Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#31

Post by code_biologist »

nwiswell wrote: post #10
vmception wrote: post #6

I have met so many people that think their semiconductor manufacturing needs are exempt from the supply chain issue or backlog. Typically they all say "We are using this other nanometer size, and so thats not where the backlog is" is there any truth to that statement?

Yes. The "size" you are talking about is the "process node". It's basically a shorthand for how large the transistors are. These nodes are not fungible, once a chip is designed and a mask set is taped out it must be fabricated on that specific process node. Even if you have a chip designed on an older/larger node, it cannot be fabricated on a newer/smaller node without significant expense and delay. