วีดีโอ

Install "I don't care about cookies"

This is much better than just calling Apple a cult. This is real business analysis.

Your analysis are so bright and clear. Just wonderful, thank you.

12:20 This is the biggest load of bullshit I heard from you. Nobody talks about pirating iOS, ever. Or XCode, or Macos. If Apple wants to charge for any of these, like used to for Mac updates, feel free. Nobody cares. That would be for the users though, who are USING it. No third party dev distributes iOS or XCode or Macos ever. These are nonthings.

Garbage subtitles.

17:07 in a post free capital world, can US use dolar and increase national debt more than current level? as its required for government to incentivising buying intel products

16:00 Intel: Let me tell you something, let me tell you something

Intel died 24 years ago.

As Docket 9341 consent order auditor monitor, I fully expect Intel to climb out of the hole they made for themselves, over 30 years in the making, on fresh demanded product releases, the elimination of unnecessary costs including delineated in FTC Docket 9341 consent order agreement which Intel was in violation from October 2010 through q3-q4 2023. Monopoly costs are judged unnecessary commercial 'extra economic' restraints on explicit Intel contracts in EUCC 37.991, affirmed as tying 'naked combining contract restraints' on Intel Appeal at EU General Court T286/09 RENV in September 2023. FTC concurs in 9341 on all claims, monopolization on "no efficiency justification raising end buyer Intel microprocessor price" unnecessarily. Otherwise, Federal Chip Act grants toward Intel are in fact a GM like bail out and under similar circumstance the current PC market deflationary cycle generally on production overage including the potential of Intel limited products some of which are applied science experiments in the server space and suspect non-competitive or rejected products in the server and consumer space. Intel is working toward the release of competitive products. I am closely monitoring the situation although working on AMD desktop and today finishing my mobile update moving to all GPU toward end of week. Intel desktop and mobile observations tomorrow (now all completed and posted on my Seeking Alpha comment page). Intel, has never accepted federal or State bail outs because Intel does not want the federal and state's governments involved in Intel's business operations, beyond State infrastructure improvements for location and tax credit incentives which Chip Acts provides regardless of cash grants. Besides if Intel accepts bail out money, the likelihood of good relations with the auto industry decreases and while GM might do business with Intel, Ford will not as a capital political statement? Intel accepts that Chip Act hand out after decades of abusive operations, culminating in the employee product laundering thefts, there will be a portion of the Intel customer base that just walks away? I expect Intel to complete its reconfiguration to a federated operating company that keeps all operating units intact under the parent organization that basically presents a conglomerate. To the extent Intel can IPO divisions presents a middle ground preferable on the business advantages of controls to a dismemberment in a wholesale sell off. It's the pirates that want Intel broken up not the democratic capitalists. While I from time to time communicate with the Department of Commerce on export observations and the executive, legislature, DOJ and FTC on the Intel case matters within my 15 USC 5 pursuant Docket 9341 and USDOJ 31 USC 3729 responsibilities, there is no statutory authority I can point to that provides relevance to anything I might add on who works with IFS or the reasons why. Open commerce, democratic capitalism, an operating republic through my association with State AGs on Intel Inside price fix recovery, my federalist view on where our nation put's it efforts and its nose on internation politics are my own albeit I will say conservative and where there are inter nation regulator bodies I would rely on those mechanisms over throwing weight around. I don't believe the United States should lead as the worlds' police force where there are collaborative authorities for that purpose. U.S. dollars should be spent within and on the United States which is about as radical a view I would suggest. I am for good neighbor trade and good neighbors don't steal from each other. To the extent I monitor channel data subject Docket 9341 on the economic realities of internation trade the channel boxing up this and that to keep the flow of goods moving in open commerce I'm neutral on who does business with who that is their choice albeit statutorily my responsibilities include at least in the U.S. monitoring for route fees which Intel Inside was and route fees and/or transport tariffs and extort tariffs for access add unnecessary costs and present limits to the free flow of goods in trade and commerce. Extort tariffs also signal politics in trade and again trade should be open I am not one to support extort tariffs for access and political leave as an unnecessary 'extra economic' cost that takes from doing business on the level and successfully. It all gets down to best management practice and running an (industrially) efficient and effective operation. That