Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/why-is-trump-targeting-tsmc-expert-reveals-the-hidden-agenda-saving-intel.22089/
        )

    [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] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Why is Trump Targeting TSMC? Expert Reveals the Hidden Agenda: "Saving Intel"

XYang2023

Well-known member
Machine translation:

Since taking office, the U.S. president has been making frequent moves, triggering a global trade war. Every action he takes draws significant attention, with the market anticipating that TSMC will be at the forefront of Trump's economic storm. Particular concerns revolve around semiconductor tariffs and investment in the U.S. In response, technology expert Xu Meihua analyzed Trump's true intentions, stating that his ultimate goal is to revive Intel’s chip manufacturing. Tariffs are merely a tactic, while getting TSMC to "rescue" Intel is the underlying strategy behind all the maneuvering.

On Wednesday (12th), late at night, Xu Meihua posted on Facebook that Trump had recently announced his intention to impose tariffs on Taiwanese chips, even suggesting an extreme increase of up to 100%. At that time, Trump explained that the purpose was to use tariffs to pressure TSMC into building factories in the U.S., thereby bringing chip manufacturing back to American soil.

However, Xu Meihua believes that Trump left some things unsaid. She pointed out that what Trump truly desires is not simply TSMC setting up factories in the U.S. His ultimate goal is for Intel’s chip manufacturing to be revived—ensuring that an American company can independently produce American chips.

Xu further revealed that around the Lunar New Year, both TSMC and high-level officials in the Taiwanese government received messages from the Trump administration regarding its real intentions. The message was clear: they wanted TSMC to help save Intel, but without acquiring it, as the U.S. government aims to preserve Intel as the nation's chip-making lifeline.

Xu then raised an important question: If TSMC does not acquire Intel, how exactly does Trump expect to "save" it? Would TSMC send a team to take over Intel’s operations and provide technical guidance? Does TSMC even have the capacity to manage Intel? After all, TSMC is already aggressively expanding in Taiwan and globally, struggling to meet its workforce demands.

She noted that Trump’s proposal has left many people baffled—how exactly would this be implemented, and how could it work?

According to industry rumors shared by Xu, Wall Street has outlined three possible strategies:
1. Best-case scenario: TSMC invests in Intel with its technology, with TSMC providing the expertise while the U.S. provides the funding—effectively reviving Intel.
2. Middle-ground solution: TSMC’s Arizona plant goes public on the Nasdaq stock exchange.
3. Worst-case scenario: The U.S. imposes tariffs on TSMC, resulting in a lose-lose situation for both Taiwan and America.
After assessing information from multiple sources, Xu believes the first option is the most likely outcome. However, she emphasized that this “best-case scenario” is from an American perspective, not necessarily from Taiwan's or TSMC’s viewpoint.

Xu further pointed out that this situation is still unfolding, with the Trump administration lacking a concrete plan and no definitive course of action. The ultimate goal remains clear: saving Intel, with the hope that TSMC will come up with a solution—even if it means resorting to impractical tariff threats to exert pressure.

Despite the circumstances, Xu does not see this as pressure or punishment directed at TSMC or Taiwan. Instead, she views it as a recognition of TSMC’s strategic importance. From a positive perspective, TSMC has once again been acknowledged by the U.S. government. How many companies in the world can claim such an achievement? Being singled out by the U.S. government as the key to saving their "precious" Intel—isn’t that something for Taiwan to be proud of?

 
I don't understand any solution to Intel's problems involving TSMC. TSMC is a competitor and a fundamentally Taiwanese company, and that's not going to change. There's a lot of cynicism in TSMC's executive statements about the US, and Taiwan as a whatever-it-is (really a country) has clearly rubbed Trump the wrong way. Trump also seems to think Taiwan is taking advantage of the US in various ways. That does not portend good things for Taiwan, especially while Trump is contemplating going into deal-making mode with Jinping.

I also haven't seen or heard of a worthwhile plan for US government involvement. The CHIPS Act isn't it.

