[HN Gopher] TSMC to make 4nm chips in Arizona for Apple, AMD, Nv...
___________________________________________________________________
TSMC to make 4nm chips in Arizona for Apple, AMD, Nvidia
Author : ZinedineF
Score : 603 points
Date : 2022-12-01 08:59 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techmonitor.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (techmonitor.ai)
| paxys wrote:
| Hopefully this actually pans out, unlike the Wisconsin debacle
| fullstackchris wrote:
| chip noob here, i thought we'd already reached the theoretical
| limit of chip fab sizes? lots of people are talking about 3nm and
| smaller in this thread? can someone explain?
| breck wrote:
| This is amazing. Well done Biden (and also even though I didn't
| vote for him gotta give credit where credit is due: well done
| Trump).
|
| Disclosure: 100% long USA.
| neonihil wrote:
| Poor Taiwanese people... their security insurance has just been
| cancelled.
|
| I wonder how many days after the first successful batches of
| chips coming out of the Arizona fab will China invade Taiwan.
|
| I do hope not, but realistically: with high-end chips being made
| on US soil, the US will have very little interest in protecting
| Taiwan, apart from maybe blocking China from also acquiring the
| tech.
| holoduke wrote:
| The current chip making machines in Taiwan are still very
| valuable for many years. They should not fall into the hands of
| China.
| neonihil wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I'm hoping for.
| AdamN wrote:
| This is a valid long term concern for Taiwan but 10+ years out.
| neonihil wrote:
| I'm afraid there could be a hidden math behind this.
|
| As in: cost of a war with China vs. economic cost of China
| acquiring TSMC tech.
|
| As long as a war is cheaper, the US is protecting Taiwan.
|
| I'm no expert, but it usually comes down to something like
| this.
| rado wrote:
| US loves expensive faraway wars
| 988747 wrote:
| They love wars against small third world countries that
| are easy to win. War with China is probably the only one
| that US can actually lose.
| joshjje wrote:
| Not in this lifetime. Unless you are talking about
| occupying China / storming their territory, that would
| not go well. But defeating China at sea and in the air
| and in other countries? They'd have no chance.
| 988747 wrote:
| Some US generals disagree with you, especially when it
| comes to fight about Taiwan:
| https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/03/us-will-lose-
| fast-i...
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| China has 5 times as many people as the US. Their
| technology is behind, but they are modernizing and having
| 5 times as many resources and no public backlash to
| wasting soldiers lives goes a far way.
| barbacoa wrote:
| As you can tell from the last few decades, winning wars
| is a secondary concern.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I believe China would probably aquire a pile of rubble.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Since when does the US government care about costs exactly?
| rapsey wrote:
| One plant does not change the game that much. You still need
| TSMC to keep working on whatever the next tech will be as well
| as all their current production in Taiwan which is fully
| booked.
| codedokode wrote:
| As I understand, one plant is enough to copy all secrets of
| nanofabrication and build similar plants.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| lkbm wrote:
| I agree that it's not a simple plant opens => China invades,
| but this does feel like we're starting to see the dominos
| line up.
|
| If it's about talent, it's a lot easier to quickly import
| people than to import a massive fab plant, and I assume we'll
| be building talent (either domestic or imported) as we build
| out the related infrastructure and industry.
|
| It would certainly be disruptive, but I assume part of the
| US's drive is to reduce dependency on Taiwan, and
| consequently exposure to the threat of China.
|
| If the US stops caring about Taiwan, it's both safer for
| China to invade Taiwan (less pushback from the US), and less
| geopolitically valuable (less damage to the US), but China's
| interests aren't focused entirely on the geopolitical when it
| comes to Taiwan.
| itake wrote:
| My cousin is doing a contract with TSMC. Basically they fly
| over 100 Americans per year to Taiwan and train them for
| 1-1.5years. Then they fly them back to the usa to work in
| the US factory.
|
| The problem is TW compensation and work conditions are
| terrible. Many of them quit before completely their
| agreements, so they aren't actually training that many
| Americans.
| enkid wrote:
| The US has supported Taiwan's defense long before chips were
| made there. It's unlikely this fundamentally changes Taiwan's
| defensive position.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| People really blow out of proportion the importance of TSMC.
| Taiwan is valuable to the west because of its strategic
| location. TSMC could disappear tomorrow and the US will still
| have to defend it. The day Taiwan fall is the day the US loses
| its dominance.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _out of proportion_
|
| As if TSMC were not absolutely critical. Samsung declares
| "we'd like to be able to match their capabilities" in public
| statements.
|
| You would need to develop more on the topic "a world without
| TSMC: solutions and fallbacks".
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| First, your phrasing could read as concern trolling style
| gloating, which you probably didn't intend.
|
| China may invade Taiwan within my lifetime, but it won't be
| triggered by anything to do with TSMC.
|
| China and the US are both involved in the Taiwan conflict due
| to history, ideology, and current economic relationships.
| Nothing material about that changes with TSMC building
| facilities in the US. If anything US ties grow stronger.
|
| TSMC is not something China can acquire with military power.
| It's not a building in a RTS game you can just take over and
| operate yourself. It's a huge number of engineers and a globe
| spanning high tech supply chain. All that grinds to a halt the
| moment missiles fly into Taiwan.
| lvl102 wrote:
| I find it comical that the US educates more than 90% of top
| engineers yet we don't control 90% of crucial chip-making assets.
|
| We need to implement some type of conditions for anyone seeking
| education here in the US especially in institutions that are
| backed by US tax dollars. We need to stop handing out education
| to the very people who are dead set on competing against our
| national interests. In other words, stop training the enemy.
| teux wrote:
| > we need to stop handing out education ...stop training the
| enemy
|
| Seems a little harsh and nationalistic? Not an American so
| maybe I'm way off base here, but in a country where people
| already pay exorbitant prices for higher education, what would
| you propose?
|
| Unless I misunderstood you, I don't think banning foreigners
| will solve your problem.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _I find it comical_
|
| For that matter, it is similarly "<<comical>>" that if one
| wanted lean modular furniture (and not even "scientifically"
| covering every reasonable need) one has to go to the Swedes
|
| > _training the enemy_
|
| That is much more complex than those terms. For one, knowledge
| is transversal ("zero" is not e.g. a "cultural appropriation",
| etc).
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| The US actively kicks them out of the country: once your
| student visa expires, GTFO. Seems crazy to me- in my
| dictatorship, we should do the opposite: confiscate the
| passport of anyone in a PhD program until 5 years after the
| completion of their degree.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Better than Canada where we educate our own citizens (with
| subsidy), and then they leave for the US immediately after
| graduation.
|
| After which we bring in lower-paid people from overseas.
| [deleted]
| thorin wrote:
| If the company is Taiwanese is there not still a concern with
| dependency on China and leaking of information. I realise it's
| important to have local manufacturing, but is this still
| essentially a "Chinese" company considering the disputed
| territory thing? Excuse my ignorance here about how such things
| work.
| bwb wrote:
| Taiwan and China are totally separate governments etc. Not
| totally sure what you mean here.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| It's a Taiwanese company with no dependency on China. TSMC has
| the knowledge and expertise to make 4nm chips anywhere - you
| could view this as their information 'leaking' to the US.
| alliao wrote:
| TSMC does not depend on China.. China only claims Taiwan's
| sovereignty but Taiwan have de facto independence. A bit like a
| stalker going around telling people the person they're stalking
| is their girlfriend...
| ajross wrote:
| Taiwan is "Chinese" ethnically, being populated[1] by
| descendants of many waves of Han colonization over the last few
| centuries.
|
| Concern over "China" has nothing to do with ethnicity, it's a
| geopolitical fight with the government of the People's Republic
| of China, which does not[2] rule Taiwan.
|
| [1] To be clear: there are also descendants of indigenous
| "Taiwanese" living there, who are austronesian and not Han.
| Ethnicity is complicated and everywhere is a melting pot.
|
| [2] In practice. Obviously "legally" both Taiwan and the PRC
| consider themselves the true government of the other's
| territory.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Where exactly does this "Han" stuff come from because most
| people in China are not actually han and those in Taiwan are
| not han.
| ajross wrote:
| I'm using what amounts to this definition, under which,
| yes, Taiwan and China are both majority Han:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese
|
| As stated, ethnicity is complicated and people everywhere
| want to have fights over these subjects. I won't engage,
| that's pointless.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Oh so it doesn't actually have anything to do with blood
| or descent. Just cultural inheritance from han dynasty.
| ajross wrote:
| I know I said I wouldn't engage, but just to point out:
| nothing in the linked page substantiates "doesn't
| actually have anything to do with". I'm not interested in
| getting into an ethnicity argument, but please don't
| misrepresent source material.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The vast majority of Chinese and Taiwanese identify as Han.
| China is effectively an ethnostate that is cleansing
| minorities.
| thorin wrote:
| I was thinking about the PRC government having influence on
| Taiwan, I've no idea what their relationship is. Of course I
| have nothing against Chinese/Asian individuals, I just don't
| know what level of control China might seek to exert on Taiwan
| I guess.
| throw8383833jj wrote:
| I don't know much about semi conductors. maybe i'm just an old
| dinosaur. But, why is the whole world so hellbent on getting the
| very latest chips? Couldn't we just make do with 10 year old chip
| designs? My Iphone6 can do just about everything that my wife's
| latest iphone11 can do (at least that a casual observer can see).
| Cars from 10 years ago were'nt that different from now (other
| than buttons being replaced with screens), etc. The nintendo from
| the 90s is just as entertaining as the latest nintendo, etc.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Generally smaller nanometre designs are a lot more power
| efficient. Your old iPhone will do just fine yes - but imagine
| if it had twice the battery life?
|
| Now why they just keep massively increasing power as efficiency
| goes up is beyond me......I think a lot of people would love a
| new iPhone with a processor a bit faster than your old iPhone 6
| but with insane battery life.
| s3p wrote:
| It's not necessarily about having the latest chip tech from a
| consumer perspective but more about TSMC's business demand.
| Businesses like Apple are only signing contracts for the _best_
| chip designs, and they are a massive customer for TSMC. Moving
| production to the US is great because it means apple has a more
| reliable supply source in the wake of increasing China /Taiwan
| tensions. It makes sense for TSMC as well because Apple and
| others were considering alternative manufactureres (Intel) in
| the wake of those political problems. But as for regular
| consumers, I think you're right. Most of us don't care whether
| we have a 10nm or 4nm chip in our devices, we just need good
| battery life.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Given that the chipmaking process is quite water intensive and
| Arizona is a literal desert in the midst of a major drought maybe
| this wasn't the best possible US location for the fab?
| throwaway365435 wrote:
| Phoenix is a massive hub for semi-conductor manufacturing and
| data centers partly because there are no natural disasters.
|
| A lot of water is required to start but a huge majority is
| recycled. Heat can be a problem in the summer but it's
| extremely predictable and commonly dealt with.
| codedokode wrote:
| Why did TSMC agreed to give away the most important technology to
| a foreign country? It doesn't look like a choice one would do
| voluntary.
|
| In my opinion, they should better give away some outdated
| technology like 45 or 65nm.
|
| This reminds me of China which forced some Western manufacturers
| to transfer technology to them.
| cromka wrote:
| Give away to a foreign country? You realize that TSMC is a
| publicly traded company and they have a shareholder
| responsibility in managing their operational risk?
| codedokode wrote:
| As I understand:
|
| 1) operating a large plant in US is much more expensive than
| in Taiwan and it will bring less profit. So it it not
| financially motivated decision.
|
| 2) US can restrict export of chips to other countries and
| TSMC will lose money in this case
|
| 3) US can copy the secrets, share them with Intel and AMD,
| and make chips without paying TSMC
|
| So this looks like a risky and not profitable decision to me.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _not financially motivated decision_
|
| Ensuring availability of goods?
|
| David Ricardo never said that England should depend on
| Portugal for wine, and Portugal on England for clothes.
|
| Edit: apologies, I read the original point as referred to
| the USA as a decisor, not to Taiwan (as the poster
| intended). The former point remains, about the clear
| opportunity for strengthening ties.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _In my opinion_
|
| With respect, this seems like a case in which credentials are
| important.
|
| The geopolitical context involving the relevant actors brings a
| number of difficulties the knowledge of which must be assumed,
| and that even Mainland recognizes.
| throwaway82028 wrote:
| Where in Arizona specifically? Have they even decided? Did the
| government decide to pay for the factory and enroll their for-
| profit prisoners to work for $0.10/per hour, and divert the
| remaining water supply to the factory? Arizona seems like a
| terrible choice for a chip factory, unless they've selected an
| area that gets natural water... and there aren't many.
| lkbm wrote:
| Hmm, my understanding was that fabs needed an initial supply of
| water, but then could cycle that same water for a long time.
|
| A quick Google[0] suggests that they've only started doing this
| heavily pretty recently, but I'm guessing new fabs in Arizona
| will implement state of the art water-recycling.
|
| That said, the numbers in this article suggest that 98%
| recycling would drop usage to the equivalent of ~6000 homes,
| which still feels significant.
|
| Low seismic activity is the benefit of Arizona that I've seen
| cited in the past, which I'd guess outweighs the water sourcing
| issues.
|
| [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/fabs-cut-back-water-use
| coredog64 wrote:
| If they built the factory on what used to be farmland they're
| probably at break even for water usage.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Arizona has 7 million people and 3 million housing units. 6k
| doesn't seem like that much.
|
| Utah opened a canning plant not too far back that uses enough
| water for 50k people. That seems like a far bigger waste.
| DeWilde wrote:
| Prison slave labor doesn't seem ideal for building 4nm chips.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Intel has tons of fabs in phoenix so TSMC can steal some of
| their employees. I think intel chose arizona because of the
| lack of natural disasters and tax incentives. The water is
| mostly reused so not really that big of a deal.
| artjumble wrote:
| https://www.google.com/maps/place/TSMC,+Fab+21/@33.7709731,-...
|
| They have been building it for about a year now. Other than the
| possible water use, other's have stated why it is here.
| Victerius wrote:
| Arizona is actually a good choice. It is geologically stable,
| doesn't suffer from natural disasters, is somewhat close to
| Silicon Valley, and has a large enough talent pool to staff
| TSMC's facilities.
| CivBase wrote:
| Surely somewhere in the midwest would be more geologically
| stable _and_ have plenty of access to water. Not sure the
| proximity to Silicon Valley makes any difference. It 's not
| like factory workers are going to commute from California to
| Arizona.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| I believe the primary reason was tax-related, but the
| secondary reason is that there is already substantial
| personnel in the area who are experts in chip design and
| fabrication (Intel), with a strong pipeline for new talent
| from local universities for those skills.
|
| Surprisingly, the area is also one of the largest Taiwanese
| communities in the U.S., which is a bonus for the engineers
| and their families who will be relocated from the
| "mothership".
|
| Also, it's actually quite common for high-level Intel staff
| to fly back and forth from Portland and Phoenix. I am not
| sure if the same would be said about Taiwan and Arizona,
| but if they have staff in SV it wouldn't be too far-
| fetched.
| sct202 wrote:
| Phoenix has long been a hub for semiconductor
| manufacturing, so it makes sense from the perspective of
| there is an existing skilled worker pool and supplier base.
| Motorola had large sites there, and Intel has a bunch of
| fabs and is building more in the area.
| menshiki wrote:
| Access to talent is a huge factor. One of the biggest obstacles
| of creating a US fab was the lack of access to cheap talent (in
| contrast to Taiwanese engineers that work long hours for
| relatively cheap money and are widely available - of course
| comparing to the US, in Taiwan they are among the highest
| earners).
| nailer wrote:
| I love how "we can't make chips in the US anymore it's
| impossible" was something we heard only a few years ago.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| It's possible. With subsidies. The US is literally paying tsmc
| for this to even be viable.
|
| Tsmc is not coming here because it's an economically wise move.
| They are coming here knowing it's an economically irrational
| move.
|
| Politics is the reason for this move. It is not a clear cut
| win.
|
| Your post has the aroma of patriotism. Patriotism blinds us to
| harsh truths. Why do you love how people were wrong when they
| said we can't make chips in the US anymore? You shouldn't feel
| love or hate for any of these statements.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > Tsmc is not coming here because it's an economically wise
| move.