also means keeping thieves out of the operations. I'm uncertain "if the government" has asked Apple and Nvidia to work with Intel Foundry although Nvidia works with Intel from an x86 compliment and competitive platform perspective. Pursuant AMD, Broadcom, Apple, Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm and many others, TSMC presents a foundry club that has imposed unnecessary restraints on non-club members, has operated as a block of customers, but in Taiwan are outside the jurisdiction of the United Strates. It's good to see diversification of TSMC and any manufacturing resource to additional regional locations and from the perspective of open commerce important for the supply chain to assure equal access to inputs that is all about supply and demand. Where there is demand there should be supply sufficient to satisfy that demand without restrictions. Voids can and should be filled in an openly competitive environment and if Intel Foundry offers that customer's will come on their own. Pursuant Taiwan, know my thesis stating Asia Pacific is smarter that what's going on in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean that in my view are issues culminating out of post WW ll who got the economic spoils, and the diaspora issues and homeland claims that are biblical on their timeline. I don't see this happening in Asia Pacific left to their own regional methods of business and governance. I've proposed TSMC will open up to China as U.S. foundry customers diversify to other locations and sources and that if China so says "invades Taiwan" will on the historical tradition be a merging of family member's that include business syndicates and all will know as that happens because ultimately people at the top know who works for who and it will all be arranged and as it happens will be visible politically on policy. Which leaves keeping trade routes in the China sea open to shipping and if everyone's playing nice together in business, trade, commerce, trade routes on the sea and in the air, and between borders, will accommodate transport of goods transparently and without bias and prejudice. I also will add to observations on Intel. First a 60% yield is manufacturable and for the customer on a 'good die contract' which would accelerate Intel ability to improve yield toward TSMC at 90% on actual volume manufacture. Samsung and Nvidia Ampere offer a good example of constant improvement in which Samsung makes its operating profit objective over the full run and Nvidia Ampere volume knocks AMD dGPU share from 18% down to 12% and now adding Ada on TSMC down to 7%. What TSMC customers are really concerned with is losing their TSMC block negotiating club advantage maintaining their operations participating in a foundry cartel. There are puff pieces circulating in the media and reversals in the works. Second, on divestment of the fabs which is economically a killer for Intel that cost reductions away from monopoly operation 'cost overhand' can resolve. All the hangers on beyond inside design and production of whole platforms meaning tools, hardware and software and sales and essential operations staff stays, subject 'unnecessary' costs that include inside and proximate marketing, and the channel system agents, supplier beholden placements, state and federal lobbyists, the suck up financial consultants, academic institution funds suckers, lawyers inside Intel and proximate concealing their engagement in robbery, SEC violations on 20 years of Grove and Barrett's stock market rigging supply signal cipher, 28 years of INTC 10K false certifications associated commerce limiting contracts on what is "Intel Inside" that was never cooperative advertising, disabled commerce sustaining one of many forms of antitrust violations now remedied, working on the clean-up, and the public relation and media ticks and fleas, many buried into Intel as employees simply have to go. Third, on the international stage federation of the fabs is important, like design, giving them say in what they produce subject margin and Intel x86 has good margins. The fabs and packaging houses essentially already operate this way with some say in their balance sheet operations. This can be accomplished under the conglomerate model that does not stripe Intel of its design manufacturing producing 'crown jewels'. Fourth, the reversal, on Intel manufacturing satellites claiming Intel is sick, absolutely and from 30 years of organized crime infiltration all were aware and participated in various ways and primarily on complacence. Here's the stickler, they don't actually care which is the very reason that requires their continued involvement under the Intel Corporate umbrella. Because within their various geographic jurisdictions if Intel does not maintain their hands on the reigns right now at this inflection point in what to do with the fabs, the governments in those jurisdictions will simply step in and nationalize that resource for debt payment, there are a lot of hidden nation's thefts of which Intel Inside price fix is most documented, after which they would be repatriated as private operators. Like in the United States these facilities and their intellectual holding are seen as national resources and there isn't one nation of Intel location that would not step in and take that resource. mb

