411
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 32 points 15 hours ago
[-] amju_wolf@pawb.social 14 points 6 hours ago

It's a bailout where the taxpayers actually get something back.

How is it legal to bail out whole banks or other large companies and not get anything in return?

[-] dan1101@lemmy.world 36 points 15 hours ago

Also how is not socialism? Imagine the wailing from Repugnants if the Democrats did this.

[-] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 hours ago

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. This ain’t it. This is Turbo Capitalism.

[-] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 14 hours ago

Public ownership of companies for the benefit of the public is a form of socialism, but Trump's fascist oligarchy serves only the wealthy elites. Oligarchs hijacking democracy for their own benefit isn't socialism.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago

It is socialism, between them

[-] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 9 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Beyond the greater issues of corruption, at face value there's no reason the government buying up a company with important strategic value should be illegal

[-] ronigami@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

It’s basically the GM bailout but with less steps and specifically avoiding bankruptcy which seems more efficient. Not that the gov’t won’t just turn around and run Intel into the ground.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 20 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Ars is making a mountain out of a molehill.

James McRitchie

Kristin Hull

These are literal activists investors known for taking such stances. It would be weird if they didn't.

a company that's not in crisis

Intel is literally circling the drain. It doesn't look like it on paper, but the fab/chip design business is so long term that if they don't get on track, they're basically toast. And they're also important to the military.

Intel stock is up, short term and YTD. CNBC was ooing and aahing over it today. Intel is not facing major investor backlash.


Of course there are blatant issues, like:

However, the US can vote "as it wishes," Intel reported, and experts suggested to Reuters that regulations may be needed to "limit government opportunities for abuses such as insider trading."

And we all know they're going to insider trade the heck out of it, openly, and no one is going to stop them. Not to speak of the awful precedent this sets.

But the sentiment (not the way the admin went about it) is not a bad idea. Government ties/history mixed with private enterprise are why TSMC and Samsung Foundry are where they are today, and their bowed-out competitors are not.

[-] letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 112 points 1 day ago

I hope they lose billions on this deal. I know I'm only going with AMD now. It's not much, but I do buy all the tech for my company. Servers, laptops, etc... will all be AMD going forward.

[-] mereo@piefed.ca 26 points 20 hours ago

I've been building computers since 1999, and I've noticed that the industry is cyclical. I've purchased CPUs from both Intel and AMD. We need Intel to succeed, otherwise AMD will dominate the x86 processor market.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 14 hours ago

The architecture is in its swan song anyways. Let AMD ride it into the sunset and bid it good riddance.

[-] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 43 points 22 hours ago

Not having competition is not a good thing. I hope a third player comes along.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 23 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Literally illegal. Only AMD and Intel have the patent cross-licensing rights to make x86 chips. There used to be a third company (Cyrix and subsequently VIA), and (maybe?) still is, but it hasn't been relevant to the desktop CPU market in decades.

The real competition will come from ARM-based computers.

[-] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 16 points 16 hours ago

We don’t need competition in the x86 space, we need competition in the mobile/desktop/server space. That could easily be performance competitive ARM or RISC-v or whatever. Better even with diversity of design.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip 29 points 21 hours ago

Heck of an industry to break into.

[-] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 17 points 20 hours ago

Competitor is already here. Apple and Ampere are making ARM systems that fit most users needs. There are ARM servers. But people don’t want to switch.

[-] VeganCheesecake 3 points 7 hours ago

I'd buy a macbook, but it's a lot more expensive than my "throw Linux on a used corporate thinkpad" approach, and I can tolerate macOS, but don't love it. If you're in the market for a new premium laptop, I think they're pretty established, and I do think people are buying them.

Ampere workstations are cool, but in a price range where most customers are probably corporate, and they'll mostly buy what they know works. I think their offerings are mostly niche for engineers who do dev work with stuff that will run on arm servers.

I'd say non-corporate arm adoption will grow when there's more affordable new and used options from mainstream manufacturers. Most people won't go for an expensive niche option, and probably don't care about architecture. Most Apple machines probably sell because they're Apple machines, not because of the chip inside.