It isn't obvious what "fixes" Intel. All indications are that the existing senior staff is still not sufficiently competent to steer Intel towards success. If Intel does somehow turn things around in the next year or two, I think it'll be more of a bottoms-up phenomenon based on great innovation and engineering results than a top-down, executive leadership-driven motion, a la Musk at Tesla, or Su at AMD, or even Tan at Broadcom.
 
I think Intel has to work hard to make itself efficient, agile, and competitive. But if there are external influencing factors that could help its operations, they should also embrace them.
 
It isn't obvious what "fixes" Intel. All indications are that the existing senior staff is still not sufficiently competent to steer Intel towards success. If Intel does somehow turn things around in the next year or two, I think it'll be more of a bottoms-up phenomenon based on great innovation and engineering results than a top-down, executive leadership-driven motion, a la Musk at Tesla, or Su at AMD, or even Tan at Broadcom.
In retrospect, when the board asked Pat for what he would do to turn Intel around, instead of hiring him as CEO:

They should have offered him a seat on the board, considered his strategy/vision (push for 18A, focus on execution), but then hired a better leader to CIO the company. I personally think Pat would have been good as a sort of acting CTO+board member. But without Pat, and with last minute co-CEOs they're now lacking both vision *and* execution.

I think the only fix forward is to split off the company. It's too late now to do otherwise.

The foundry is the part that US and Defense really cares about - help that survive via CHIPS acts or similar. Then let Intel the products company compete or not; it will still have a ton of IP and Engineering. If Intel the product company dies, there's still very strong silicon design in the US, but if the Foundry dies then the US is basically relegated to old nodes.
 
I think Intel has to work hard to make itself efficient, agile, and competitive. But if there are external influencing factors that could help its operations, they should also embrace them.

Intel first needs new leadership (CEO and BoD). How is this conspiracy theory with TSMC going to help that? How is gutting Intel R&D and manufacturing in favor of TSMC technology going to help Intel and the US? This seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

A much simpler approach would be to re host TSMC and make it a US based company and negotiate with China to keep TSMC independent after the Taiwan take-over. That is the deal of the century. The US could also make Taiwan a US territory like Greenland, Canada, etc... Or they could just rename it like the Gulf of Mexico. :ROFLMAO:
 
In retrospect, when the board asked Pat for what he would do to turn Intel around, instead of hiring him as CEO:

They should have offered him a seat on the board, considered his strategy/vision (push for 18A, focus on execution), but then hired a better leader to CIO the company. I personally think Pat would have been good as a sort of acting CTO+board member. But without Pat, and with last minute co-CEOs they're now lacking both vision *and* execution.
I was at Intel when PG was corporate CTO. He was a lousy CTO, IMO. I can't think of one initiative of his that was leadership thinking or successful. When he was hired as CEO, I was initially optimistic about his focus on manufacturing and being a foundry, but I was shocked at his reckless investments and silly rhetoric. In the end he lived up to my worst fears about his leadership.
I think the only fix forward is to split off the company. It's too late now to do otherwise.
I agree, but the financial plan for a split is less clear than mud.
The foundry is the part that US and Defense really cares about - help that survive via CHIPS acts or similar. Then let Intel the products company compete or not; it will still have a ton of IP and Engineering. If Intel the product company dies, there's still very strong silicon design in the US, but if the Foundry dies then the US is basically relegated to old nodes.
Intel needs a visionary plan to compete with TSMC. Government involvement in operations via contracts may just result in another Boeing Space fiasco. The USG's role must be to provide financing if necessary (as they did for US automakers in 2008), and removing any and all barriers, statutory and otherwise, to building fabs in the US in a quick and cost-effective manner. We've done none of that. We're not serious as a nation yet about success. Taiwan and China are.
 
