PC Gaming

8568 readers

501 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

147

Intel might be too big to fail — Washington policymakers are already discussing potential solutions if the chipmaker cannot recover (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You do have to consider that Intel has a head start of multiple decades, should've had a war-chest the size of a nation (like Nintendo), and has a nigh monopoly position in the CPU market. Intel also has preferential treatment in the US (similar to Microsoft), so it's not it isn't already being funded by the US government.

You don't catch up on decades of research just by pumping in money. That's like trying to have a baby faster by having more women.

Trying to pretend Intel is the underdog in this scenario is not credible. Despite - or maybe exactly due to, their head start, pseudo-leaders who thought they could survive any boneheaded decision are giving that lead away. And yet again, tax payer money may have to be used to correct the decisions of a private company (yes publicly traded but the government doesn't own Intel). Privatise profits, nationalise debt. Works every time!

Anti Commercial-AI license