calculators" does not mean "TI does not make money on DLPs." Also... revenue, profit and margin are all different things. | | |
| ▲ | Kirby64 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying it’s nearly meaningless in the grand scheme of their overall revenue. They make roughly 50% margin on their $17 billion in revenue right now. If somehow calculators cost nothing (100% margin) it wouldn’t make a meaningful difference on their overall margin. | |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saying "TI makes money on calculators" is a pretty misleading statement outside of any other context. Its a tiny part of their profits and revenues. It's like suggesting McDonalds is an ice cream shop. Sure it's on the menu and they make a profit on it but it's a small side business after selling burgers and fries. | | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | So TI is losing money on every calculator they sell? News to me. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sure it's on the menu and they make a profit on it My point is, the statement "calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop" isn't based in reality. Both of these products are tiny parts of their business. If that's all you know of TI, you don't know TI. Like thinking McDonald's is an ice cream shop and completely being ignorant of the burgers and fries, saying those ice cream cones are keeping McDonald's from closing up shop. Even for the MSP430, it's a small product line of their wireless and microcontroller products. | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m really confused how you got that from the comment you’re replying to, and why you’re continuing to defend misinformation you’re spreading in the original comment. you implied TI primarily makes money from calculators and MSP430s. this is easily provably false the person above made an analogy —- they didn’t claim TI loses money per calculator |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Microcontrollers and calculators are a small part of TI's revenues. Most (>70%) of their revenues come from analog devices like amplifiers, DC-DC converters, ADC/DACs, and things like that. They make important chips and many top of the line products of their segments but they're not things like server grade CPUs or GPUs. | | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes. They make most of their money from low margin parts. That's not as good a story as you might think it is. Though... making money is certainly better than not making money. And yes, they have a decent mixed signal story. But... everyone seems to think TI will be competing with TSMC's and Samsung's small-node parts. And they probably could, but they would need to a) build a fab that can make 5 or 3nm parts and b) build a sales channel for new parts. I was alive in the 2000s so remember TI doing an exceptionally poor job of step b. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Their analog division has >50% margin, a good bit more margin than their MSP430's and graphing calculators. That's not far off from TSMC's overall margin. It's a better story than your misleading statements acting like TI only makes calculators and old microprocessors and flat out inaccurate ones about profit margins. | | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I only saw their OPM broken out by division. OPM was around 37-38% in 2025Q2. Do you have numbers for NPM broken out by division? But yes, if they could get volumes like analog or mixed signal with margins like "other" or "embedded" that would be pretty awesome. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | EFreethought 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does GSI refer to? Googling did not lead to any obvious results. | | |
| ▲ | Uvix 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The original name of Texas Instruments (Geophysical Service Inc.). | |
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | TI's older name: Geophysical Service Inc. |
|
|
|