Intel first needs new leadership (CEO and BoD). How is this conspiracy theory with TSMC going to help that? How is gutting Intel R&D and manufacturing in favor of TSMC technology going to help Intel and the US? This seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
I completely agree.
A much simpler approach would be to re host TSMC and make it a US based company and negotiate with China to keep TSMC independent after the Taiwan take-over. That is the deal of the century. The US could also make Taiwan a US territory like Greenland, Canada, etc... Or they could just rename it like the Gulf of Mexico. :ROFLMAO:
You must be joking about re-hosting TSMC. Right?
 
Intel first needs new leadership (CEO and BoD). How is this conspiracy theory with TSMC going to help that? How is gutting Intel R&D and manufacturing in favor of TSMC technology going to help Intel and the US? This seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

A much simpler approach would be to re host TSMC and make it a US based company and negotiate with China to keep TSMC independent after the Taiwan take-over. That is the deal of the century. The US could also make Taiwan a US territory like Greenland, Canada, etc... Or they could just rename it like the Gulf of Mexico. :ROFLMAO:
Gulf Of China Co Sponsored by United States of America?
 
Completely agree with Daniel N, except re-zoning TSMC fabs in Panama canal zone seems a bit narrow. Greenland would be perfect especially to develop a quantum computing fab or sub-zero silicon for that matter.
 
I was at Intel when PG was corporate CTO. He was a lousy CTO, IMO. I can't think of one initiative of his that was leadership thinking or successful. When he was hired as CEO, I was initially optimistic about his focus on manufacturing and being a foundry, but I was shocked at his reckless investments and silly rhetoric. In the end he lived up to my worst fears about his leadership.
Fair, I definitely dont' have any first hand experience with Pat. I (generously) assumed that being VMWares CIO for a decade might have honed his leadership ability, though I guess it is clear he handled even technical things poorly such as the 13th-14th gen fiasco. I also have observed leaders never grow even after being 'on assignments' for many years...

I appreciate the insight.

We're not serious as a nation yet about success. Taiwan and China are.
Agree 100% :).
 
Fair, I definitely dont' have any first hand experience with Pat. I (generously) assumed that being VMWares CIO for a decade might have honed his leadership ability, though I guess it is clear he handled even technical things poorly such as the 13th-14th gen fiasco. I also have observed leaders never grow even after being 'on assignments' for many years...
As CEO, Pat led VMware into cloud computing, which IMO was the best decision and initiative of his career. Nothing else is close. Sometimes one big win is all you need to be a winner.
 
The tone of recent new articles about this topic are insulting and demoralizing for Intel Foundry. The articles speak of TSMC engineers sharing their "know how" and helping Intel on 3nm and 2nm nodes. They claim Intel would be the JV player in the merger and that TSMC would control operations. Intel doesn't need help with 3nm or 2nm nodes. They have EUV up and running just fine. Intel 3 has been in produciton for quite some time and is shipping Xeon chips. Intel 18A is on track to be used on Panther Lake later this year. Remember, TSMC N2 isn't up an running yet either. Recent articles on Tom's Hardware and other places show Intel 18A outperforming TSMC N2. Not only that, Intel 18A has backside power. Who would be helping who exactly? To top it all off, Intel Foundry has at least a year headstart on high NA EUV. They have at least two high NA machines up and running. Seems to me Intel Foundry would be helping TSMC. How would any of this ever be allowed anyways? Intel Foundry wasn't even able to acquire Tower. Now people really think Intel's just going hand over its Foundry operations to a foreign comapny after spending $100B and 4 years to get in the game? This is crazy.
 
The tone of recent new articles about this topic are insulting and demoralizing for Intel Foundry. The articles speak of TSMC engineers sharing their "know how" and helping Intel on 3nm and 2nm nodes. They claim Intel would be the JV player in the merger and that TSMC would control operations. Intel doesn't need help with 3nm or 2nm nodes. They have EUV up and running just fine. Intel 3 has been in produciton for quite some time and is shipping Xeon chips. Intel 18A is on track to be used on Panther Lake later this year. Remember, TSMC N2 isn't up a running yet either. Recent articles on Tom's Hardware and other places show Intel 18A outperforming TSMC N2. Not only that, Intel 18A has backside power. Who would be helping who exactly? To top it all off, Intel Foundry has at least a year headstart on high NA EUV. They have at least two high NA machines up and running. Seems to me Intel Foundry would be helping TSMC. How would any of this ever be allowed anyways? Intel Foundry wasn't even able to acquire Tower. Now people really think Intel's just going hand over its Foundry operations to a foreign comapny after spending $100B and 4 years to get in the game? This is crazy.
They would hand it over to cut their losses and get preferential pricing for TSMC nodes. Pat Gelsinger was pushed out by the board and the board wants to make money.
 
Pat is a cheerleader, He is not pragmatic enough to be CEO. He is the exact opposite of Andy Grove. As CTO, he was cheerleading. He is good for providing vision when the vision is correct.

Intel has serious financial issues thanks to going big on foundry and foundry not working as predicted. Pat bet on the Patriots (Intel) to win it all based on their long history.... probably should have looked at recent history instead.

The government should not get involved IMO. that will not help the problem. The Government should partner with the Eagles, not the Patriots.

The Patriots may be great again someday. Today is not that day.

[multiple mixed metaphors and some weak analogies LOL]

A TSMC JV is perfect solution for Intel. Lets hope it happens
 
The tone of recent new articles about this topic are insulting and demoralizing for Intel Foundry. The articles speak of TSMC engineers sharing their "know how" and helping Intel on 3nm and 2nm nodes. They claim Intel would be the JV player in the merger and that TSMC would control operations. Intel doesn't need help with 3nm or 2nm nodes. They have EUV up and running just fine. Intel 3 has been in produciton for quite some time and is shipping Xeon chips. Intel 18A is on track to be used on Panther Lake later this year. Remember, TSMC N2 isn't up an running yet either. Recent articles on Tom's Hardware and other places show Intel 18A outperforming TSMC N2. Not only that, Intel 18A has backside power. Who would be helping who exactly? To top it all off, Intel Foundry has at least a year headstart on high NA EUV. They have at least two high NA machines up and running. Seems to me Intel Foundry would be helping TSMC. How would any of this ever be allowed anyways? Intel Foundry wasn't even able to acquire Tower. Now people really think Intel's just going hand over its Foundry operations to a foreign comapny after spending $100B and 4 years to get in the game? This is crazy.
I think you will start to hear the reality of what is going on at Intel foundry now that Pat is gone. No customers, Costs way to high, SCIP partnerships becoming problematic, Intel 3/4 losing money, 18A planning to lose money if they build fabs and lose money if they dont build fabs. There is a reason that Intel BOD is looking for options
 
The tone of recent new articles about this topic are insulting and demoralizing for Intel Foundry. The articles speak of TSMC engineers sharing their "know how" and helping Intel on 3nm and 2nm nodes. They claim Intel would be the JV player in the merger and that TSMC would control operations. Intel doesn't need help with 3nm or 2nm nodes. They have EUV up and running just fine. Intel 3 has been in produciton for quite some time and is shipping Xeon chips. Intel 18A is on track to be used on Panther Lake later this year. Remember, TSMC N2 isn't up an running yet either. Recent articles on Tom's Hardware and other places show Intel 18A outperforming TSMC N2. Not only that, Intel 18A has backside power. Who would be helping who exactly? To top it all off, Intel Foundry has at least a year headstart on high NA EUV. They have at least two high NA machines up and running. Seems to me Intel Foundry would be helping TSMC. How would any of this ever be allowed anyways? Intel Foundry wasn't even able to acquire Tower. Now people really think Intel's just going hand over its Foundry operations to a foreign comapny after spending $100B and 4 years to get in the game? This is crazy.
I agree with you. Intel needs money and needs customers who are willing to try and work with them, but probably not much on "know how". Attracting those clients is a significant hurdle. Why would established players like NVDA or AAPL risk their strong relationship with TSMC to work with IFS?

My proposed solution involves tariffs and US-based R&D/manufacturing credits. These measures would address both the financial needs of IFS and incentivize customer acquisition.
 
Back
Top