|
| No, it's an economically wise move because of the politics.
| This plant allows TSMC to gets the CHIPS subsidy, but maybe
| more importantly it allows them to become part of the
| military industrial complex which requires that products are
| made domestically. This fab will print money.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| The subsidies make the plant break even. Defense spending
| is basically another subsidy. Most of the weapons the US
| makes is useless in a civilization that has mostly been at
| peace for a long time. Hard to say how far defense will go
| though in terms of spending.
|
| You are definitive about defense spending in a recession.
| This is wrong. Aspects of the government will begin pulling
| back. We do not know how this will effect tsmc.
|
| This move from a profitablity standpoint is break even as
| far as we know. It makes no economic sense.
|
| Btw. This isn't something I'm making up. The CEO of tsmc
| mark liu stated this to Nancy pelosi during her visit. Also
| her husband is dumping tsmc stocks for unknown reasons.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > Aspects of the government will begin pulling back.
|
| Defense spending never goes down. It's a key way the
| government injects money into the economy during
| recessions.
|
| > The CEO of tsmc mark liu stated this to Nancy pelosi
| during her visit
|
| Every CEO tells politicians to give them more money, that
| isn't evidence of shit other than being competent.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Inflation is a problem right now. A huge problem. The
| recession is actually the result of the government
| pulling back. It is a necessary action.
|
| Interest rates will increase spending will be pulled back
| to stop inflation. A recession is the tool being used to
| stop inflation.
|
| The CEO did not ask for money. The money was already
| given. The CEO was simply stating the status quo. Helping
| her come to terms realistically with what is truly going
| on with the Arizona plant. Look it up.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| Your post has an enormous aroma of patriotism. Where were you
| when Taiwan was subsidizing TSMC? They were only able to
| outcompete Western fabs due to the enormous amount of
| government help they got in the early days. Those Taiwanese
| leaders sure were stupid to have invested in chip
| manufacturing.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Patriotism for America at best. I'm American. Just not
| biased. Patriotism is a form of bias. When you have none
| you see the truth more clearly.
|
| Taiwan subsidized tsmc for tech. Once the tech was
| established the subsidy ended.
|
| Right now the US is subsidizing tsmc for simply switching
| locations. Once the location is switched the economic
| output of this plant will be negative so the subsidies have
| to remain.
|
| The US chip market is not capable of making competitive
| chips. Not without economic assistance. This is categoric
| fact.
| topspin wrote:
| The regression so far:
|
| - TSMC will never build-out in the US
|
| - And if they do it will only be older nodes
|
| - And if it's not just old nodes then it's only because
| subsidies.
|
| Now that it's actually happening we see cop outs, like "yeah
| but ?nm will be obsolete by the time it's built."
| lazyeye wrote:
| Yes I thought advocating for bringing manufacturing back
| onshore meant you were an economic illiterate and a xenophobe.
|
| I guess that was before supply-chain security became important
| and the only consequence was the people that dont matter losing
| their jobs.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's also impossible to bring back horses as main vehicle of
| transportation until you have a civilisation collapse and
| can't viably produce machinery and fuel in large scale.
|
| I find it unfortunate that we are going back into a
| partitioned world but let's hope it brings competing ideas at
| least. I'm even a bit excited about it, as long as it stays a
| cold war and doesn't turn into WW3 and stays as a competition
| in everything like during the cold war.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > It's also impossible to bring back horses as main vehicle
| of transportation until you have a civilisation collapse
|
| That's a bad read of the situation. It's not like no one
| makes chips.
|
| The reasons people cite for why manufacturers don't come to
| America are largely political. The reality is that
| manufacturing is alive and well but those with industry
| knowledge aren't American, and America has most left low
| margin and high labor manufacturing not all manufacturing.
| In this case, America is literally paying the Taiwanese to
| bring their knowledge to America.
|
| Is the world collapsing? No one knows but this can be more
| easily seen as "vertical integration" of a national
| economy. No one said Samsung was doomed when apple made
| their own mobile chips, and there's no reason that the
| global economy is doomed just because the richest and most
| powerful economy in the world wanted a strategically
| important, high margin business.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I'm speaking about manufacturing in general, I don't
| think that anybody said that high margin and high tech
| manufacturing can't be done in the west - stuff like chip
| manufacturing never left the USA, they simply fell
| behind.
| est wrote:
| so we are heading to the next over-invested semiconductor cyle?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| If we can leverage over investment into bountiful supply with
| low costs, that could be the best of both worlds.
| totalZero wrote:
| We are headed to a regime where more redundancy has to be baked
| into the fabbing business so that Taiwan can go offline
| (if/when China invades) without making phones and computers and
| datacenters completely un-upgradeable.
| mccorrinall wrote:
| 12 hour work shifts sound horrible. Is this possible in the US?
| adastra22 wrote:
| It is very much normal in manufacturing and healthcare.
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| There's usually weekly limits
|
| So you could do 12h shifts 3/4 days a week and/or have extra
| days off
| atmosx wrote:
| This move doesn't make sense under a capitalistic point of
| view. This is geopolitics. The US protecting its interests,
| corporations playing along - they don't have a choice anyway.
| impulser_ wrote:
| 12 hour shifts are pretty common in manufacturing in the US.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| Abbott Laboratories operate 12-hour shift patterns and they are
| FDA regulated
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| 12 hour shifts, while highly uncommon, are legal even in some
| of the most developed EU countries.
|
| Though, there's weekly hourly limits and limits on how many
| consecutive days you can have 12h shifts.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| 12+ hour shifts are the norm for nurses in the US, so
| apparently.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Long shifts are pretty common in important real-world (vs.
| office) jobs. For instance, hospital ICU nurses:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3786347/
|
| Table 1 (n = 5,831) shows that 80% of the ICU nurses reported
| that their last shift was 12-13 hours. Another 5% reported a
| >13 hour sift.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Also very common in oil and gas, mining, etc.
| drfuchs wrote:
| Elon says so.
| voxadam wrote:
| It's been a few years but I've known a number people who worked
| on the production lines at Intel's fabs in Hillsboro, Oregon.
| Many, if not all of them worked 3 twelve hour shifts each week.
| As I understand it the schedule is pretty common in production
| facilities of this type.
|
| Note: I'm not commenting on the suitability of the practice,
| just on the fact that it's not unique to certain countries in
| Asia.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This is the node used to make the iPhone 14 Pro Max chip.
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| Does the CHIPS act have anything to do with making this happen?
|
| It's funny to think that the supply chain gurus at Apple & NVIDIA
| may be doing the work of geopolitics in the service of just
| defending their bottom line from disruption.
| ktta wrote:
| Pretty sure.
|
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4346
| rjzzleep wrote:
| There is also the inflation reduction act that is very
| enticing to European industry giants that are facing hardship
| or downright insolvency due to their own governments stupid
| energy sanctions game. In fact NOW suddenly Macron and Scholz
| find it unfair that the US is snatching these company's. I
| can't say I have much sympathy for Europe. Well played US.
|
| I wonder to what extent you can get subsidies from both acts.
| I assume it shouldn't be a problem.
| midasz wrote:
| I don't think Europe has much of a choice. It's either
| sanctioning Russia and suffering ourselves, or allowing
| Ukraine to be taken with the horrors that come with that.
| If it would end there, maybe but still no, but it won't end
| there. Who is next on Russia's list?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >> don't think Europe has much of a choice.
|
| The choice was made decades ago on the alter of faux
| environmentalism to export the environmental cost of
| energy production to another nation so the EU could claim
| moral superiority in the climate change battle.
| Completely decimating domestic energy sources.
| midasz wrote:
| No one gave a hoot about climate change decades ago.
| Russian gas is cheap. That's it. No idea what you're on
| about.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>No one gave a hoot about climate change decades ago
|
| Well that is simply false.
| sofixa wrote:
| > due to their own governments stupid energy sanctions game
|
| Having morals and accepting hardship for standing up for
| them is not stupid. It's a principled stance most Europeans
| agree with. Governments need to step in and help whenever
| needed (with price caps for consumers, advantageous loans
| to businesses) to smooth it out, but it was that or
| appeasement, and we all know very well it doesn't work.
| Slartie wrote:
| > due to their own governments stupid energy sanctions game
|
| As if the US would have just kept buying 40% of its
| imported gas from Russia, were the roles reversed.
| totalZero wrote:
| Apple spent something like a half-trillion on share buybacks.
| They could have averted this crisis a decade ago by thinking
| strategically. They didn't. Why give them credit where little
| or no credit is due?
| yucky wrote:
| In 2008 Apple wasn't even in the top 15 US companies by
| market cap. Now they're the largest US company by quite a
| margin.
|
| The data says their approach was correct.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| The data says their approach worked for them, but not
| necessarily for their customers, who regularly are made to
| shoulder indignities other companies do not dare to impose.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Because Apple has great marketing to convince their legion of
| ultra loyal fans they are the "one True" company, out for
| Moral good and not profit like all those other nasty immoral
| corporations.
|
| It is fascinating how much water the apple fan will carry for
| the company to dismiss any wrong doing... Environmentalism,
| Human Rights, none of it gets laid at the feet of Apple...
| Apple is as pure as the driven snow
| d3ckard wrote:
| Don't want to start a fight, but honestly, I only ever hear
| those types of arguments from people who don't use Apple
| hardware.
|
| People who do, in large majority, do it for two reasons: -
| build quality; - it mostly just works.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>- build quality
|
| This is part of the marketing delusion, multiple people
| have done A/B testing to clearly show Apple Build Quality
| is either on par with the rest of the industry or in many
| specific examples WORSE, people that claim this often
| have ZERO experience with non-apple products or are
| comparing different classes like a budget consumer level
| Lenovo to the pro line of apple, of course of $500 unit
| will be of less quality than a $2500 unit
|
| For an example of poor build quality / engineering Check
| out Louis Rossmans' "Think Different" video where he
| outlines some of the various engineering problems Apple
| has had
|
| >>- it mostly just works.
|
| I see the often repeated, I have had android phone for
| decades and never had any issue with them, they just work
| as well. I am not sure what is "not working" on an
| Android, I can also say i have never had an Android phone
| that I had to hold "correctly" in order for the antenna
| to work...
|
| Again I think this stems from comparing different classes
| of phone, Apple only makes Mid to High eng phones, (which
| is the market I am in for Android devices I tend to buy
| the Flagship from the manufacturer) they do not make
| budget and entry phone, these low end phones will have
| more problem. Would it be better to just price out entire
| segments of the population? That does not seem to be
| socially moral
| JamesonNetworks wrote:
| I will assume I'm not going to change your mind with my
| comment, but anecdotally I was a pixel user for years
| (Nexus 5 (boot loop break) Pixel 2, Pixel 3, tried to
| order a Pixel 6 but the site didn't work on launch day)
| before switching to the iPhone 13. I build applications
| for both Android and iOS. My wife has been an iPhone user
| for years. Both iPhones she has owned are still in use by
| someone in our extended family (iPhone 7, X)
|
| My pixel phones did not take high quality videos without
| crashing and over heating. This iPhone can do 4k 60fps
| for an hour without a hiccup. The build quality of this
| phone feels like it came from an alternate reality to me.
| Pixels in the same price point do not hold up against it
| on any metric that matters to me (stability, battery
| life, software reliability, hardware longevity)
|
| Again, this is just anecdotally and I try not to be an
| Apple fanboy, but being the family tech point person,
| Apple has made my life marginally easier.
| GrinningFool wrote:
| > I can also say i have never had an Android phone that I
| had to hold "correctly" in order for the antenna to
| work...
|
| It feels like you're trying to revive decade-old
| flamewars here. FWIW, on my Pixel 5 (and 2 before that),
| if I reverse my phone (hold normally but with camera at
| bottom) I get a drop in both cellular and wifi signal
| strength - more so if I'm in a location with marginal
| signal to begin with.
| jacooper wrote:
| Steve jobs: you are holding it wrong.
| baxtr wrote:
| I upload anything with Steve Jobs. So: Here you go!
| jacooper wrote:
| upvote*
| baxtr wrote:
| That too.
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| What a passionate comment about Apple. I guess some
| people are just this invested in Apple enough to write
| book-long comments on every single thread even
| tangentially related to Apple.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Nobody would need to write it if Apple didn't spend $XX
| billion on misleading marketing every year.
| matt_s wrote:
| Your build quality comparison is off, a cheap $500 laptop
| should be compared to prior years Macbook Air M1 which is
| $300 more, not $2000 more. A $800 macbook has far better
| build quality than any $500 Windows laptop, probably
| better than most $800 laptops. Its Windows that's the
| issue for me. Having too many bad experiences and strong
| bias against Microsoft, I choose Apple because its not MS
| and it does work vs. tinkering with stuff on Linux.
|
| Apple phones are usually behind in whiz-bang features
| that Samsung and some others have but my opinion is
| killer features for smart phones are in the rear view
| mirror by a few years. Any of them are just fine and its
| more about the ecosystem and purchase history at this
| point (i.e. switching and you'd have to buy things
| again).
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>Its Windows that's the issue for me.
|
| That has nothing to do with build quality
|
| >Having too many bad experiences and strong bias against
| Microsoft
|
| Well at least you admit your bias, as someone that works
| in enterprise and manages 1000's of windows computers i
| can say i would never want to attempt that with Apple who
| does not have the enterprise tooling that MS does
|
| before I was in enterprise I felt the same about windows
| and primarily used Linux, I would never use a Apple which
| shows my bais... If apple was the last computer on earth
| I would crush it...
|
| >>Any of them are just fine and its more about the
| ecosystem and purchase history at this point
|
| I agree with that, and that should change, but I value my
| freedom too much ever to surrender it for Apple's walled
| garden
| matt_s wrote:
| Ironic you talk of a walled garden and work in Enterprise
| IT creating a ... walled garden for your users
| (enterprise tooling like pre-installed images, not being
| able to install apps as admin, etc.) because its easier
| to support.
|
| Oh I don't for a second think Apple stuff would ever
| compete with 1000's of devices being managed from an
| Enterprise IT department. I lived in that environment for
| a while and would dual boot to linux, run VirtualBox or
| get a 2nd PC from IT and wipe it and install linux.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >A $800 macbook has far better build quality than any
| $500 Windows laptop
|
| Took a peak at the apple store, there is no $800 Macbook
| for sale. So we're comparing, an older (used?) higher-end
| Macbook to a budget Windows laptop? Why not compare an
| older higher-end Windows laptop to an older Macbook? Why
| not compare a new $500 budget Windows laptop to a $500
| used Macbook?
|
| >Its Windows that's the issue for me. Having too many bad
| experiences and strong bias against Microsoft
|
| You have a have a subjective preference - fine - we all
| do. So why pretend there is some objective measure here
| of Apple's superiority? Apple sells very expensive
| higher-end devices. The reality is that the quality of
| those devices is about on par with other devices in that
| class.
| matt_s wrote:
| 2020 Macbook Air M1 on amazon, brand new, $800 in ads I
| see when I google for it:
| https://www.google.com/search?&q=macbook+air+m1
| ask_b123 wrote:
| > Took a peak at the apple store, there is no $800
| Macbook for sale
|
| $849
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/refurbished/mac/macbook-air
| macspoofing wrote:
| Comparing a refurb Macbook to a budget Windows laptop
| doesn't really show that Apple devices are of "higher
| quality" - which was the argument OP was trying to make.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| To be fair if we're talking about used you can get $1200
| new windows laptops for $800 used too so not really a
| fair comparison.
| lightedman wrote:
| "- build quality"
|
| When I worked as an Apple laptop repair tech, that was
| almost nonexistent. 2/3 logic boards shipped in to be
| used for repairs on customer computers were faulty.
|
| "- it mostly just works"
|
| Imagine a laptop perpetually-stuck on OSX 10.2.4 that
| can't ever upgrade or it borks the system - that was my
| experience dealing with Apple laptops years ago as a
| repair tech. School system iBooks and PowerBooks were the
| worst offenders, and Apple had no discerning way to let
| you know which image belonged on which hardware, so we
| were always having to reimage laptops in hopes we picked
| a proper image for them.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Build quality, that's a riot. Here's a riddle for you: my
| $300 Thinkpad and $1,500 Macbook Pro each hit the
| concrete from waist height. Which laptop can I open up
| and keep using like nothing happened?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Build quality != resistance to drops. You can have a
| rugged, impervious laptop that will survive a drop from
| an airplane onto concrete, but if the keyboard flexes and
| mushes when you use it, that's not exactly 'good build
| quality'. Manufacturers optimize for different parts of
| the UX and it's valid for customers to pick which device
| they like based on how well the product does in whichever
| area they care about.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >Apple spent something like a half-trillion on share
| buybacks. They could have averted this crisis a decade ago by
| thinking strategically.
|
| I don't understand the fixation on this. Share buybacks
| strengthen the stock price of the company, which the company
| can leverage in the future to raise more capital if needed
| (by re-releasing new shares to the market). From that
| perspective, they are better than dividends.
|
| Besides, right now, Apple isn't strapped for cash as they
| have around ~50 billion on-hand and could raise more if they
| wanted to. So Apple can still invest more in fab processes if
| that's what they want.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| "Share buybacks strengthen the stock price of the company,
| which the company can leverage in the future to raise more
| capital if needed (by re-releasing new shares to the
| market). From that perspective, they are better than
| dividends."
|
| You are confused. A 100 dollar company with 100 shares
| outstanding, each worth 1 dollar, is not better able to
| raise capital than a 100 dollar company with 50 shares
| outstanding, each worth 2 dollars.
|
| And even if it were a reverse stock split can convert the
| former to the latter.
| [deleted]
| ajhurliman wrote:
| In the case where there are 50 shares outstanding and
| each are worth 2 dollars, that would be true, but if
| there's a constant appetite for the public to invest in a
| company and a diminished number of shares, that would
| drive up the price.
| anotherman554 wrote:
| That might be how you _imagine_ the stock market works
| based on first principles but Investopedia tells us
|
| "The most liquid stocks tend to be those with a great
| deal of interest from various market actors and a lot of
| daily transaction volume. Such stocks will also attract a
| larger number of market makers who maintain a tighter
| two-sided market."
