Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-ceo-to-attend-white-house-meeting-on-chip-supply-chain.14018/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2020470
            [XFI] => 1040170
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel CEO to attend White House meeting on chip supply chain

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
I wish I could listen in on this one!


(Reuters) - Intel Corp Chief Executive Officer Pat Gelsinger will virtually attend a meeting being put together by President Joe Biden’s administration for April 12 to discuss the semiconductor supply chain issues disrupting U.S. automotive factories, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Biden administration last week called for $50 billion in funding to support the U.S. chip industry as part of the administration’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan. In February, the administration ordered a review of the semiconductor supply chain to find gaps in U.S. manufacturing capabilities.

Reuters previously reported the meeting will include Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, and a top economic aide, Brian Deese, as well as chipmakers and automakers.
 

Arthur Hanson

Well-known member
Coming from a financial background, I'm seeing a tidal wave of special interest money being wasted, instead of being carefully and strategically used. I'd rather see the money going to TSM's Arizona fab complex. I'd rather bet on a winner than an also-ran.
 

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
What do you think is going to happen when they find out that all of this chip shortage rhetoric is a sham? And they realize that the semiconductor supply chain cannot be contained within one border?
 

hist78

Active member
I believe at the staff level of DoD, DARPA, DoE, State Department, NSC, NEC, and Commerce Department understand the situation and root causes very well. They know many of the issues won't be solved by throwing taxpayers' money into a few companies who are good in PR and lobbying.

But they want to design a set of policies and projects that US Congress and Senate will support. It's not an easy task due to conflict of interest and philosophical difference among congressmen and senators. I expect a decent amount of compromise, give-and-take, and political motivated tradings before passing the final version of the budget authorization.
 
Last edited:

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
Agreed. Hopefully we can learn from China's mistake. I just hope it is not a too little too late type of deal. Definitely exciting times in the semiconductor industry, absolutely.
 

TDaly

Moderator
My view - there is a good argument for the US to allocate more resources to bolster US-based manufacturing, but only at a level sufficient to meet the needs of US national security (defense, intel, cyber, space) and other critical infrastructure. The goal is not, and should not be, self-sufficiency. And that manufacturing can be distributed across and shared by allied nations.

This should be an investment in US competitiveness in the semiconductor industry writ large, not an initiative that underwrites capacity investments that manufacturers would make anyway to meet market demand. A balance of the deployment of funds to the R&D side and workforce development is key. One thoughtful piece outlining the case for this (Labs not Fabs) is found here: https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/fpri-semiconductors-report.pdf

Let us hope that USG develops a thoughtful strategy prior to deploying the incentives. The incentives need to be targeted to fill critical gaps in Research and in manufacturing capacity across the semi supply chain, not be deployed on an opportunistic basis - whoever shows up first, or whoever is in the district of a powerful legislator. Other concerns: a) loss of critical mass in funding by the broad range of targets in the bill, technology centers, manufacturing institutes, multilateral funds; b) bureaucracy: there are a number of US agencies at the table, perhaps with different priorities, plus Congressional oversight, speed, and effectiveness are at risk; c) the need for extremely strong executive, business, technical and program management leadership that is committed to the USG agenda, not that of individual companies.

There are some good people in the room - let's encourage them to get it right.
 

hist78

Active member
My view - there is a good argument for the US to allocate more resources to bolster US-based manufacturing, but only at a level sufficient to meet the needs of US national security (defense, intel, cyber, space) and other critical infrastructure. The goal is not, and should not be, self-sufficiency. And that manufacturing can be distributed across and shared by allied nations.

This should be an investment in US competitiveness in the semiconductor industry writ large, not an initiative that underwrites capacity investments that manufacturers would make anyway to meet market demand. A balance of the deployment of funds to the R&D side and workforce development is key. One thoughtful piece outlining the case for this (Labs not Fabs) is found here: https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/fpri-semiconductors-report.pdf

Let us hope that USG develops a thoughtful strategy prior to deploying the incentives. The incentives need to be targeted to fill critical gaps in Research and in manufacturing capacity across the semi supply chain, not be deployed on an opportunistic basis - whoever shows up first, or whoever is in the district of a powerful legislator. Other concerns: a) loss of critical mass in funding by the broad range of targets in the bill, technology centers, manufacturing institutes, multilateral funds; b) bureaucracy: there are a number of US agencies at the table, perhaps with different priorities, plus Congressional oversight, speed, and effectiveness are at risk; c) the need for extremely strong executive, business, technical and program management leadership that is committed to the USG agenda, not that of individual companies.

