• @CookieOfFortune
    link
    118 days ago

    What does that mean exactly? Is the company expected to compete or just support existing products or be sold to other owners?

    • @vzq
      link
      1818 days ago

      Let’s start with what we’re not doing. We’re not handing out money to private investors in the old “socializing losses privatizing profits” bullshit we’ve been doing since the nineties.

      So, if there’s a compelling national security reason to keep the company alive, we, the state buy it. Then we, the state, run it. We run it in a way that benefits our interests as owners and customers.

      Maybe a few years down the line we can find a way to sell it (or our share in it) in a way that satisfies our national security requirements and makes us a load of money. This is not unheard of, see the acquisition and subsequent sale of ABN AMRO by the kingdom of the Netherlands.

      Maybe split it up, write off some parts, sell some others, keep others.

      Or we strip maybe it’s IP, and license it out to contractors to get the shit we need.

      We can do whatever. We own it.

      • @CookieOfFortune
        link
        -318 days ago

        A tech company is not like a bank though, its value is not just in assets but in expertise. Is the plan to layoff all the engineers or pay them less? Is the plan the company generates profit? What if it can’t compete anymore and is just a money sink? And if you’re just going to sell it for assets then how’s that different from letting the company go bankrupt?

        And licensing it out to contractors? That just sounds like a huge money sink.

        • @vzq
          link
          818 days ago

          Listen, Intel is fucked. It’s fucked right now, and getting bought out by someone else isn’t magically going to unfuck it. Saving the company is going to take money and effort.

          We can also just let it go up in flames. No skin off my back.