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp
|
| In other words the more appetite for the stock, the more
| liquid the stock, and therefore the _easier_ it is for a
| buyer to acquire the stock. This is presumably because
| stock market indexes will refuse to include an illiquid
| stock, meaning there will be less demand for the stock,
| and the stock price will drop.
|
| Apple did a 4 for 1 stock split in 2020. Do you _really_
| think they screwed over their investors because you know
| something they don 't about how stocks are valued?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Buybacks are not stopping apple from building a fab. They
| still have more than enough money, they're just not
| interested.
| deburo wrote:
| Do you mean Apple should've built a fab instead of spending
| on buybacks?
| moloch-hai wrote:
| They should have built out solar and wind power generation
| capacity to displace ongoing CO2 emissions, instead of
| wasting the capital on buybacks.
| [deleted]
| deelowe wrote:
| Things were already heading that direction before the CHIPS
| act. The geopolitical issues with China have been a major
| concern for a while now. Not to mention the general business
| continuity concerns with everything coming out of a handful of
| countries/factories.
| markeibes wrote:
| Why? Really painful to hear as a German that anything should be
| manufactured in the USA.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Well played, Hans
| qualudeheart wrote:
| America is back.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Tsmc is being subsidized. The plant is not a profitable
| operation by itself. America is not back.
|
| Patriotism is blindness. If you hold no loyalties to even the
| country you are born in it's easier to see the truth.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| > opens its new chip factory in Arizona in 2024
|
| So this factory will be a generation behind once it opens.
| oblvious-earth wrote:
| Yes, actually more like 2 generations once chips are
| commercially available, the Arizona factory has never been
| advertised as a cutting edge node.
|
| But there are 100s of media headlines basically implying that
| by listing high profile customers and not mentioning the date
| of opening. Those customers will for the most part be using
| this factory for auxiliary chips.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| Gotta start somewhere
| squarefoot wrote:
| Hopefully we'll do something like that here in the EU too. We're
| experiencing the hard way how's like depending on the energy and
| resources of warmongering criminal dictators; it would be wise to
| start moving away from technological dependence on China asap.
| huijzer wrote:
| Actually, Europe is doing pretty good due to having a monopoly
| on making chip making machines via ASML in the Netherlands
| which relies heavily on Carl Zeiss in Germany.
|
| Fun fact by the way, at some point Japan and Europe were very
| close in state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing while the
| US didn't have the capabilities anymore because it was
| outcompeted by Japan. At that point, the US donated funds and
| 20 years of research to ASML since it was better than letting
| Japan win the race, according to Chip War by Chris Miller.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| >the US donated funds and 20 years of research to ASML
|
| wasn't really a "donation" it had strings attached which is
| why ASML wasn't allowed to export to China, the US has all
| the say at the end of the day
| Spivak wrote:
| Oh man if you don't consider it a donation if it has
| strings then don't do nonprofit work. Juggling buckets of
| money from people who donated for specific things with
| specific conditions is just part of the job.
| LegitShady wrote:
| having a 'monopoly on making chip making machines' is not the
| same as having fabs.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Yeah, but local fabs in Europe are far, far away from Intel,
| TSMC and Samsung. Infineon, NXP and STM are wayy behind.
| spamizbad wrote:
| This is largely because Europe became infatuated with
| austerity and its industrial policy has suffered as a
| consequence. You want big, cutting-edge fabs? You're going
| to need to spend public money getting them off the ground.
| TSMC's success is in part due to Taiwan itself designating
| semiconductors as a key strategic economic interest years
| ago and making investments/tax breaks accordingly
| jotm wrote:
| What do you call the infatuation with ducking over small
| businesses and startups?
|
| It's tied into the culture, tbh, but you know, at least
| make it easier for someone to start, fail and start
| again.
|
| Even forming a company is a major struggle compared to
| US, UK. Nevermind the insanity after a bankruptcy.
|
| Sole proprietorship is still very common, and of course
| when you are in trouble with that, _you_ are in trouble.
| ericmay wrote:
| > This is largely because Europe became infatuated with
| austerity and its industrial policy has suffered as a
| consequence.
|
| Was austerity broad-based or specifically targeted toward
| industrial areas? I'd always assumed austerity meant
| cutting back on public benefits/pensions/etc. but not
| strategic areas like this which is why I'm curious.
| doomlaser wrote:
| Interestingly, in the 1970s, before any fabs on the
| island, Taiwan arranged for semiconductor engineers from
| the iconic but slowly dying American company RCA to
| transfer their technology to a visiting Taiwanese team,
| establishing what would later become TSMC. RCA pioneered
| so much: radio, TV, color TV, NBC... And just as it was
| starting to decline and die, its semiconductor knowledge
| was transferred to Taiwan!
|
| Asianometry has a great video on YouTube detailing the
| creation of TSMC:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fVrWDdll0g
| izacus wrote:
| That's an interesting thesis - but, for example, Greece
| with its "let's piss money away without control for
| anything and everything" somehow hasn't become an
| industrial powerhouse either... so it might be that
| austerity (or lack thereof), in general, isn't really
| such an important factor?
| nequo wrote:
| How much money did Greece spend on getting fabs off the
| ground?
| [deleted]
| lightspot21 wrote:
| Greece has other, deeper problems to fix before it makes
| any attempts in creating any form of industry. The
| "pissing money away" happened because of internal
| problems, which can be attributed to corruption and
| cultural aversion to any form of entrepreneurship that
| goes beyond the scale of mom 'n' pop stores.
|
| I am not trying to absolve Greece from its liabilities,
| just pointing out that Greece is a bad example for
| austerity not playing a significant role in slowing
| industrial development.
|
| Source: I am Greek living in Greece.
| sylware wrote:
| yep.
|
| _leading-edge chip manufacturing_ must be seen like
| "defence": making money out of it is optional, but it has
| to stay _really_ leading-edge and should be ready to
| produce at scale for other failing "friendly" part of the
| world. Since South-Korea and Taiwan did just that, and
| the others not, they are now alone on the global market.
|
| To believe the "supply/demand" rule of the economy can
| magically make the money flow decently and properly is
| _REALLY_ dangerous, it cannot apply to everything.
| nimish wrote:
| They have very advanced fabs for non leading edge logic.
| STM has a major SiC fab or two.
| nexus_dave wrote:
| The reason is simple. Europeans don't want to work in chip
| factories.
| _joel wrote:
| That's just not true.
| crest wrote:
| Do you have hard numbers how much it would impact the
| bottom line to offer fab employees good wages and work-
| live balance? It's not like fabs are employing fast
| armies of low skilled labourers in sweatshop (even if you
| do sweat under PPA).
| jotm wrote:
| Oh please. Plenty of jobs that are worse. Plenty of
| immigrants, too, with plenty of loopholes to fuck them
| over.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Yet they want to work in chip factories factories. Sounds
| like some bullshit american republican thesis. nobody
| wants to work anymore, yadda yadda.
|
| https://i.kym-
| cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/407/503/119...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Do you have any sources for your claims or are you making
| stuff up?
|
| Many, many Europeans do work in factories. Just ask the
| Germans.
|
| What's wrong with working in chip factories anyway? They
| produce some of the highest margin products in the world
| and since they are highly automated, working in a chip
| factory requires certain knowledge and education on
| physics, quality assurance, automation, material science,
| and certainly give you experience that makes you a
| valuable worker with future perspects rather than a
| replaceable cog in a dead end job as is the case for the
| Europeans working in most other factories that are a few
| steps away from being off-shored to lower cost areas.
| naruvimama wrote:
| I have personal experience having been in a low end
| research fab. The bunny suits and the protocols are
| elaborate. It was only for few hours and it was quite
| uncomfortable, hard to see or get a sense of things
| around you.
|
| Regular users would generally stay for several hours to
| make it worth it. No break, water, toilet or food,
| probably come in with an empty bladder and empty stomach
| and stay the whole day.
|
| From what I have read, it requires specialised training
| and intermediate if not advanced level skills and
| relatively high level of education. You work on the same
| machines for years and they pay is not necessarily that
| high compared to the trouble that you put in.
|
| In fact, even in Taiwan the challenge is that people
| often switch to chip design or software instead. This
| definitely gets harder as people age.
| smcl wrote:
| Why do you say that? Are semi jobs worse-paid than other
| skilled jobs, or do they have worse conditions?
| wil421 wrote:
| Yes it's extremely toxic there's a reason why
| manufacturing moved from the US (and probably EU/UK but
| I'm not certain). It's horribly toxic and you can read
| this about Samsung[1].
|
| Asia has what some would call almost slave labor and a
| complete lack of care for workers. Many countries don't
| care about pollution either.
|
| US and European countries will gladly clean up
| manufacturing at home while shifting to countries who
| could care less about employees or environmental impacts.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46060376
| smcl wrote:
| So I've seen conditions in some poorer nations in Asia be
| described as similar to slave labour, but we're talking
| about Taiwan and South Korea aren't we? These are high-
| income countries, so I'd be really surprised if they had
| such conditions.
|
| I could believe EU has some stricter environmental
| regulations than both, though
| mayama wrote:
| That applies to Americans too. TSMC will have trouble
| sourcing good talent for their new plant.
| wil421 wrote:
| Tons of people go work in factories making cars,
| chemicals, and food. If they could provide better shifts
| and working conditions they can potentially attract
| talent. Oil fields attract people who wouldn't have gone
| into the industry if they hadn't been offered better pay
| and family benefits.
| float4 wrote:
| Why do we even want cutting edge fabs in Europe? We have no
| companies that design cutting edge logic chips here.
| Literally none. Why invest 20 billion dollars (or what is
| the price of a cutting edge fab these days?) to create
| supply without demand?
|
| Or do we seriously expect that US companies will generate
| significant demand even though TSMC and Samsung are already
| building heavily subsidized fabs _in the US_?
| hylaride wrote:
| ARM came out of europe. With the right industrial policy,
| chip manufacturing could be onsourced. The dutch already
| make most of the equipment that makes the fabs/chips.
|
| It's not necessarily about supply and demand. These past
| few years have shown what shortages of chips can do to
| the supply chain. It's a strategic vulnerability if
| Europe does not at least think about this.
| jotm wrote:
| Why not invest in both?
|
| Besides, the cost of designs pales in comparison to the
| cost of producing locally.
| huijzer wrote:
| > or what is the price of a cutting edge fab these days?
|
| Intel says they're going for two factories of 20 bln
| indeed [1], Samsung for 17 bln in Taylor, Texas [2], and
| Micron claims to go for 100 bln (over time) in Clay, New
| York [3].
|
| > Why invest 20 billion dollars [...] to create supply
| without demand?
|
| Why do we have to pay about 5 dollars per month for a VPS
| with only 1 vCPU, 1 GB RAM, and 10 GB storage? I'm
| certainly hoping these specs to all increase 10-fold over
| the next 10 years for the same price.
|
| [1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/new
| s/intel-...
|
| [2]: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-electronics-
| announce...
|
| [3]: https://investors.micron.com/news-releases/news-
| release-deta...
| api wrote:
| Re your last point: cloud specs are already far beyond
| that. Cloud companies just pocket the difference. Cloud
| lets hosting companies benefit from Moore's law, not you.
|
| Look at the machine you can build for one months' typical
| AWS cost for a medium size SaaS company.
|
| Cloud also charges insanely high rates for bandwidth.
| huijzer wrote:
| I doubt that. I was not talking about AWS. The price I
| mentioned is from Hetzner (by heart though, so I might be
| a bit off) which is pretty cheap. I have also tested
| multiple budget VPS providers and they all don't dare to
| go below aforementioned price even though there is a lot
| of competition in the VPS market. Sometimes the more
| budget providers provide more vCPUs but in my tests those
| usually turn out to be extremely slow.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, it's 2GB of RAM, and 23GB of disk.
|
| It's quite low, but the real costs are on datacenter
| space and connectivity anyway, I have no idea what their
| cost structure looks like.
|
| I would expect any real user to switch into renting
| servers as soon as small VPSs aren't enough. (But yes,
| the fact that there is a market of large VPSs tells
| people don't to that. I don't think I will ever
| understand this, as I don't understand most people usage
| of AWS.)
| maxfurman wrote:
| Most buyers are simply not savvy enough to pick the most
| effective hosting. I worked for a small e-commerce
| operation years ago, they had essentially no technical
| expertise in-house, but they knew their products and
| their market. Odds are very low that their VPS
| arrangement was optimal but how would they know? As long
| as the site stayed up and the orders came in.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| > Or do we seriously expect that US companies will
| generate significant demand
|
| Yes I think so, presuming that there is not an over-
| supply of capacity.
|
| US companies would much rather rely on an EU country than
| one that is being threatened with invasion over a small
| gap of sea. US local supply will never be enough.
| float4 wrote:
| > US companies would much rather rely on an EU country
|
| Agreed
|
| > US local supply will never be enough.
|
| But you won't just have US supply. You'll have US _and_
| Taiwanese supply, and I don 't believe that Taiwan will
| happily let TSMC (the only cutting edge foundry left in
| the world, when you take Samsungs abysmal yields into
| account) build foundry redundancy in the western world.
|
| But we'll see, you could definitely end up being right. I
| just hope we'll invest at least an equal amount of money
| into chip design.
| lbriner wrote:
| I guess it depends what fabs you build but we have seen
| very large numbers of manufacturers desperate for
| components. A fab anywhere in Europe could easily supply
| any factories in Europe so there should be demand.
|
| On the other hand, if people are trying to build the
| cutting-edge, there might not be as much local demand
| since it is probably only needed for the latest IT
| equipment, most of which is built in the Far East.
| loufe wrote:
| > Chip War
|
| Thanks for the reference, just bought Chip War.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| > Europe is doing pretty good
|
| For this industry, you want as many verticals as you can to
| ensure supply. Have the early parts of the chain is great,
| but producing the end product is necessary too.
|
| You also see this problem the other way around, when a US
| company produces a chip design, but then actually gets it
| fabricated, packaged, integrated into a product, boxed, all
| in another country
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > it would be wise to start moving away from technological
| dependence on China asap.
|
| Not to defend China, but the west loves their cheap
| manufacturing, ask Apple, to name one.
|
| You can't blame them only when it suits you.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| China doesn't strike me as warmongering, per se.
|
| My read is that China is expansionistic, and military power is
| just one tool in their toolbox.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| It's a bad idea to depend on the outside for energy and
| resources in general. Not just on warmongering criminal
| dictators. Buying US gas for a fortune is far from ideal, for
| example. Not blaming anyone, obviously any country will look
| after themselves first. If resource scarcity starts hitting
| hard, we won't be able to expect external countries to just
| send us resources as if nothing happened, even if they are free
| countries and good allies.
|
| And that's without even mentioning that who knows which
| countries will be free and which will be dictatorships in 20-30
| years.
| wazoox wrote:
| You now that back in 1300BC tin to make bronze in Egypt or
| Greece was imported from far away Afghanistan? Do you know
| that in 10000BC people traded seashells in Siberia, thousands
| of km away from the ocean? It's a good idea to be as
| independent as possible, but no country was ever entirely
| self-sufficient. Not even North Korea.
| hahamaster wrote:
| But how? Develop advanced chip manufacturing in 5 years' time?
| Impossible.
| eastbound wrote:
| > Hopefully we'll do something like that here in the EU too.
|
| Sure! France is betting everything with investing for an Intel
| factory here, the non-fashionable manufacturer that is getting
| excluded of the market because their chip designs are outdated.
| If my tax revenue can be used to maintain old actors afloat and
| create jobs to teach the French how to do things that don't
| perform, I'm more than happy.
| bostonian10 wrote:
| steve1977 wrote:
| And it's not even a technological dependence strictly speaking,
| as pretty much all of the technology actually comes from the
| west. It's just manufacturing.
| jwr wrote:
| > We're experiencing the hard way how's like depending on the
| energy and resources of warmongering criminal dictators
|
| I'm not sure we're learning, though.
|
| At the moment, it seems that we are not only still buying the
| energy and resources from said warmongering criminal dictators
| (thus funding their war of aggression), but also setting up
| institutions to patrol gas pipelines, so that said dictator
| cannot blow them up as easily and so that we can buy even more
| resources from said dictator. You couldn't make this up.
|
| In light of this, I have little hope for rational policy making
| regarding China and chip production, unfortunately.
| vetinari wrote:
| > (thus funding their war of aggression)
|
| I see this repeated as a matra, in a way of Carthago delenda
| est.
|
| But it is not true. Said warmongering dictators do not need
| dollars or euros to wage any war. The entire chain of the war
| machine is in local currency, backed by local resources. They
| do not need anything there, that has to be bought for dollars
| or euros. They are not some third would countries that have
| to buy their weapons abroad.
|
| By repeating this mantra, we are only lying to ourselves.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > They do not need anything there, that has to be bought
| for dollars or euros. They are not some third would
| countries that have to buy their weapons abroad.
|
| they had their local currency forever. yet they developed
| very fast exactly at the same time as we started buying
| their goods. its not a coincidence. and yes China is a
| third world country by all metrics, its not because you
| have very modern centers like Shanghai, Beijing and more
| big cities like that that there is not utter misery in the
| countryside that would make you blush
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The entire chain of the war machine is in local currency,
| backed by local resources.
|
| Not really. There are already signs that the Russian
| military industry is in hot water now because there are
| _no_ Russian semiconductor fabs that can supply the type of
| chips needed for anything beyond dumb ballistic missiles
| [1]. And it 's not just chips, but also other basic
| electronic components or modules whose manufacturing has
| long since gone to China and other countries, some of which
| are under the scope of international sanctions against
| Russia.
|
| > They are not some third would countries that have to buy
| their weapons abroad.
|
| They are buying a ton of drones from Iran, for example, or
| Soviet-era stocks of artillery munition from North Korea
| [2].
|
| > Said warmongering dictators do not need dollars or euros
| to wage any war.
|
| Oh yes they do. No country on this planet is self-
| sufficient, not even the US. And it's not just about
| military equipment, it's about basic necessities of life,
| especially medicine and food. Russia needs money to buy
| these abroad, and for that they need foreign currency.
|
| [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-chips-are-down-
| russia-hu...
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/05/us/politics/russia-
| north-...
| LegitShady wrote:
| the CPP will provide them whatever they need in exchange
| for influence and power
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Darn you Bjarne!
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| underrated comment
| vetinari wrote:
| Western reports have to be taken with grain of salt; it
| was demonstrated that western journalists know exactly
| zero about the war and what you read is more wishful
| thinking than news. For example, there were reports of
| Russia running out of gas in march, and out of ammo in
| april, and our (I'm EU citizen, that's why "our") Ursula
| was talking about cannibalizing chips from wash machines.
| And yet, here we are, this all turned out to be nonsense.
|
| Same goes for "iranian" drones. Iran would have no idea
| how to start integrating them with russian C4ISR (note
| how the "mopeds" are observed by lancet drones); non-
| integrated drones would be OK for tactical, but not
| operational level of war-waging.
|
| Russia is closest thing to autarchy that you can find on
| this planet (US isn't even a player here, US
| deindustrialized itself in the name of cost cutting). The
| 2014 sanctions only helped in building such economy.
| Medicine is easy to clone, if you are not bothered with
| intellectual property (see also India) and they are net
| food exporter. Sure, some french cheese or wines could be
| missing, but they are not necessary for the war.
|
| But back to our topic: none of this means that buying
| energy is financing the war. It is there for conditioning
| western population to get used to more expensive energy
| (basic economic theory: the supply was cut, demand was
| preserved, the equilibrium moves). The oligarchs are
| going be laughing all the way to the bank. It is just
| surprising that someone with intelligence to be
| discussing on HN would be taking part of such
| conditioning, without realizing it.
| inkyoto wrote:
| > Not really. There are already signs that the Russian
| military industry is in hot water now because there are
| no Russian semiconductor fabs that can supply the type of
| chips needed for anything beyond dumb ballistic missiles
| [...]
|
| I don't know what your definition of <<the type of chips
| needed for anything beyond dumb [...]>> is, but - if I
| were to infer - _all_ chips manufactured for military
| needs are the dump chips, be it in China, or in Russia,
| or in South Korea, or in the US etc.
|
| Military does not chase cutting-edge, smallest nanometer
| manufacturing facilities nor do they look for fancy 3D
| stacked L1 CPU caches and alike, the ones we encounter in
| consumer tailored microchips (MC's). MC's produced for
| the military sector 1) are always several generations
| behind the consumer counterparts; 2) are slower; 3) get
| subjected to extreme and very rigorous testing, e.g.
| getting baked in specially designed ovens; 4) they come
| with hardened shells to later get subjected to
| irradiation; 5) likely something else. Surviving
| specimens make it into missiles and elsewhere, for all is
| required for a missile is a chip that will be guaranteed
| to not have failed a mission.
|
| Freescale (ex-Motorola) and Texas Instruments are two of
| the largest MC manufacturing contractors in the US. They
| have separate lines set up for consumer and military
| needs, with the military contracts taking a priority. I
| can't be bothered to check whether Intel or AMD have
| clandestine US DoD contracts but it is safe to assume so.
| When Motorola used to manufacture their own MC's, they
| also had two separate lines for the highly sought after
| DSP's, 56k and 96k series. There were two versions, a
| hardened one (prohibited for export out of the US), and
| the consumer version (with somewhat more relaxed export
| controls for the 56k series but not for the 96k series).
| _Tolerance_ specs of the hardened version were classified
| at the time.
|
| Back onto Russia. To cut it short, it is a case of
| hypocrisy on both sides as propaganda has been busy
| working on both sides. Soviet Union (and later, Russia)
| has been self-sustained, self-contained and has been
| manufacturing their own chips since late 1960s - early
| 1970s with always prioritising military needs over the
| consumer needs. They have never chased the latest designs
| or developments, but their stuff has been reliable where
| required.
|
| It is not easy to assess their current situation due to
| the information disclosure suppresion and also due to
| prior reports of embezzlement on a unfathomable scale
| having taken place in Russia specifically when it comes
| to military contracts. What it is known with a fairly
| high degree of certainty is that Russia had commenced a
| 90 nm manufacturing facility as early as 2014[*]. There
| have also been sketchy reports that they have since moved
| on to a 28 nm process. Finding a reliable source is not
| easy, though.
|
| Either way, chips that have been produced to a 90 (or 28
| nm) process and have been subjected to hardcore testing
| requirements are good enough to drive missiles (likely,
| other military equipment too). Provided chip
| manufacturing facilities are still operating in
| Zelenograd, their output will be prioritised in the
| current political environment, and it will receive a
| priority funding in the local currency. One ought not to
| underestimate the adversary and ought to be wary of the
| creativity they may come up with once having been
| cornered.
|
| Emperor Poo of All Russia has been demonstrating the
| world that he is willing to drive his never be, imaginary
| empire into the ground at any cost - in order to fulfil
| his ultimate wet dream of crowning himself as the first
| Galactic Emperor Poo, and, since Russia has been making
| their own silicon wafers, the MC manufacturing situation
| is not all that black or white - until more is known for
| sure.
|
| [*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikron_Group
| mk89 wrote:
| > Said warmongering dictators do not need dollars or euros
| to wage any war.
|
| And how do they pay for "things"?
| vetinari wrote:
| In roubles, for example.
|
| Its not like those who are paid in roubles would have any
| use for any other currency. Everything they need can be
| paid for in roubles, turtles all the way down.
|
| Sure, you won't get iphone, porsche or gucci wares for
| that, but those are not necessary to wage the war.
| troad wrote:
| > Sure, you won't get iphone, porsche or gucci wares for
| that
|
| This is where your argument breaks down. Russia imports
| vast amounts of manufactured goods that it doesn't have
| the capacity to make itself, including basic military and
| basic consumer goods, and for which it needs something
| that their trade partners might conceivably want. Which
| ain't roubles, for the most part.
| vetinari wrote:
| > that it doesn't have the capacity to make itself,
| including basic military and basic consumer goods,
|
| They do have capacity to fully cover their entire
| military needs.
|
| For consumer goods, they are trading with China, India
| and other countries in a mix of currencies, that includes
| rouble.
|
| The freezing of their USD and EUR assets was a huge
| mistake; it demonstrated to the world that such assets
| are not safe.
| troad wrote:
| This just doesn't reflect reality at all. There are vast
| drops in the domestic production of things like cars
| (-85%), motors (-70%), and white-goods (-50%) due to a
| collapsed import chain. (Russian government source: https
| ://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/87_01-06-2022.html)
| Key economic indicators are flashing red - e.g. non-
| tax/oil tax revenues are down 20% YoY (Russian Finance
| Ministry figures from last week). If these are the
| official Russian government stats, it's likely the real
| numbers are much worse.
|
| Cars and motors are dual use goods (so the collapse of
| Russian domestic manufacturing of them is militarily
| relevant), but even setting those aside and looking
| purely at single-use military goods, there's persuasive
| evidence that the Russian military is increasingly
| reliant on Iranian drones and equipment (https://www.al-
| monitor.com/originals/2022/10/russias-use-ira...). Vast
| numbers of Russian equipment have been confirmed
| destroyed or captured by observers such as Oryx, and
| those are just the visually confirmed losses you can
| check the evidence for yourself
| (https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-
| docum...). No country would be able to replace those
| losses without switching to a full war economy, which
| Russia has not done (and which would only be a necessary
| but not sufficient condition for replenishing these kinds
| of losses).
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's an "EU Chips Act" happening as well:
| https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/a-revitalized-semicon...
|
| It makes sense. ASML are in the Netherlands, as are NXP. ST are
| in France. Germany has quite a bit of semiconductor production
| for the automotive industry.
|
| It'll be slow and expensive to get there though. There's not
| many places in the EU where you could simply drop a Shenzen in,
| demolishing historic buildings and natural environment along
| the way.
| AdamN wrote:
| They're not going to build a fab in downtown Heidelberg :-)
|
| There are plenty of industrial parks available near
| transportation, water, and electricity in Europe to build
| this out. This also aligns with how the modern chip ecosystem
| works where the fab components are coming from Europe, the
| advanced chips are coming from Taiwan, other chips are coming
| from across SEA, and final assembly is happening in China.
| What I suspect will happen is that Europe will start printing
| advanced chips and most of them will be shipped to China for
| integration. If a conflict/dispute breaks out, switching to
| European assemblers will be expensive but totally doable with
| a short-term investment (2-3 years??)
| Animatronio wrote:
| Yes, those pesky medieval castles all over the place. And
| narrow cobbled streets, only two riders abreast. Those are
| the major problems of Europe, not bureaucracy and indecision
| at the highest level.
| jacooper wrote:
| Both can and are part of the problem.
| steve1977 wrote:
| Also, there are laws to protect the environment in Europe.
| We've conveniently outsourced the dirty work to China etc.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| How did we outsource it? We still have semiconductor
| manufacturing in EU. It's just way behind the cutting edge,
| and not because it's cleaner than the one in US or Taiwan.
|
| Semiconductor manufacturing is dirty business. I live in
| the EU next to one such fab and whenever local
| environmental concerns are raised about the fab, since
| nasty chemicals are sometimes found in the river the plant
| uses, the official response is always "the exact process is
| confidential, we cannot allow external inspectors inside,
| but we can pinky swear we conform to all regulations via
| self audits" and the government rolls with that as the
| unofficial response is "stop bothering us about the
| environment or we relocate production to Asia and you're
| left with a bunch of unemployed engineers and tax hole in
| your city coffers".
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> ST are in France. _
|
| Yeah, about that:
|
| _" STMicroelectronics N.V. commonly referred as ST or
| STMicro is a Dutch multinational corporation and technology
| company of French-Italian origin headquartered in Plan-les-
| Ouates near Geneva, Switzerland"_
|
| The lengths French and Italian corporations will go to to
| avoid taxes and red tape in their home countries, it's almost
| poetic. Even Airbus is now headquartered in Leiden,
| Netherlands instead of it's original place of Blagnac,
| France.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Why would you want to pay more taxes and become
| uncompetitive if you can avoid it?
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| I get that many individuals and companies see taxes as
| wasted money or theft, but taxes pay to fund the
| education of the workforce that will work for said
| corporations and fund the infrastructure used by said
| corporations to build and transport their goods,
| including stuff like courts which companies can use do
| protect their IP or military force projection to protect
| their assets and investments abroad.
|
| Without the skilled workforce or infrastructure the
| company will for sure not be competitive.
|
| What most big companies are now doing to get insanely
| wealthy is have most governments foot the bill for the
| infrastructure, protection, and education of their
| workforce, while all the profits from the fruit of their
| labor go directly to shareholders and the governments
| don't see a dime in taxes so stuff like education,
| healthcare and infrastructure is falling apart while
| corporate profits have never been higher.
| Symbiote wrote:
| TSMC is Taiwanese with factories in Taiwan.
| Aromasin wrote:
| Already being planned by Intel. They're building a new leading
| edge fab in Magdeburg, Germany [1]. This is backed by the new
| European Chips Act [2]. Wheels have started turning very
| quickly with regards to home-grown semiconductors in 2022.
|
| [1]
| https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/newsroom/news/eu-n...
| [2]
| https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_...
| xiphias2 wrote:
| If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good for
| EU?
|
| It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what would
| be in its interest.
| AdamN wrote:
| Intel has lots of leading edge fabs in the US and continues
| to build them. They made some business mistakes around not
| opening up their chip design the way ARM enabled ... but
| the tech capacity is all there. Now they are doing contract
| production for chips that they did not design so I expect
| them to catch up in a few years.
| huijzer wrote:
| Meanwhile Chris Miller in Chip War argues that Intel will
| fail again since nobody wants to give their secrets to
| Intel. If you're Apple, for example, then handing over
| chip designs to Intel isn't ideal in terms of
| competition.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| BirAdam wrote:
| Intel is still holds the market on laptops and desktops at
| about 3/4. They simply push more volume. TSMC makes desktop
| chips for Apple, but Apple isn't the majority. The rest of
| TSMC's production is almost exclusively GPUs and phones,
| and this could change. If Intel executes well on their next
| nodes, and should TSMC slip at all, Intel could pull ahead.
| Never count Intel out. People thought Intel would die after
| the z80 ate their lunch, after the Athlon 64 ate their
| lunch, and now they say it again... I think it's all just
| noise.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| The market isn't laptops/desktops and phones,
| _everything_ has ICs in it these days. Laptops /desktops
| and phones are just the high-margin items.
|
| The blast-radius for non-intel chip fabricators is much
| wider and impactful for the economy
| BirAdam wrote:
| Sure, but most of the rest isn't leading edge and more
| manufacturers are in that space, including TSMC and
| Intel.
| totalZero wrote:
| Intel is making the right capex moves to position itself
| for a future situation where Taiwanese production could get
| interrupted. Intel is right alongside TSMC and Samsung at
| the leading edge and it would be an exaggeration to suggest
| otherwise. Marginal differences in road map and quality
| over the short term don't tell us the full picture in a
| business where course-corrections take years and years to
| bear fruit.
|
| 20B in Ohio: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsro
| om/news/intel-...
|
| 20B in Arizona: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/new
| sroom/news/intel-...
| sofixa wrote:
| > If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good
| for EU?
|
| Who said they're not good enough? They're slightly worse
| than TSMC, but still put out competitive chips for
| desktops, laptops and servers. Slightly more expensive,
| slightly higher power consumption but still, perfectly
| acceptable and still the market leader in some areas.
|
| > It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what
| would be in its interest.
|
| No, it's not clear. Why would the EU do that? They did the
| best they could given the very limited choice present.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| How leading edge will Intel's Germany fab be when it's
| finished? 10nm++?
|
| While TSMC will be on what, 1nm by then?
|
| Intel's PR link doesn't go into details on this.
| Aromasin wrote:
| It will be whatever the latest node is at completion, so
| most likely Intel 3 or Intel 20A [1]. It was Pat
| Gelsinger's pledge to get Intel's node roadmap back on
| track when he joined as CEO just under 2 years ago. From
| what they've been submitting papers wise to industry
| forums, IEEE Synopsium and the like, they're on track to
| deliver 20A by 2025. I recommend following the progress of
| Intel's new "Intel Foundry Services" business segment.
|
| [1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/i
| ntel-...
|
| [2] https://www.granitefirm.com/blog/us/2021/12/28/tsmc-
| process-...
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Intel's "10nm+" (non-EUV) processors compete rather
| fiercely with AMD's "5nm" (EUV) processors. The latter are
| weirdly not 2x better, not even close, on any metric. Hm.
| girvo wrote:
| While they may be powerful, and they definitely are,
| they're pushing out quite a bit more heat and requiring a
| decent amount more power to get there.
|
| Though it's impressive how much efficiency they've
| squeezed out of that node regardless.
|
| But to say that TSMCs process doesn't confer large
| advantages is silly. Intel even uses them for their new
| discrete graphics cards -- they wouldn't have been able
| to compete otherwise (among other less interesting
| business reasons)
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| competes???? in what universe?
|
| have looked at perf per W?
| huijzer wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence, but I do know that my 12th gen Intel
| can burn through 10% of battery in 10 minutes. That is to
| say that Intel is doing really poorly in power
| consumption.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _power consumption_
|
| It really depends on the model. I see, for example, Kaby
| Lake Y models with a TDP of 4.5W . Though, in general,
| yes, many report that Intel is not taking power
| consumption as a priority (which does not mean that they
| do not offer niche "ultra/extremely-low power" products).
| mdp2021 wrote:
| Will the renegade snipers make their point explicit.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I always find it odd that companies always want to be build
| things outside of their home state
|
| TSMC -> US
|
| Intel -> EU
|
| Toyota -> US
|
| Honda -> US
|
| Ford -> MX / Canada
|
| GM -> MX / Canada
| bfgoodrich wrote:
| These are all _international_ companies. Ford of Canada
| builds in Canada. GM of Canada builds in Canada. Honda US
| builds in the US.
|
| It's incredibly provincial to think of multinational
| companies so simply.
| huijzer wrote:
| The most common reason is typically cheaper labour. That's
| why Nike produced in Japan and then moved to even cheaper
| countries. Related might be that some countries have a lot
| of knowledge workers in their 40-50s who can then manage
| factories in other countries. Japanse companies producing
| cars in Europe is an example of that.
|
| For the current trend to move to the US. That has to be
| government funding. Luckily, fabs require large investments
| at the start which might break-even more expensive labor.
| Also, maybe some more automation in the fabs could also
| help in making the fabs cost competitive.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>typically cheaper labour.
|
| While a factor, labor costs alone are the primary reason.
| In reality is more about the wider regulatory burden on a
| company, including environmental controls
|
| That said it does not explain why a Japan Company can
| make cars profitably in the US but a US Manufacturer can
| not.
|
| If it was only labor why would Toyota not have a factory
| right next to GM's in Mexico and import cars from Mexico
| to the US?
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| I guess its that the Japanese Company can make cars
| profitably anywhere but making cars for the US market in
| the US means there's no/less import taxes, also because
| the factories are huge they often get local tax breaks,
| and the cars may also eligible for EV/hybrid tax credits
| (I think Toyota have sold over 200K so there cars can no
| longer get this).
|
| I think making cars in Mexico for the US became less
| worthwhile when Trump pulled the US out of NAFTA.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >US became less worthwhile when Trump pulled the US out
| of NAFTA.
|
| lol, trump did not "pull the US Out of NAFTA" not only is
| that not with in the power of the president to do, it was
| never on the table, NATA was replaced with USMCA, and
| only made a few small changes, for Automotive that means
| 75% of the vehicle components must be made in MX, US, or
| Canada, up from 64% under NAFTA
|
| Nothing in the law would impact making at car in the US
| vs MX, and was aimed at preventing increased parts from
| China or other non-north American nations, and all of the
| changes were passed by congress with wide bipartisan
| support
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| OK - but he signed a deal with Mexico that replaced it
| and didn't the new deal mean that more parts had to be
| from the US and half the car factory workers needed to
| pay $16 an hour - which would make Mexico less
| attractive?
| phpisthebest wrote:
| > didn't the new deal mean that more parts had to be from
| the US and half the car factory workers needed to pay $16
| an hour
|
| Both were proposed changes that were not adopted in the
| final version.
| lmz wrote:
| I thought Japanese car factories in the US were all non-
| union (as opposed to the US brands)? Toyota does have a
| Mexico factory at least according to Wikipedia.
| bluedino wrote:
| Correct, the Honda/Toyota plants in the USA are non-
| union.
|
| Interestingly enough the "Clean Energy for America" bill
| pushes for additional tax incentives on EV's built by
| companies using union labor:
|
| _More specifically, the proposal says that electric
| vehicles assembled in the United States would qualify for
| a $10,000 tax credit while EVs that are built at
| facilities whose production workers are members of, or
| represented by, a labor union would be eligible for the
| full $12,500 credit._
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Aren't clauses like this just a clear cut sign of
| corruption?
|
| It doesn't even make a lot of sense as an incentive to
| have workers unionize, since why would workers care what
| price what they're selling cars for. The law would only
| exist to benefit existing unions.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| It's not that odd that international companies would build
| local facilities for major markets they're selling into.
| Toyota sold cars to the US, and building plants here made
| sense relative to that for a variety of economic and
| political reasons. Everyone makes more money together so
| everyone's happy with the arrangement.
|
| I find it more odd to presume that corporations have some
| nationalistic competitive interest.
| atq2119 wrote:
| Cars are big and heavy, and so building them near the
| buyer has a logistics benefit. Chips have higher value
| per weight and size by orders of magnitude.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| Chips are strategically valuable, would the EU back a
| competitor to have local manufacturing capacity?
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Toyota -> US
|
| you dont pay tariffs if you produce locally. not hard to
| understand.
| zrail wrote:
| Toyota builds trucks in the US because of the chicken
| tax.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
| indymike wrote:
| Three reasons:
|
| 1. By operating a local subsidiary, you avoid unfavorable
| regulation and sometimes protectionism
| (Toyota/Honda/Intel).
|
| 2. Cost savings (transportation, labor, taxes, etc).
|
| 3.Proximity to customers.
| FieryTransition wrote:
| We are already on the way, as the EU is securing investments of
| 43 billion euro for the semiconductor industry[0]. We also have
| ASML, which TSMC are heavily relying on, since no one makes the
| machines they do.
|
| [0]
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BR...
| Ruq wrote:
| Can we even get any smaller than a nanometer?
| bsmitty5000 wrote:
| My first job out of school was final test for a semiconductor in
| Phoenix that had a small fab in Gilbert. I remember we took a
| rabbit suited tour there as part of the new hire orientation, it
| was pretty neat. The one thing though that stuck with me is how
| much water a fab needs on a daily basis. I can't remember the
| exact number, I just remember thinking how stupid it was to build
| fabs in Phoenix.
|
| But then again, the amount of lawns and greenways in Phoenix
| compared to a place like Tucson, it's pretty clear most folks in
| Phoenix don't much care about water conservation.
| cronix wrote:
| It's like a swimming pool. It takes a lot of water to initially
| fill it, but then it's cleaned and mostly recirculated/reused.
| In 2020, Intel used less water per chip than they did in 2010.
|
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/water-...
| jiggyjace wrote:
| I'm from Arizona and have thus wondered this and researched the
| perceived water dilemma myself. Fabs do need a considerable
| injection of water to start, but their systems are so advanced
| and their logistics so efficient that they end up reusing so
| much of it over time. Couple this with the fact that Arizona
| also has a great infrastructure already in place for water
| reuse and conservation. When Arizona had only 700,000 people in
| the 1950s, they used more water than they do now for 7,100,000
| people. And it's still in the top 3 fastest growing states in
| the US (both by new relative to existing population, but also
| by total incoming population volume). Models also indicate that
| the once-in-a-century drought is coming to an end in the next
| few years, with huge rainfall amounts the last two years in the
| state.
|
| There was a great ArsTechnica article and subsequent comment
| section where many of the water questions are addressed:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/why-do-chip-makers-k...
| throwaway365435 wrote:
| As an Arizona native, occasionally my paranoia about living
| in a desert and simultaneously living through world wide
| climate change begins to really worry me.
|
| Inevitably I come to a conclusion that is very similar to
| yours. Arizona is pretty low on priority for water from the
| Colorado River and does a great job with water reclamation.
|
| That being said, I worry if I'm just believing what I want to
| hear
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| At the very least, living in a desert is better for climate
| change than living somewhere you need to burn fossil fuels
| for heating.
| bl4ckneon wrote:
| Though you need a lot more AC during the summer.
| Something solar could provide but until it's more
| ubiquitous most power would still come from fossil fuels.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I wonder if they can reuse the water? I don't know enough to
| know if this is PR speak or real.
|
| https://www.globalwaterintel.com/news/2022/44/tsmc-leans-mor...
| menshiki wrote:
| Great news for the US. Great news for Apple, AMD, and Nvidia. Not
| so good news for Taiwan. The fact that the whole tech world is
| dependent on chips produced in Hsinchu is a huge advantage for
| the safety of Taiwan. Moving the fabs and talent further away
| from the island will not benefit the people of Taiwan at all.
| TSMC with its global influence has been a huge factor for
| guaranteeing safety of the island and peace in the Taiwan strait.
| On the other hand, TSMC is a corporation like every other and
| does what's best for their business. Most likely it's a huge win
| for everyone holding their stock. Are we going to see fabs in
| Central/Eastern Europe next? I'd hope so.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Not so good news for Taiwan.
|
| Doubtful. This is obviously in exchange for continued military
| support from America. Protection from the world's greatest Navy
| is well worth a single chip plant.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Fair point, but the rest of the world will still be customers
| for chips made in Taiwan, and US defense promises to Taiwan are
| likely worth more if the economic flows are not just
| unidirectional.
| pphysch wrote:
| > TSMC with its global influence has been a huge factor for
| guaranteeing safety of the island and peace in the Taiwan
| strait.
|
| This narrative is echoed around the internet, but if you study
| the actual history of the Taiwan Strait Crises (which started
| before the semiconductor was invented), it never comes up in
| official discussion or analysis. See Kissinger, for example.
|
| Cynically, this narrative was possibly promoted by the
| USG/Taiwan-lobby to put lipstick on what has always been a
| naked display of power politics. Washington wants its First
| Island Chain to contain China [1], and Beijing doesn't want
| Washington to have it.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_chain_strategy
| eagleinparadise wrote:
| The real reason we care so much... just look into how power
| is created by international laws allow landmasses to project
| power X number of miles out into the ocean. That control
| plays right into the most influential lanes of commerce in
| the world.
|
| Sometimes, real life feels like a game of Command and Conquer
| or Risk, when you zoom back out and boil things down to their
| most simple form.
| wahern wrote:
| > Cynically, this narrative was possibly promoted by the
| USG/Taiwan-lobby to put lipstick on what has always been a
| naked display of power politics.
|
| I also suspect this narrative is at the very least supported
| if not conceived by Taiwan as propaganda. But we don't need
| to be cynical. What this narrative does is establish in the
| minds of Americans a shared interest in Taiwan and, arguably,
| even a shared identity. That's not intrinsically bad,
| malicious, nor even disingenuous on the part of the
| Taiwanese. Especially for a country as large and resource
| rich (in every meaning of the term) as the United States, all
| overseas interests and identities are built principally on
| fictions; some built very deliberately, but many which grew
| organically. IMO, the high technology dependency narrative
| fits comfortably between pure ideology (democratic
| solidarity!) and pure real politick, e.g. oil. Unlike the
| case with oil interests, the narrative speaks to a
| coevolution of our industrial and economic bases on equal
| terms in tandem with political ideology, and thus posits a
| shared future. And given how quickly and easily the narrative
| has spread, it has a strong organic character to it--even if
| Taiwanese political strategists planted the seeds, the soil
| was more than accommodating.
|
| Such a crafted narrative to me seems more like an invitation
| than manipulation. (Either way, admittedly such
| characterizations are dependent on one's chosen perspective.)
| Nonetheless, it should be recognized for what it is; taken
| literally it leads to erroneous conclusions. If the U.S.
| aggressively defends Taiwan in an invasion attempt, it won't
| be because of TSMC and fears of a chip shortage; it'll be
| because the American public has become invested in the _idea_
| of a free and democratic Taiwan, and willing to believe and
| accept that the US 's long-term self-interests are furthered
| by putting itself and its citizens in the way of
| considerable, even existential harm. The story of TSMC would
| just be one of many--albeit an important one--along the road
| which brought the nation to that state of mind.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Does China still want Taiwan if it's no longer technologically
| relevant? My understanding is that China is making similar
| strides in its own chip industry to the point where TSMC won't
| be as nearly as useful to them in 10 years as it is now.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Taiwan is the only place China can have a deep water port
| required by a fleet of nuclear submarines. Mainland coast
| waters are too shallow.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Taiwan does far more than just TSMC. That is just one single
| company, albeit a very essential one. For instance, I don't
| like to buy hand tools (impact sockets, torque wrenches, etc)
| made in China, but Taiwanese tools are a higher quality and I
| have no hesitation purchasing them.
| pifm_guy wrote:
| I suspect that the hand tools made in China aren't low
| quality because China doesn't have the tech to make them
| better, but instead because making cheap low quality tools
| is more profitable.
|
| In fact, when taking apart China-made, China-designed
| products, I am frequently very impressed at cost-cutting
| measures that are taken with minimal impact on the
| functionality of the product.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Essential for you. But overall tsmc eclipses everything
| else Taiwan makes.
|
| If Taiwan stopped making those tools you would be impacted.
| The world overall... not so much.
| paperskull wrote:
| Taiwan also serves the role as an unsinkable battleship right
| next door to Chinas mainland. Its military value extends far
| beyond its chip production capabilities in order for the US
| to check Chinas influence in SEA region.
| wahern wrote:
| The U.S. military doesn't stage _any_ assets in Taiwan, not
| since shortly after rapprochement with China and
| establishment of the current strategic ambiguity. The U.S.
| military is very careful about both _what_ and _who_ it
| officially permits to land on Taiwan. Occasionally (on the
| order of years) there are borderline cases, such as a
| research vessel with U.S. Navy ties docking in Taiwan, and
| it becomes a huge thing in the Chinese media. AFAIU, high-
| level officers are rarely if ever given permission to enter
| Taiwan; direct military liaisons in Taiwan are limited to
| lower level staff officers. When this protocol is broken it
| 's a tit-for-tat situation designed to send a message, and
| doesn't change anything of substance in how the
| relationship operates.
