| ▲ | 01100011 7 hours ago |
| > The Journal report said that the U.S. government, which became Intel's largest shareholder last year under a deal with its CEO Lip-Bu Tan, played a major role in bringing Apple to the negotiating table. Ah, so this wasn't a decision Apple freely made based on technical merits. Instead it sounds more like big government and a fancy stock manipulation scheme. My guess, Apple drags their feet for a couple years and bails after Trump leaves office(or is significantly weakened after the midterms). |
|
| ▲ | tester756 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >big government and a fancy stock manipulation scheme. What's wrong with US gov caring about supply chain and manufacturing capability of the most needed technology right there - on American soil? It is in US' interest to be able to produce such complex tech locally |
| |
| ▲ | ahartmetz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, it's called industrial policy and it can work very well. | | |
| ▲ | 01100011 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes and it can also reduce competitive forces which were driving Intel to innovate. The goal of a robust supply chain is not aligned with the goal of technical supremacy. Sure, the US did achieve technical supremacy in the past with government intervention and assistance, but the world was much different then. Now the US has to compete with East Asian innovation. |
| |
| ▲ | 01100011 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Samsung has a Texas fab(and AAPL is in discussions with them alongside INTC). | |
| ▲ | newsclues 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The issue for some is the driving force is military, to secure their supply chain to kill people. | | |
| ▲ | shaboinkin 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Counter point: Apple exists in their size because of the US’s willingness to keep shipping lanes and trade routes open by use of force and US diplomatic efforts to allow for trade to exist in foreign nations.
It’s debatable if this still holds true or is the correct approach given the shitshow going on right now. | |
| ▲ | saltcured 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's also a major concern to have a supply chain that can be protected from foreign manipulation. A compromised supply chain is a huge intelligence/national security risk, not just for military platforms but everything from government and commercial datacenters to personal devices used by both public and private sector individuals. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | saltcured 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is more my imagining a book plot than any real insight, but... This wouldn't be Apple's first rodeo with Intel. They know how prior partnerships soured. Could a sufficiently powerful shareholder, like the US government, help mitigate Apple's concerns about the outcome of a new partnership? I.e. that Intel would be pressured to honor certain strategic obligations, even if the leadership at Intel isn't so keen? |
| |
| ▲ | 01100011 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | How can the USG improve the competitiveness of INTC's process nodes with political pressure? Was the concern in the past that Intel wasn't honoring strategic obligations or was it that Apple realized their tech sucked and TSMC was the only viable path to deliver world-leading products? |
|
|
| ▲ | regexorcist 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are many recent examples of market manipulation, but this isn't one of them. Digital sovereignty is being pushed in the EU too, and it's a good thing. |
| |
| ▲ | 01100011 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | As said already, Intel isn't the only US fab now. TSMC and Samsung also have US fabs and Apple is also talking to Samsung. Your comment is dismissive without evidence. The linked article claims there was political pressure. Do you have evidence to the contrary? |
|
|
| ▲ | gridder 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This comment should be more visible |
|
| ▲ | oaiey 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Or use it to de-risk their supply chain. |
| |
| ▲ | 01100011 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Then why did the USG need to get involved to bring AAPL to the table? Sure, supply chain redundancy is good, but that wasn't enough to get AAPL interested before. | | |
| ▲ | coevcan 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Intel chip fab facility in Arizona came online recently, probably has something to do with it, the manufacturing capability didn't exist before. | | |
|
|