There are some good people in the room - let's encourage them to get it right.
Agreed totally. If one thing I'm allowed to add, I'll say Integrity is a minimum requirement for all the parties involved.

Otherwise we are going to waste tons of money for nothing.
 

Paul2

Member
There are some good people in the room - let's encourage them to get it right.

If it will be me, I'll encourage them to fight. Lack of competition, and the swamp of "intellectual property" people in the silicon valley is why some chips today don't even have datasheets in English.

My view - there is a good argument for the US to allocate more resources to bolster US-based manufacturing, but only at a level sufficient to meet the needs of US national security (defense, intel, cyber, space) and other critical infrastructure. The goal is not, and should not be, self-sufficiency. And that manufacturing can be distributed across and shared by allied nations.

Semi industry is already distributed among staunchest US allies. It's just US has never really went to exert its power through it other than the moribund, and tragicomedic action on Huawei.

Let us hope that USG develops a thoughtful strategy prior to deploying the incentives. The incentives need to be targeted to fill critical gaps in Research and in manufacturing capacity across the semi supply chain, not be deployed on an opportunistic basis - whoever shows up first, or whoever is in the district of a powerful legislator. Other concerns: a) loss of critical mass in funding by the broad range of targets in the bill, technology centers, manufacturing institutes, multilateral funds; b) bureaucracy: there are a number of US agencies at the table, perhaps with different priorities, plus Congressional oversight, speed, and effectiveness are at risk; c) the need for extremely strong executive, business, technical and program management leadership that is committed to the USG agenda, not that of individual companies.

Terry, any major semi company in US already has an exec many times better than their current leadership. Just have them go to the actual engineering department, and pick the best unit lead level engineer, and don't have them dissuaded by "no experience of executive leadership." Anybody on this level in a major company already has to handle finances, budgeting, HR, and god knows what else.

Same with money. In comparison to semi companies just anywhere in the world any semi company floating in US stock markets already is "floating in money" by standards of places like, say, China.
 

count

Active member
If it will be me, I'll encourage them to fight. Lack of competition, and the swamp of "intellectual property" people in the silicon valley is why some chips today don't even have datasheets in English.



Semi industry is already distributed among staunchest US allies. It's just US has never really went to exert its power through it other than the moribund, and tragicomedic action on Huawei.



Terry, any major semi company in US already has an exec many times better than their current leadership. Just have them go to the actual engineering department, and pick the best unit lead level engineer, and don't have them dissuaded by "no experience of executive leadership." Anybody on this level in a major company already has to handle finances, budgeting, HR, and god knows what else.

Same with money. In comparison to semi companies just anywhere in the world any semi company floating in US stock markets already is "floating in money" by standards of places like, say, China.

Most successful semi companies and CEOs

Morris Chang - PhD in EE
Lisa Su - PhD in EE
Jensen Huang - MS in EE
Andy Grove - PhD in Chem E

The least successful people in this business are the MBAs.
Why is anyone letting MBAs run tech companies?
 

ChrisGar

Member
Most successful semi companies and CEOs

Morris Chang - PhD in EE
Lisa Su - PhD in EE
Jensen Huang - MS in EE
Andy Grove - PhD in Chem E

The least successful people in this business are the MBAs.
Why is anyone letting MBAs run tech companies?

Don't tell Hock Tan. (Harvard MBA)
 

ChrisGar

Member
Did the guys quit his construction, and concrete businesses, or is he busy running them in parallel with Broadcomm?

I don't think the stockholders care. Revenue has gone up 10X ... and stock price has gone up 10x ... in the last 8 years.
 

ChrisGar

Member
This guy is a genius in acquisitions. Number of granted patents, however, has been decreasing since Avago took over.
Not sure if number of patents is a good measure. IBM cleans up in any patent count measure -- and their revenue just keeps dropping.
 
Top