mb

Keeping the foundry and the CPU design together was the right decision, but Gelsinger should have eliminate the dividend right away, reduce the company size, start moderate expansion plan while asking for government subsidies. Now that Gelsinger wasted 3 years on mindless expansion and he massively misjudged the chip boom-bust cycle, it seems he has no choice but to separate Intel out into two companies. It is ridiculous that Intel squandered 20 billions in dividends alone and raised 25 billions in debt in about 4 years, while they inflated there assets to be worth 130 billion on paper. The foundry business could be fixed, on the CPU front the ISA is the least of the problem, but they should have conserved money and cut the fat and focus on what is important. This is not what happened.

This is well explained thanks.

China now has the largest navy in the world, and they know USA cannot fight a modern war without the TSMA fab. You do the math -- how many years until we lose TSMC?

I recognize this voice!! hahahaha

Excellent. Thierry is fired thankfully, but the regulatory beast in EU is massive and entrenched

Are they not looking at germanium anew?

If govt is get directly involved in making sure manufacturing of chips happens in America, I agree a Purchase Guarantee is a better way to go than direct SUBSIDIES. It makes sense to me why that would be superior.

The EU has done a lot of good things for internet regulation as well, however by forcefully controlling Google in the way they are doing now it’s the EU regulators who are standing in the way of innovation. Which brilliant young mind is crazy enough to start a Google/Apple/amazon/ebay competitor in a truly innovative way, when you know how much crap you’re gonna have to deal with from the regulation behemoths once you show any signs of success.

How would Meta make any money if they allow a "truly open store"? Why would any developer use the official app store when they can just use the "truly open store"?

I think this "vlog article" (this is long) gives some interesting background of antivirus companies being upset previously went they were no long able to "patch the kernel", and I agree with the conclusion that regulations should not seek to "freeze" Microsoft to a particular security solution. But I disagree with the assertion "Microsoft should have changed this years ago", and not allow security software in the kernel. Regulations or not, Microsoft can not close off its kernel the way Apple has. For your Nvidia graphics card to work, Nvidia code needs to run in the kernel, same for AMD and everyone else who makes hardware that works with Windows. So to support the many companies and products that need kernel access, Windows supports kernel access. The problem is not simply Microsoft allowed kernel access, the problem is Crowdstrike seems to not have exercised nearly enough caution in what they did in the kernel. There is a reason there is a very high bar of quality expected for kernel code, if it goes wrong this happens! The reason Microsoft has allowed 3rd party kernel code has been because of any regulation requiring it, but technical requirements and use cases that need kernel access to work.

Woah, feels so weird to see stratechery on youtube with graphics. More similar to asianometry now

Interesting and super clear. Thank you!

Wonderful that this is in video form, well done! Unfortunately the voice that reads the news articles is not easy to understand or what I’d consider a good speaker. E.g. 11min02

If this is a "news article" - it's too long and facts not presented intuitively for people to get the information if this is a "vlog article" - good, but maybe still be more concise (reading an article and listening to it being read is NOT the same thing - this is not a literary work of art for intellectuals, it's a video for the masses or devs - so keep the phrasing/wording appropriate)

A nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Thank you!

Hi Ben, Andrew... Just some honest feedback: I really think that the thumbnail's clickbaiting factor is way beyond the sophistication level of Stratechery's content.

BEN!

ℹ️✅

Thank you

ℹ️

Great analysis, as always, Ben! Thanks for publishing it in this format.

One of the best reviews on this topic. Cuts through the BS online.

ℹ️

I’m a core Linux kernel engineer - deep to my chest in esoteric (but critical) technical details. I do it for passion, and also for a living. I’m also a Stratechery subscriber for 6 years now. I’ve always been amazed when Ben discusses something in the sphere of my expertise. Why? Because the depth and accuracy (while still maintaining the big picture) is unparalleled for a business-oriented media outlet. Meanwhile when something related to my expertise is discussed in the NYtimes, I just cringe because all the important details got jumbled up. This honestly makes me question the rest of the NYtimes coverage as well. Ben, and the rest of the Stratechery team, I’m not sure if you’ll see this - but in all cases: Thank you!

This was great

the world is such a fascinating place...

Wow….while I am a subscriber to Asianometry but I never expected the plug in the end. I know I shouldn’t feel surprised but I guess I’m just human in thinking that the 2 channels I follow thousands of miles away happen to know each other. Honestly, Nvidia profiting off CUDA felt justified to me because it was a fruit of thankless labor that started 15-20 years ago….long before AI started becoming a buzzword - starting from AlexNET as stated by Jensen. Having said that, I feel a better analogy of CUDA and GPU compute would be to x86 and the Windows ecosystem. x86 was the instruction set that, no matter how inefficient, had built up a lead, and had tons of libraries built up. Windows was also the platform of choice for many of these libraries and Intel+Microsoft built up a commanding market share thanks to it. It does feel like Nvidia is learning the lesson from from Intel/MS and not getting complacent. Nobody can really predict if Nvidia’s effort will be enough to build another moat, but at least they’re giving as good a shot as they can. Every other player just needs to hope that they can be the next ARM and Nvidia….

sweet

Really like the format!

Good to know a new POV. Indeed, in intel the fabs are king, and its design team is limited by it

👍

🤖