I don't know exact numbers, but I do feel that arm server adoption isn't going to badly, especially with new web servers.

[-] BurntWits@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago

I own an M1 MacBook. I don’t use it nearly as much as my main pc (gaming laptop with CachyOS (Arch-based, btw)) but it’s very well built and is well optimized. If I could get the build of a MacBook but with the specs of my gaming pc without spending 2x the price as I would on a pre-build windows machine I would absolutely do it.

[-] pycorax@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Apple doesn't really exist as a competitor for a number of industries and use cases due to not officially supporting anything other than OSX so I'm not sure if they're a fair comparison here.

The only real edge they have is in non-gaming related consumer workloads.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 20 hours ago

Would TSMC be considered a competitor to AMD?

[-] grue@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

No. AMD is fabless; TSMC doesn't design chips. They're in different parts of the supply chain.

In fact, AMD is a customer of TSMC.

[-] killerscene@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 23 hours ago

intel must still be hanging on purely based on corporate computers? or is there something else they are a large part of?

this just be in my bubble, but i feel like anyone i know over the last 15 years has been exclusively getting AMD, whether theyre tech savvy or just a regular consumer.

[-] SnortsGarlicPowder@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

A lot of people I work with still buy Intel based on brand recognition alone. Most are tech savvy people too.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 13 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

15 years? absolutely not. Before Ryzen in 2017 almost no one was buying AMD.

edit:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amds-desktop-pc-market-share-hits-a-new-high-as-server-gains-slow-down-intel-now-only-outsells-amd-2-1-down-from-9-1-a-few-years-ago

AMD is at 32.2% unit share of Desktop/Laptop PCs in Q2 2025. Lots of people still buying Intel.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago

Athlon64 x2s fucking dominated Pentiums back in the mid 2000s, but the market for people playing games was much smaller. Only with the i-series did Intel come back on top. Ryzen was great when it came out for budget gaming, but Intel still was supreme in perforce until the Ryzen 3D processors came out.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

the person above said:

anyone i know over the last 15 years has been exclusively getting AMD

that is 100% nonsense. as stated above even today intel is still outselling AMD 2:1 in the PC market.

[-] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

Oh I agree with you, but in my experience the people i know have predominately gone AMD as well. When I bought my 9900k, Reddit was HEAVILY downvoting any Intel support and upvoting AMD support. It doesn’t reflect the market, it I do see that in social trends.

…that said, while my 9900k still kicks ass, I am never going Intel again after recent news hahaha

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 9 points 20 hours ago

I got a new work laptop recently. First one I've ever had that didn't have an Intel cpu. Company is a decent sized multinational.

I think it's already turning. But at the same time I don't think the US can afford to let Intel fail entirely.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 17 hours ago

Defense contracting.

They do a a good amount of of military industrial contracting and work for 3 letter agencies on data processing/ high performance computing.

They also got awarded government funding in 2024 to build logic chips for the military in-country.

Not enough to sustain the company, but such "sensitive" programs may not be allowed to show up in revenue reports or have to be assigned to other areas or so.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

Their new GPU has a pretty solid price/performance.

CPU is shit though

[-] oneser@lemmy.zip 18 points 23 hours ago

Really, cos the graph looks like they bounced back to near 12 month highs?

[-] suigenerix@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

Good point. But would the share price otherwise have been higher without the government discounted purchase? Share dilution, law of supply and demand, etc are all decent arguments the shareholders could make.

And there's now increased risk that the purchase could cause future strategic and market challenges, especially internationally.

Plus it's not just a share price issue. For example, the fact that shareholders have had their voting power diluted is arguably a concern.

[-] oneser@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

Is the 10% new shares issued specifically for the government? I understood they were existing shares so dilution would not apply here.

[-] suigenerix@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

New shares issued at a discount price. So a bit of a double punch for the existing share holders.

Still, you're highlighting of the price going up is a good point, and maybe all my food-for-thought ramblings mean nothing. I guess we'll see.

[-] oneser@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

Your points are valid, the discount price is questionable. This is not my area of expertise, I only wanted to question if the headline was reactionary or if I missed something.

this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
411 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74519 readers
3338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS