Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.
Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.
The issue is that would at best “reset” their reputation to zero. But the state that they’d like to go back to would be similar to “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”, which ofc only works with the existing name. And this line of thinking is what got damaged by the degrading processors (and maybe how they handle it).
I don’t think so. The degrading processors are certainly bad, but in the grand scheme of things won’t move the needle. The reputation loss is probably worse than whatever fine they end up paying (and they will drag it out).
The split would be between design and manufacturing. And it would mean a massive shift, not business as usual.
The design side is probably in better shape and would increase their use of TSMC instead of using the now spun off Intel fabs.
The manufacturing side would have it rough. But we are talking about only one of 3 manufacturers of leading edge chips here (together with tsmc and samsung), not something you “conveniently let go bankrupt”. They’d try to raise more money to finish their new fabs and secure customers (while trying to make up for the lost volume from the design side). But realistically I’d say that similar to Global foundries they would drop out of the expensive leading edge race.
Thanks for introducing me to a new concept (or at least a term for it), always nice to learn something new.