|
| Anyhow, the U.S. has no need nor desire to establish a
| presence on Taiwan. Okinawa and Korea are more than close
| enough for its purposes, peaceful or otherwise. And if the
| U.S. were to try to establish a presence, you can be sure
| China's invasion fleet would reach Taiwan before any
| significant U.S. materiel could make it ashore.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Yes.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| It is categorically NOT a huge win for the stock. This is all
| happening because of US subsidies.
|
| The US has more expensive workers who are overall worse at the
| job and don't have the expertise to be compete with the people
| in Taiwan.
|
| The subsidies only make this a viable option for political
| reasons. The decision to create a fab in Arizona is strictly
| speaking unprofitable and essentially a economically irrational
| move for the company.
|
| It is ONLY being done because of US demand and political
| tension from China. For a shareholder this move is not good
| when looking at it in terms of profit.
|
| I know this is a hard pill to swallow but it's true.
|
| Don't joke about Europe. The best place for tsmc to expand is
| actually china. But this won't happen for various reasons that
| we all know about.
| ScoobleDoodle wrote:
| The "various reasons we all know about" I'm guessing are:
| theft of intellectual property, theft of the technology and
| skills.
|
| I wonder if Arizona US will be an easier espionage point than
| Taiwan for China to exfiltrate the tech.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Espionage is a minor reason. Trivial really.
|
| The main reason is the looming threat of invasion of Taiwan
| from China. Such an action is catastrophic for Taiwan and
| the US. I thought this was obvious. Guess not.
|
| The US is an easier espionage point for the US to steal
| technology from Taiwan. Most likely it will happen. But
| simple espionage isn't enough for this technology to fully
| transfer. The expertise and knowhow is just too
| challenging.
|
| Do not let your patriotism blind you from the moral
| grayness that operates within the US as well.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Does TSMC "own" the technology? Because their fabs are
| wholly dependent on ASML, a Dutch company. And they're
| using that to produce tech that's designed in the west as
| well.
| t-3 wrote:
| Right, only culturally European people know how to do
| anything. Those Taiwanese are just factory workers, no
| expertise at all, that's why Intel is in such good shape
| these days. Chipmaking is obviously so easy the only
| reason we let them do it is to keep the price down. /s
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| They obviously have expertise, the point is that the
| parent was implying that all the tech involved is
| exclusively TSMC's, which is also wrong. The parent
| literally said the US is trying to "steal" TSMC's
| technology...
|
| So maybe read my comment in context instead of implying
| racism right off the bat SMH.
| chrischen wrote:
| Well if TSMC is not doing anything valuable then someone
| tell the shareholders because ASML is worth almost only
| half of TSMC.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Why is Apple worth more than ARM and TSMC?
| dgfitz wrote:
| Software
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| I know the answer. It was rhetorical.
|
| Also you missed that the closer you get to the consumer,
| the more units you sell. There's less purchasers of tools
| than consumers.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> I wonder if Arizona US will be an easier espionage point
| than Taiwan for China to exfiltrate the tech.
|
| For a US company, probably. They seem to pick up Chinese
| Ph.D.s with ease.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I see this as a bargaining chip between US and China. Both
| sides "win".
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Possibly. But tsmc itself loses by moving the fabs to a
| much more expensive area.
| boc wrote:
| > The US has more expensive workers who are overall worse at
| the job and don't have the expertise to be compete with the
| people in Taiwan.
|
| Putting the rest of your statement aside, this is a very
| silly thing to say. The United States invented the IC and
| started silicon age. Integrated circuits made in Silicon
| Valley were literally on the moon at the same time that
| Taiwan was still an incredibly poor country living under
| martial law.
|
| Maybe today there aren't the exact people in the US to
| compete with Taiwan on this chipmaking process, but that
| doesn't mean the US lacks the ability to compete. It's not
| about general country-wide work ethic. If the right person to
| get the job done is a one-in-a-million person... well the US
| has 330 of them vs 23 in Taiwan.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Things change. As of right now the US can't compete.
|
| In the past the US could compete, but that doesn't speak to
| the status quo.
|
| In the future the US may change but this is unknown. It may
| very well be the US will never recover. This is a realistic
| possibility.
|
| Either way the status quo is that the US is currently
| inferior to Asia in terms of semiconductors.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| That may or may not be true, but making them is a
| prerequisite for improving.
|
| Asian labor may be cheaper and better, but relying on
| resources with precarious ties to authoritarian regimes
| has its own cost.
|
| Sometimes 'best' encompasses more than just bottom-line
| and functional metrics.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Well, that is certainly the Chinese government's take on
| things.
|
| Your posts suggest that the US should just give up and
| let Asia -- more specifically China -- dominate
| semiconductors forever because US workers are lazy, fat,
| and stupid. Am I characterizing your position correctly?
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| No. My posts suggest none of that.
|
| I am simply stating the truth. It is from the perspective
| of a tsmc shareholder not a patriotic American who wants
| to beat china for no other reason then being the best.
|
| As a tsmc shareholder one part of your post is correct.
| US workers are unfortunately lazier and slower and more
| expensive. Not necessarily stupider. You characterized
| this part of my position partially correctly.
|
| As for what the US should or should not do, I never
| commented on that. Your patriotism and defensiveness
| specifically injected rivalry into your response. I
| literally have no opinion on what Taiwan or China or the
| US should do. I am neutral on that front.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| > US workers are unfortunately lazier and slower and more
| expensive
|
| Wow. At least you aren't hiding your nationalistic bias.
| ferrumfist wrote:
| > US workers are unfortunately lazier and slower and more
| expensive
|
| I guess we just kinda stumbled into being one of the
| wealthiest and most developed countries in the world
| while having the lazier/slowest/most expensive workforce.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| I guess it was technically the workforce that did those
| coups and invasions whenever it seemed that the resource
| pipes might be turned off.
| coredog64 wrote:
| IBM and Intel are competitive with TSMC and Samsung when
| it comes to ability to cram transistors onto wafers. This
| idea that only Taiwan/TSMC knows how to fab is light
| years from reality.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Well that wasn't my idea? You simply assumed that was my
| idea without me saying it.
|
| The idea that tsmc and Samsung can fab better then the US
| is unequivocally true.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| Good thing a stock price is about the future growth of a
| company. Hell, many public companies are valued at billions
| but still take a yearly loss. They are "subsidizing" their
| own growth in a sense.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Stock price encompasses many things. Overall outlook is
| good. However the Arizona plant is not a good move for the
| company.
|
| Your post looks like a rationalization of your own
| purchasing decisions. If this is a correct observation I
| would self reflect on your own biases.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| After flooding took out most of the world's magnetic hard
| drive manufacturing capacity, it seemed clear that
| absolute efficiency in the immediate sense was the enemy
| of a robust long term manufacturer. I'm not sure why
| human v human threats are being heeded when nature v
| human ones were not, but diversifying your locations
| absolutely makes sense. There are some geographic
| constraints to where locating fabs make sense. And cost
| of living has to be balanced with the need for knowledge
| workers.
|
| If you ran TSMC and you wanted to be sure no single
| disaster or war destroyed your whole manufacturing
| capability, where would you put the fabs? China's coast
| seems too close disaster wise and the same war that would
| dust your TW masks might destroy those too. Middle east
| maybe for climate and shipping logistics? Then one in the
| EU, perhaps spain? North america is probably third
| choice, and between climate and cartels that probably
| means the US. If third pick is paying you to go there,
| maybe it does make good sense.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Vietnam, Korea, many parts of Asia. The US is a arbitrary
| choice. It is done because of the shared rivalry the US
| has with Taiwan against China.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I think you are certainly right, but why focus on Asia
| exclusively as a second fab location? One earthquake
| could flood all of them. As I said, oil giants in the
| middle east trying to diversify seems pretty ideal. I
| only suggested EU for the knowledge workers and it faces
| a different ocean.
| coredog64 wrote:
| From a geopolitical standpoint, US investment in
| Vietnam's manufacturing capability would put pressure on
| China. China is trying to move up the value chain with
| Vietnam already eating their lunch on the low end.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Short-sighted comment. You know how you develop expertise?
| That's right, you invest in it.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Long sigted. The investment starts from scratch. Why not
| invest in some places cheaper? Why not invest in a place
| that has better expertise?
|
| Overall the long term vision is to wrestle some control
| away from China. That is the long term bet the US and tsmc
| are ultimately making and what's driving the decision. But
| economically this is a bad bet.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| The why is obvious. Not having vital infra solely in the
| hands of a potential enemy is strategy 101.
|
| Economics are but one factor of many.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| coredog64 wrote:
| > The US has more expensive workers who are overall worse at
| the job and don't have the expertise to be compete with the
| people in Taiwan.
|
| GMAFB. Intel has several of their fabs in the Phoenix metro
| area, they're another 3-5 major players in the area, and
| there's a talent pipeline from the local University into
| these companies.
|
| Intel's problems aren't an inability to fab, it's an
| inability to translate their design language into the new,
| smaller process.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| It's universally well known that Asian workers work harder
| and can be paid less.
|
| It's not just about intels capabilities. It's about
| economic wage standards. The cost is just too high in the
| US.
|
| That being said tsmc workers in Taiwan are by far more
| capable then Intel this is proven by the 3nm process of
| which Intel is completely incapable of achieving.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Chip-making isn't the same as sewing together cheap
| trinkets, and the Chinese economy has changed to support
| a growing middle-class so the reality of Chinese labor
| costs has drifted from the stereotype in recent years
| (especially in the domain of skilled labor).
|
| Not to mention the lack of seismic activity and humidity
| that AZ offers.
| davrosthedalek wrote:
| What percentage of the chip cost is the wage cost? This
| might be relevant for a 90uM process, but I think at 4nm,
| the wages are a minuscule part of the production costs.
| deltaseventhree wrote:
| Should be a huge portion of the cost. The material is
| just silicon. The expertise and know how that goes into
| this is where most of the money goes. For Taiwan, this
| expertise is better, faster and cheaper.
| adwn wrote:
| You're forgetting about the billions of USD that go into
| buying the machines that make up the fab.
|
| > _The material is just silicon._
|
| No, a lot of chemicals are required as well.
| arghnoname wrote:
| I always feel there's some implicit racism or belief in
| cultural superiority or something at play in these
| discussions. Anyone who has gone to grad school can see
| pretty plainly that the top schools are stuffed with
| Chinese and Indian nationals. They're capable and they
| work hard. Some of them, not a small number, go back
| home. Further, western industry set up shop in Asia for
| their own reasons and brought their expertise over.
|
| The west had a lead, but 'we' trained Asians at our top
| institutions and worked closely with Asian manufacturers
| so that they can make our most sophisticated products
| more cheaply. There are a lot more people in Asia, and
| high relative poverty and cultural practices encourage a
| higher degree of scholastic achievement. Of course
| they're beating us now.
|
| Outside of a very explicit and intense effort to develop
| domestic talent and retain foreign talent (or bloody
| wars), the west probably won't ever really lead ever
| again. This was the obvious outcome decades ago, but
| these things take time. The gap will grow and will extend
| up the value chain--western nations will do protectionism
| to try to slow this (e.g., Huawei, current chip
| restrictions), but cat's out of the bag.
|
| I don't think it's a good or a bad thing from a global
| perspective. It just is. The great power competition that
| may result, wars, etc, is a very bad thing. The US in
| particular should compete as best it can, but it's best
| for everyone if we learn to live in a multipolar world.
| ahkurtz wrote:
| You have posted many times in the thread saying the same
| thing, but slightly moderated because you got flagged.
|
| You said elsewhere "things change" regarding labor force
| quality. They do. Asian labor across the board, but
| especially in China, has been rapidly increasing in cost
| while for example USA labor is stagnant in overall cost.
| Apple is medium-term going to be priced out of China just
| by labor costs. It is actually smart in a real-politik
| sense (and a business sense you deny) for labor sourcing
| to start looking a lot more broadly at different
| countries on a cost basis. USA is rich in some measures,
| but in terms of purchasing power and compensation of much
| of working class, it no longer is.
|
| As for the quality of USA workers you've commented on a
| lot, I'll give you there is a serious decline in
| education. Saying they are slow or lazy shows you don't
| know anything about USA. The vast majority of the country
| is working itself to death and the life expectancy is
| cratering. As sad and reprehensible as it is, from the
| kind of logic you're using, a desperate and broken
| workforce is a GREAT business opportunity.
|
| There is something beyond "American Exceptionalism" and
| "Asian Exceptionalism" and I think you really need to
| find it.
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| *China (Best China, not to be confused with West China)
|
| Great for Arizona. Hope it brings them jobs.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Great for Arizona. Hope it brings them jobs.
|
| And water!
| CoolGuySteve wrote:
| By the time the fab comes online in 2024 (which seems
| optimistic), 4nm should be a half-step generation or so behind.
|
| TSMC also has a dozen or so fabs in Asia, so it's not clear how
| the single plant in Arizona is going to meet capacity
| requirements or how often that plant will be retrofitted with
| newer equipment.
|
| This plant and the federal subsidies backing it seem more like
| a way for defense contractors to domestically source relatively
| recent fab processes over the next couple decades rather than
| something intended solely for consumer products.
|
| The fact that consumer facing companies are interested in using
| the fab when it comes online doesn't necessarily mean they'll
| still be using it 10 years from now unless TSMC keeps it up to
| date.
| NeverFade wrote:
| TSMC expects to begin mass production of 3nm chips in its
| Taiwan fabs by 2023 Q4:
| https://seekingalpha.com/article/4546779-tsmc-no-3nm-soon
|
| This isn't my field, but I'm not sure what's the excitement
| about an Arizona plant that will optimistically start
| production a year later with an older process.
| tnel77 wrote:
| Indeed. There are zero domestic use cases for that ancient
| 4nm tech...
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| How many consumers or even servers are running latest
| generation? 4nm indeed seems like it would have legs for
| a long time.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| It's a start. Certainly miles beyond where US domestic
| fabrication stands today.
| placatedmayhem wrote:
| There is still a lot of demand for the not-latest-
| generation, "long tail" fab processes. Much of the long
| tail manufacturing was (is?) what the chip shortage was
| about, rather than the current generation.
|
| A good example is the automotive industry. It doesn't
| typically move quickly or frequently onto newer generation
| processes as that requires R&D time and other expenses.
| However, these have been some of the worst shortages, with
| auto manufacturers still impacted by lead times (although,
| this is starting to clearing up fwiu).
|
| Targeting the current-best process, rather than the next
| generation, alleviates some compounding of risk that would
| be incurred by logistics concerns of turning up a new site
| and putting that new site on a process that they don't yet
| have full confidence in because it's not seen production
| yet.
| NeverFade wrote:
| Does "one generation before current" count as "long
| tail", though?
|
| The chip shortage in products like cars has been for much
| simpler chips, AFAIK.
|
| The article says Apple, AMD, and Nvidia are looking to
| source from the new plant. Aren't they canonical examples
| of companies that are always looking for the latest and
| greatest? Why would they be interested in an prev-gen
| chip?
| bjourne wrote:
| Many companies (including NVidia and AMD) are adopting
| chiplet designs for which different parts of the chip can
| be manufactured on different process nodes. The most
| performance critical aspects of chips will be
| manufactured on 3 nm nodes, but most of the chip will be
| manufactured on 4-10 nm nodes. It's too expensive (in
| cost/wafer) to use 3 nm for everything.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Automotive industry is still using 90nm chips. It's not
| even the generation before the current one. They have
| long production runs and require stability, and they also
| prefer to use standardized parts across many production
| runs.
|
| Defense also uses older chips. Don't ask what kind of
| chips are in Amraam missiles or the F-35 -- although the
| F-35 is getting a technology refresh now (after a 14 year
| production run).
|
| Only in bleeding edge consumer devices does it make sense
| to keep changing chips. In other systems, production runs
| can last 20 years and the life of the asset can be 40
| years or more, and you want the same spare parts
| available throughout the entire expected life of all
| assets produced. And then when you look at fixed assets,
| such as thermal power stations, then you are looking at
| even longer time horizons.
| NeverFade wrote:
| That's what I thought. If consumer products tend to use
| the bleeding edge, which will be the state-of-the-art
| chips produced in Taiwan, then I still don't get:
|
| 1. What's so exciting about a prev-gen fab possibly being
| completed in 2024?
