There are a lot of questions!
Also, it's very laid back, but Bryan Cantrill's podcast touches on some of these issues. Interesting to see the perspective of an Intel customer [1].
[1] https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends/2218242
From stratchery.
> Given this, you can make the case that Gelsinger was never the right person for the job; shortly after he took over I wrote in Intel Problems that the company needed to be split up, but he told me in a 2022 Stratechery Interview that he — and the board — weren’t interested in that:
Where would that funding come from if the product side is a totally separate company?
TSMC took the lead with Apple funding for example.
If the foundry business could execute (in timelines, in yields, and in sales), then having a vertically integrated company makes a ton of sense. However, that has not been the case for a while and will take years to get them back in a position where they can execute on the foundry side.
Right now the market and the board is dealing with the company equivalent of having your 25 year old kid stay their home rent-free, while spending tons of money, and getting piss drunk, then taking a shit on the hallway rug. At a certain point, you have to kick them out and tell them to get their life together, because the alternative is being homeless.
What they are doing / have done is obviously not working, they aren't being judicious in their spending, they aren't innovating, and everything is being dragged down due to institutional mediocrity.
Versus competing with TSMC and potentially ASML?
Competing with TSMC using ASML’s kit means beating them on input costs, operations and/or distribution. That’s doable but tougher and more ephemeral than having a technological moat. (It’s Herculean given TSMC’s scale.)
If someone wants to take on TSMC, they should be looking at leapfrogging or sidestepping ASML in a differentiating way. Not out of the gate. But in a PA Semi sort of way.
That's all.