|
| 2. Who will buy the chips produced by the 4nm Arizona
| fab, and why?
|
| The only plausible answer offered for 1 in this thread
| has been that it's too difficult to jump straight into
| the bleeding edge, and this is the most the US can do to
| lay the foundation for an eventual catch-up with the
| state of the art in chip fabrication.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| If mission critical applications (military, automotive,
| aerospace) are using older chips, and
| smartphones/computers are using the latest, then
| everything else is using chips between those two
| extremes... computer peripherals, office machines, toys,
| audio/video systems, communication equipment, lights,
| HVAC, anything rechargeable. The list is massive, you
| name an industry and they will probably be buying 4nm
| over the next couple decades.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Lower end consumer electronics are fine with chips that
| aren't the absolute latest. The point isn't that they
| won't find buyers, but rather that they will earn less
| money building a fab in a location with much higher labor
| costs and producing chips that are a bit behind.
|
| My guess is that the decision to build fabs in the U.S.
| was the result of geopolitical strong-arming by the U.S.,
| but TSMC will still find buyers and that the fab will at
| least pay for itself.
| est31 wrote:
| You don't start at the cutting edge immediately. You start
| where it is better understood. Then you can still pay the
| enormous investments needed for getting to cutting edge and
| furthering it, if you want. Also, from an economic
| perspective, there is still plenty of demand in the market
| for non-cutting edge node sizes, i.e. in embedded the
| priority is more around the fact that the chip is not
| changed from a specific design that was made 4 years ago
| than having the latest and greatest.
|
| From a strategic perspective, it is absolutely important
| that you have the capability to build chips in your
| country, of a _reasonably_ modern node size. You need this
| for weapons manufacturing, for a working government
| apparatus (governments use computers now), for sending
| messages to your population. And if China bombs Taiwan,
| then this fab will become the cutting edge, instead of you
| having zero chip manufacturing capabilities.
| jackpeterfletch wrote:
| Thats interesting.
|
| My initial thoughts on this came the from the opposite side in
| terms of Taiwans security.
|
| One of the major bounties for invading Taiwan would be in the
| acquisition and control of their chip manufacturing. Which - as
| you mention, the entire tech world is dependant on.
|
| By moving some of that capability offshore, that incentive is
| gone.
|
| Though I can see it from both sides.
| boringg wrote:
| I thought the same thing. I believe it is more nuanced than
| that.
|
| PRC wants Taiwan regardless of its production value
| (geopolitical & PRC narrative) though I'm sure they would
| like the control of chip manufacturing. However if the US did
| move all of its strategic production off island there would
| be less value accrued to defending outside that said keeping
| a close presence on China expansion is important to the US.
| So it would still have value maybe a bit less so.
|
| Please excuse the human aspect of the population as we are
| separating that part of the discussion.
| abakker wrote:
| Without the staff from TSMC, the Chinese Government probably
| can't run those facilities. I suspect there isn't much
| probability that china could mobilize and take those
| facilities as-is with no sabotage.
|
| The US has taken steps recently to reduce china's ability to
| make chips domestically. See -
| https://www.seattletimes.com/business/chip-gear-maker-
| asml-a...
| mzs wrote:
| ATM PRC assaulting Taiwan would hobble western defense
| industry. By moving more manufacturing into NA & EU that
| alleviates it. It helps Taiwan as well who depends on
| western defense industry.
| nradov wrote:
| The Chinese government also wouldn't be able to run those
| fabs without ongoing support from ASML and other key
| foreign vendors. The production machinery is extremely
| complex with many specialized parts and a significant
| software component. Reverse engineering and duplicating
| everything would take years.
| phatfish wrote:
| It seems like there are a few key parts that could be
| removed that would make those ASML machines utterly
| useless even if Chinese engineers spent time reverse
| engineering the rest. Surely there is no need to remove
| or destroy the whole thing as is suggested in other
| comments.
|
| The equivalent of popping out the Intel/AMD/ARM CPU to
| disable a computer, and leaving the motherboard, RAM etc.
| filoleg wrote:
| The Chinese government doesn't run those facilities now,
| and I agree that they won't be able to do so in the event
| of a Taiwan invasion either.
|
| That's not the point though. Who runs those facilities now?
| TSMC aka Taiwan aka a western ally. Who stands to lose the
| most from TSMC facilities being burned to the ground?
| Taiwan (obviously) and the west.
|
| As a layman with no background in international relations,
| to me it seems like TSMC is simply an extra bargaining chip
| for the Chinese government. Which is why I am all about the
| idea of building more TSMC facilities in places that are
| less susceptible to being invaded. And yes, the Arizona
| plant is just a drop in the bucket compared to their
| facilities in Taiwan, but you gotta start somewhere, and
| something is better than nothing in this case imo.
| FBISurveillance wrote:
| I've read that TSMC fabs are filled with explosives to set
| off if China invades so they wouldn't get their hands on
| tech and equipment. I'm pretty certain that's true, given
| how important TSMC tech is.
| waterhouse wrote:
| If true, that would decrease China's incentive to invade.
| That would seem to be the reason for TSMC to set that up.
| vl wrote:
| Nothing will happen to TSMC fabs if invasion happens. In
| fact most likely they will operate during invasion
| without interruption.
|
| Seems unlikely? Right now Russian gas goes through
| pipeline in Ukraine to Europe. Either side miraculously
| avoided disabling it through entire war.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| The difference is both sides want that gas to keep
| flowing (for the time being at least).
|
| Both sides don't want China to take over the technology
| to produce state of the art chips and control the
| distribution of those chips. And in case of a war, no way
| is china continuing to sell those chips to the US defense
| dept. The profit is negligible compared to their
| strategic value. Different goals will produce a different
| result.
| abakker wrote:
| Umm...it appears that Russia disabled Nordstream 1.
| dirtyid wrote:
| That meme makes zero sense considering TW don't want to
| be a third world economy dependant on exporting fruit
| even if PRC successfully invades. There's reason TW media
| was telling US think tanks to leave TSMC alone when US
| Army War College analysis suggested US should consider
| bombing TSMC... or exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before
| children no less) in event of war. As long as fabs and
| downstream supply chain supplies said fabs are intact,
| the island will have leverage to remain viable modern
| economy to support relatively affluent lifestyle. Note
| the point on downstream supply chain, there's
| sufficiently exclusive niche semi industries sustaining
| TSMC on TW that makes it as critical as ASML. Don't
| expect any Arizona TSMC fabs to operate smoothly without
| them. If anything, expect TSMC and TW + PRC to collude to
| threaten TSMC US fabs if try to sanction TSMC TW from
| making chips in event of successful PRC takeover. The
| people whose making bank off TSMC will want to so
| regardless of who rules the island. Ultimately
| short/medium term also in US interest to keep fabs going
| because not enough fab capacity will be reshored off
| island for long time, and the interest groups hurt most
| is US high tech industry who extracts disproportionate
| value add from TW fabs. Imaging every company that
| depends on leading edge chips turning into Huawei/ZTE
| because 95% of production goes kaput. Currently, cratered
| TSMC fabs actually works in sanctioned PRC's favour
| because it dramatically closes relative gap of who has
| access to high end semi. PRC vastly better off in balance
| where everyone is mostly stuck on 28nm+ instead of one
| where US has unfettered access to leading edge.
| t-3 wrote:
| > exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before children no less)
|
| Why would you expect the US military to care about
| children or try to evacuate them?
| dirtyid wrote:
| US military doesn't care. But the TWnese care, which US
| thinktankers/media, and I'm guessing US based commenters
| like you seem to forget. Hence the disconnect on why
| people seriously contemplate these TW will blow up TSMC
| memes. And why TW media reminding US, that if they're
| going to evacuate anyone off the island first, it's not
| going to be their semi engineers, it's going to be women
| and children. Or that more generally, they're not
| interested in blowing up their lively hood to stick it to
| the PRC. Like how in UKR war, it's RU whose blowing up
| UKR infra and industry when they decided it was better to
| scorch earth long term.
| t-3 wrote:
| Yes, Taiwanese obviously care more about their children.
| But that doesn't change that the US military won't allow
| the Chinese to obtain TSMC or the knowledge of their
| engineers.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Sure, except original comment also highlights that the
| incentives of destroying TSMC is backwards. It's PRC who
| benefits most from denying US access to TW semi supply
| chains or engineers not vice versa. Denying TW to US
| closes relative semi gap for PRC, leveraging PRC control
| of TSMC in case of successfuly invasion to compel US to
| lift sanctions also closes relative semi gap for PRC. US
| has leverage via sanctions during peacetime, but PRC has
| leverage via threatening access or destruction of east
| asian semi supply chain during war. Utlimately it's in
| both US and TW interests for TSMC + co to survive because
| they extract most value / benefit, but not necessarily
| for PRC. And for TW, ensuring TSMC+co survival =/=
| paperclipping them to US. All the interest calculates
| points towards PRC/TW denying US access, and US wanting
| continued access since US fabs will still be dependant on
| TW inputs as much as current TW fabs or future PRC
| controlled TW fabs will be dependant on US/EU/JP inputs.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| But this is missing the obvious. Yes the US would prefer
| being able to maintain its tech advantage over China by
| continuing production and receiving of state of the art
| chips. And this is clearly better for them than choosing
| that gap by destroying TSMC fab. But if China takes over
| TW, that's not an option. The options are either flatten
| the gap or flip the gap in China's favor as it now
| controls those chips while the US falls back to tech
| multiple generations old. There is no other strategic
| option for the US flatten the gap is the only choice,
| flipping the gap is the worst case scenario for the us.
|
| This deal is in US and TW best interest. TW is still
| valuable as cutting edge is still made on island. So
| production and economics so benefit them. US still
| provides military protection / defense. They are still
| long term partners will aligned goals. And if China does
| invade TW, US can continue a long fight and win by
| falling back only a generation or two to is smaller but
| important domestic production to continue supporting its
| defense technology needs.
|
| I can't speak for them, but I have to assume RW also sees
| its best interests if China invades to lose TSMC plants
| but US win the war and they maintain democracy, rather
| than keep TSMC plants but controlled by China and US lose
| the war and go under full control of mainland rule.
|
| Plants can be rebuilt, just like Marshall plan or what
| will happen in Ukraine. TW wants long term freedom from
| China - strengthening US defense's tech position helps
| this the most.
| shitpostbot wrote:
| ip26 wrote:
| More bleakly, if TSMC is destroyed as a result of invasion,
| the rest of the world is denied access. This might be to
| their liking. With some of the capability in the US, they can
| no longer deny the rest of the world.
| ecshafer wrote:
| China absolutely wants to be reunited with Taiwan. Taiwan is
| a constant reminder of the century of humiliation (Translated
| term that is basically China's term for Opium wars to WWII).
| Taiwan is an integral part of the Chinese nation and for
| nationalistic reasons, it would be an issue even if Taiwan
| had no other benefits.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> Taiwan is an integral part of the Chinese nation_
|
| No it isn't. China under the Communist Party has never
| ruled or controlled Taiwan (since 1949). Taiwan
| democratized, developed, and got wealthy first, completely
| independently of China. Taiwan has never in modern history
| been an integral part of China.
| gnu8 wrote:
| China has been a country for longer than the history of
| European civilization. They do not subscribe to the view
| that nothing that happened before 1945 matters the way
| Americans seem to.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| No, China has not been a country for longer than European
| civilization. That CCP propaganda claim is the equivalent
| of saying that the European Union has been around for
| 8000 years because Plovdiv, Bulgaria was founded in the
| 6th Millennium BC.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| China also makes the claim of 1000s of years of history
| but Taiwans inclusion in that history is about 200 years.
| And of that less than 10 was a province that China still
| didn't govern or control. It was more or less just
| something they said to deter Japan. So historically China
| has never ruled over Taiwan. Japan has more claim to
| Taiwan than China as it actually ruled and controlled
| Taiwan.
| rendang wrote:
| Not if you're a nationalist, since most of Taiwan is
| ethnically Han, not Japanese.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| There's a difference between a nation and a state,
| although the two are nearly always synonymous in the
| modern world.
|
| Taiwan and China being one nation is the policy of the
| governments of both China and Taiwan.
|
| Of course Taiwanese nationalism is it's own thing now,
| but the Taiwanese people seeing themselves as not Chinese
| is a relatively recent phenomenon - it's been
| functionally independent for less than 100 years, and
| before that it was a Japanese colony like several others
| that have since been reabsorbed by China.
|
| I'm not supporting Chineses irredentism, and I don't
| think the parent comment was either. Taiwan should remain
| independent. What the parent was explaining is why China
| would want Taiwan no matter what - it's a historical part
| of China that is relatively recently separated, so they
| want it for purely nationalistic reasons. It's no
| different from Serbia and Kosovo, or Russia and swaths of
| Ukraine. The economics don't matter if all you care about
| is your wounded national pride.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| > Taiwan and China being one nation is the policy of the
| governments of both China and Taiwan.
|
| No one in Taiwan and not even the current government
| consider China/Taiwan together. When KMT fled and created
| the constitution they claim China. Taiwan is now stuck in
| limbo because the people just want to live their lives in
| peace and already consider themselves Taiwanese and
| independent. But if they change the constitution then
| China will consider it a formal act of independence and
| use it as an excuse.
| kube-system wrote:
| You're speaking to the " _state_ " part of the above
| comment. Yes, clearly the PRC and ROC are not the same
| state. "Nation" is not necessarily the same thing.
| MikePlacid wrote:
| The pro-independence party just suffered a _major_ loss
| in local elections. The prime-minister who invited Nancy
| Pelosi for a provocative visit had to resign. Looks like
| Taiwanese people are not very enthusiastic about becoming
| a new Ukraine.
| [deleted]
| enticeing wrote:
| For clarification: It was the President of Taiwan Tsai
| Ing-wen(as far as I can tell) who invited Nancy Pelosi
| for a visit. She (the President of Taiwan) did resign as
| head of her party, but not as president.
| zasdffaa wrote:
| Speaking as a brit, the opium wars were an abomination but
| China does like to (or find convenient) playing the victim.
| andrecarini wrote:
| > By moving some of that capability offshore, that incentive
| is gone.
|
| I'm not sure if that incentive was significant enough. In my
| eyes, PRC's interest in Taiwan is at best orthogonal with
| TSMC's manufacturing capabilities.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> By moving some of that capability offshore, that incentive
| is gone._
|
| China's main motivation isn't about controlling TSMC, that's
| just a useful side-objective if it comes to pass. Their main
| motivations are:
|
| 1) break the first island chain barrier and gain a naval base
| with unhindered access to the Pacific, and
|
| 2) shut down a high-functioning Chinese democracy that is a
| constant reminder to the people of mainland China that
| democracy works for Chinese people and that they don't
| actually need the CCP.
|
| These are also the reasons the US and Taiwan's other allies
| like Japan will continue to defend the country even if it
| moves some chip production to safer locales.
| filoleg wrote:
| Perhaps it isn't about controlling TSMC, but control of
| TSMC would be a very strong leverage over the west.
|
| Not that it is the only or even the most powerful leverage
| China has over the west, but it is still a massive one, and
| it has quite a lot of second-order effects.
| coredog64 wrote:
| China wants to focus more of their economy on internal
| demand. Something like TSMC, which would allow them to
| fab CPUs and own more of the value chain in things like
| laptops and cellphones would help them reach that goal.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Everyone is aware that this would be scorched earth, right?
| If the fabs somehow survive the initial wave of strategic
| bombing both the US and Taiwan have an interest in preventing
| them from falling into enemy hands. In addition, the US will
| then place China under a trade embargo. And that's assuming
| that the US _doesn 't_ actively engage PRC forces.
|
| To say this would make the world worse off is a drastic
| understatement.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Exactly. And the TSMC chair said it best:
|
| TSMC would be rendered "not operable," TSMC Chair Mark Liu
| said.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| They're not closing shop in Taiwan, rather manufacturers are
| shifting away from China and the US government is probably
| encouraging/subsidizing new plants there. So this is overall a
| good healthy development that should have happened many years
| ago.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > The fact that the whole tech world is dependent on chips
| produced in Hsinchu is a huge advantage for the safety of
| Taiwan.
|
| But if they're entirely dependent on the US for defense in case
| of PRC invasion, is that healthy for the country?
| LegitShady wrote:
| what are the alternatives?
| pjc50 wrote:
| TSMC, a company whose expertise lies in precision machining
| and assembly with the handling of dangerous chemicals,
| could make The Bomb.
| yucky wrote:
| Exactly what you're seeing. Move semiconductor industry out
| of Taiwan so then _when_ China takes it, disruption is
| lessened.
| LegitShady wrote:
| the issue is "is it healthy for the country" which being
| taken over by china is not, so you aren't really
| addressing either the question I was responding to, or my
| question.
| yucky wrote:
| Well that's debatable. It depends entirely on how you
| define "healthy". We tend to look at things from a
| Western perspective, but that's rather presumptive isn't
| it?
| [deleted]
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Move every critical industry to Taiwan.
| ksec wrote:
| I don't see anything changing yet in terms of Global Influence.
| TSMC will still have their leading edge, state of art, and
| majority of capacity in Taiwan for the foreseeable future.
|
| The 4nm US Fab, based on N5, will be two years behind in 2024,
| where TSMC will be producing N3 class in volume and N2 in 2025.
| Given the N3 Class are long node before moving to something
| more exotic and expensive N2 with GAFFET. I would expect the US
| Fab to be upgraded and start producing N3 in 2026 on US Soil.
| hammock wrote:
| >Great news for the US. Great news for Apple, AMD, and Nvidia.
| Not so good news for Taiwan. The fact that the whole tech world
| is dependent on chips produced in Hsinchu is a huge advantage
| for the safety of Taiwan. Moving the fabs and talent further
| away from the island will not benefit the people of Taiwan at
| all.
|
| Naive question, can we relocate the people of Taiwan?
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Think about that for a second: why would they want to be
| relocated? And when is the last time you can remember someone
| deciding "let's relocate these other people that I'm not part
| of" and that being okay? I mean, one of these relocations is
| literally called "march of tears".
| hammock wrote:
| 35 million or so Latin Americans have relocated themselves
| to the US, even piled into dark crowded trucks and given up
| their life savings to dangerous coyotes, to do so. I would
| imagine the the specter of Communist China knocking on your
| door and breathing down your neck would be a motivator for
| many Taiwanese. And there would be a great opportunity for
| the US to welcome them with open arms as allies
| puffoflogic wrote:
| You're assuming the population of Taiwan views itself in
| the same position vis a vis CCP as the government of
| Taiwan does, which is not a historically probable claim,
| for all that the situation is quite complex.
| hammock wrote:
| As far as I can see no one in this thread was taking
| about "the government of Taiwan" (a complicated term in
| itself), just the people of Taiwan.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| Humans have strong ties to their land. Try getting a sick
| American rancher to go to the big city for treatment. The
| people of Taiwan will fight to the death or at least to the
| point that subjugation is inevitable. And then there will be
| a resistance.
| chaosbolt wrote:
| Chip manufacturing is both the reason everyone is protecting
| them and also why China wants them so bad.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| No the reason they want to invade is to project power into
| the wider pacific, nationalism, imperialism and the people
| and human capital not just limited to semi conductors. The
| factories will be destroyed in any invasion, the US will
| guarantee it, I promise.
| amelius wrote:
| > The factories will be destroyed in any invasion, the US
| will guarantee it I promise.
|
| Maybe the place isn't so safe after all.
| bpanon wrote:
| On what basis do you predict the US will destroy the
| factories?
| arghnoname wrote:
| I doubt the parent has access to American war plans, but
| it's reasonable to guess that the US would prefer for
| China not to have intact TSMC plants because it provides
| enormous leverage. It's the same as blowing up Nordstream
| II. This is standard war stuff, and if the US is at war
| with China, heavy sanctions, etc, we wouldn't be able to
| buy the chips anyway. Why not drop a cruise missile on
| it?
|
| Personally I hope such a thing doesn't happen. If I had
| to guess, Taiwan will eventually come under mainland
| China's control, but I hope this is done very slowly and
| in a bloodless way following a referendum by the
| Taiwanese themselves (e.g., only after certain guarantees
| of autonomy are made and the Taiwanese opt for the 'easy
| route'). I doubt mainland China will accept this thorn in
| their side indefinitely.
| biomcgary wrote:
| Mutually Assured (Economic) Destruction. If destroying
| the TSMC factories is off the table, then China is
| incentivized to invade (to capture leading edge chip
| production). If the fabs are destroyed, it would take
| years to rebuild, which will cripple Chinese production
| of consumer goods using those chips.
|
| Personally, I would be shocked if the US military doesn't
| also have a plan to "relocate" strategic personnel to the
| US in the event of invasion by China.
| solidsnack9000 wrote:
| The controversy over Taiwan goes back to well before chip
| manufacturing was a thing in either country :/
| missedthecue wrote:
| China has wanted and fought for Taiwan since before the
| integrated circuit was conceived.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| So cool. When I drive to San Diego to see family and friends I
| drive right by these massive new facilities on the new Route 303
| bypass outside of Phoenix.
|
| I am so happy to see more super high tech manufacturing happening
| back to my country. While I am in general a fan of globalization,
| I also believe that for resiliency every country should maintain
| their own unique cultures as well as have some independence so
| that with a reduction of life style they are still be able to
| survive independently from the rest of the world.
| knolax wrote:
| Isn't this the forced IP transfer that I used to see so many
| complaints about.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| Invasion of Taiwan confirmed
| dotancohen wrote:
| If you would have said " Invasion of Taiwan likely" that might
| have been productive. But this is not reddit, just making up
| "confirmed" is neither mature nor appropriate for a technical
| audience.
| nailer wrote:
| I hope the Chinese people have some success in overthrowing the
| CCP first. It's unlikely, but still.
| midasz wrote:
| What? Is the USA going to sell their chips to China? Because
| when Taiwan gets invaded the Fabs will be destroyed and/or made
| inoperable with no way to get them functional again.
| ekianjo wrote:
| who says there is only one way to invade Taiwan? a maritime
| blockade would be super effective to suffocate Taiwan in a
| matter of months and destroy their economy.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _a maritime blockade would be super effective to_
|
| to create a total war involving the countries dependent on
| products from Taiwan.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| China is already working on their own chips. It's only a
| matter of time before it's _good enough_.
| holoduke wrote:
| They are lightyears behind. 20 years if not more. These
| chip machines is work of many decates of iterative work.
| You cannot simply step in and produce similar tech.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| If they are "lightyears behind", _and_ everyone on HN
| thinks that China will invade Taiwan in order to get
| chips, then why the ** is the US trying to cripple China
| 's domestic semiconductor industry?!? Isn't this a self-
| fulfulling prophecy? If HNers are so concerned about
| Taiwan's peace and independence then why aren't HNers
| protesting more against the US' effort to cripple China's
| semiconductor industry so that China has no incentive to
| invade Taiwan for chips?
|
| These questions are only half rhetorical. I really want
| to hear what people have to say about this.
| KenChicken wrote:
| You underestimate the insane R&D investment china can put
| on its chip industry to get ahead quicker
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| I may be naive, but I think R&D in those cutting-edge
| sectors is not something you can just throw money at and
| then get results, you need to create the foundation for
| it first. Is there evidence that links more open
| societies and liberal economies to technological
| progress?
| ekianjo wrote:
| If money was the driver the US would be first, not
| Taiwan.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Okay so what's the plan after 20 years? Or do you think
| China won't be a problem for you anymore by then?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| You don't need to actually replace them with equal
| alternatives, just enough so the digital economy doesn't
| implode. Even 2015 is probably a target year in terms of
| performance that doesn't destroy the entire electronics
| industry.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Good enough for what? The free world isn't standing still
| so China will always be several generations behind. The
| market wants the latest and greatest.
|
| It's only if the free world can't compete will China catch
| up, in which case it will get what it deserves.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Good enough for 70% of dometic market demand, which
| analists have found is satisified by 14nm.
|
| The thing is, "latest and greatest" is actually a niche
| demand, even if we don't feel like that's the case
| because of phones and laptops. The market for non-phone,
| non-laptop, boring unsexy applications that don't require
| more than 14nm is apparently much bigger.
| tooltalk wrote:
| Sure, we are talking probably 20-30 years.
| ekianjo wrote:
| lol your overstimate the Chinese tech by a generation at
| least.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Because when Taiwan gets invaded the Fabs will be destroyed
| and/or made inoperable with no way to get them functional
| again.
|
| You can't know that. Taiwan might plan to do this, which
| China surely anticipates, thus in any invasion plans would be
| made to stop it - paratroopers dropping on top to seize
| control quickly during the night, covert operatives swooping
| in to take out critical personnel in charge of sabotage, etc.
| etc.
|
| > Is the USA going to sell their chips to China?
|
| China is already working on improving their own industry and
| reducing reliance on imports.
| midasz wrote:
| China is decades behind and will stay so because the
| industry is not standing still either.
|
| The chip machines need maintenance which the Chinese cannot
| do themselves. They don't have the knowledge. They'd need
| ASML (European company) for that.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > Because when Taiwan gets invaded the Fabs will be destroyed
| and/or made inoperable with no way to get them functional
| again.
|
| And as long as this fucks us, we will be extremely protective
| of Taiwan.
|
| Once USA is silicon-independent, we'll have one less reason
| to threaten China with war, and China will have one less
| reason not to invade.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I think Ukraine has put paid to that.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| They're also building a fab in Japan and that one seems to be
| progressing much faster.
|
| About the Invasion of Taiwan, I kinda doubt it. They just had
| local elections and the president Tsai said it would be a
| referendum on her stance against China[1]. IF that is really
| the case then it seems like the Taiwanese people have voted
| against being turned into another Ukraine.[2]
|
| I am not currently in Taiwan, but a couple of weeks ago I could
| see 3 military cargo planes land in Taipei every day. I'd be
| curious how it looks today.
|
| One thing to remember is that 17(or more?) billion of those
| arms that are destined to Ukraine were originally intended for
| Taiwan[3]. With all those (western) reports of the US running
| out of ammunition because Ukraine uses in 3 days what the US
| produces in 1 month[4], and given how isolated Taiwan is on a
| map I wonder how wise the whole endeavour really was.
|
| I get that there are a lot of Tech people in the valley from
| Taiwan that have a more hawkish view on the relationship
| between Taiwan and China, but can we acknowledge for a moment
| that a) the valley is not representative for the world or any
| countries population and b) we also have to be a bit realistic
| about the facts on the ground.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-
| president-...
|
| [2] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/The-Nikkei-View/Taiwan-s-
| rul...
|
| [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-effort-to-arm-taiwan-
| faces-...
|
| [4] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/11/27/world/u-s-
| europ...
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > With all those (western) reports of the US running out of
| ammunition because Ukraine uses in 3 days what the US
| produces in 1 month[4], and given how isolated Taiwan is on a
| map I wonder how wise the whole endeavour really was.
|
| Maybe that's one of the reasons why china was so supportive
| of the invasion. It's a test of Americas ability to supply a
| war (in proxy).
| dotancohen wrote:
| > a test of Americas ability to supply a war (in proxy)
|
| The Chinese know this well. The line
| between disorder and order lies in logistics - Sun
| Tzu
| atmosx wrote:
| The US has less "skin in the game" now that the TSMC core
| tech can be found on US soil - that's what the parent and me
| are referring to. Taiwan is not able to defend itself without
| US aid.
|
| ps. I'm not in the valley and it's not about "hawkish" views,
| it is pure power-play.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Taiwan is not able to defend itself without US aid.
|
| If you look at a topographic map of Taiwan, it's not so
| obvious. Rough terrain coupled with the fact that an
| amphibious assault is needed to even get to Taiwan, and
| then the troops there need to be resupplied by sea and air
| (both of which require infrastructure which can be
| sabotaged), make Taiwan a very good defensive position. Of
| course it couldn't last forever without external help, but
| even on it's own it's plenty to cause a massive
| embarrassing bloodbath.
| dirtyid wrote:
| >If you look at a topographic map of Taiwan, it's not so
| obvious
|
| Assessments of TW's defensibility gets dimmer and dimmer
| with increasingly modern PLA capabilities. If you
| actually look at topo map of Taiwan:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/Ds6hz2e.png
|
| Island a series of plains with no depth fragmented by
| rivers from rain + high mountains. Essentially a series
| of sequential turkey shooting galleries from air. PRC
| will be the ones blowing up bridges and infra to cut
| island into piece meal bastions to further restrict
| operation space of TW. The mountains themselves are
| incredibly tall, which is a nightmare for defenders
| limited to light arms against attackers who'll be droning
| them with relative impunity. The foliage helps, but SAR /
| sensors tech filling that gap fast. Before/if PLA even
| bother with landing, they're going to shape conditions to
| be as uncontested as possible. Which likely means
| embarassing one sided bloodbath as PLA drone operators in
| air conditioned mainland offices glassing 100,000s of
| relatively soft ROCA defenders in plains with no rear
| except rough mountains rougher than what Vietcon /
| Taliban operated from. Meanwhile, rest of island - the
| home front - will have critical infra distrupted, after
| calories and clean water runs out, they'll be inviting
| PLA to resupply island vias sea and air. Capabilities of
| attacker determine whether geography is blessing or curse
| to defenders. For TW, it's increasingly curse.
| 988747 wrote:
| Taiwan is a small island, it lacks lot of basic natural
| resources, like oil, iron ore, etc. One simple thing that
| China could do is to send their navy to cut off all the
| supply lines: it won't take long before Taiwan is
| degraded to third world country. Without the US navy to
| counter Chinese they do not stand a chance.
|
| You're talking about it being hard to resupply Chinese
| troops over the air, how about resupplying the whole
| Taiwanese population?
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Oh absolutely, I can't say I disagree with you. But I'm
| just saying that it also means that if the US drops Taiwan
| they do have a lot of politicians that are sympathetic to
| mainland China. So it doesn't necessarily have to be an
| invasion at that point.
| Dah00n wrote:
| How much tech is there that wasn't there before that isn't
| ASML, NXP, etc. tech?
| baybal2 wrote:
| > b) we also have to be a bit realistic about the facts on
| the ground.
|
| Realistic facts on the ground for you:
|
| The prime majority of rural Taiwanese who don't speak English
| are even bigger sinophobes, and have even less relation with
| the mainland.
|
| Most Sinophilic area in TW is Taipei, where the highest
| concentration of migrants from China live, and from where the
| lion share of immigrants to US comes from.
|
| What "facts on the ground" you expected to see?
| knolax wrote:
| And the mainland is full of Russians pretending to be
| Chinese like you used to say? You yourself have a massive
| personal chip on your shoulder against both Taiwan and the
| mainland. Your anecdote means very little.
| soco wrote:
| I wonder how people would vote, if forced to choose between
| acting like Ukrainians or being treated like Uighurs.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Be a slave or fight for freedom?
| usrusr wrote:
| That would certainly be a difficult vote, but I think the
| second alternative would be more like being treated like
| Hong Kong. Certainly not nice and probably a bit worse than
| Hong Kong, but a very long shot from the Uighur situation.
| atmosx wrote:
| Unfortunately I think you're correct. I see this as a move for
| the US to pull back as they did with Europe (see economist
| frontpage this week[^1]).
|
| [^1]: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/11/24/europe-
| faces-an...
| baybal2 wrote:
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Taiwanese wages are still much less than US wages, so it won't
| be simple.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Keep in mind that much of the West is in a recession that
| looks quite bad. People will be careful about losing their
| job maybe even accepting much lower wages as a result.
| caskstrength wrote:
| > Keep in mind that much of the West is in a recession that
| looks quite bad.
|
| Quite bad based on what? Looks like a completely
| unsubstantiated claim.
| sendfoods wrote:
| I think it cannot be understated how important this may be in the
| future, given the geopolitical situation btw the US/EU, China and
| Taiwan.
| thejosh wrote:
| I wonder if the distribution/import costs would be offset by
| the wage cost?
| m00dy wrote:
| W. Buffet has invested in TSMC recently. It can't be a
| coincidence.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Considering some of these chips will go back to Asia for
| manufacturing... probably not.
| gjvc wrote:
| " _over_ stated"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-01 23:00 UTC)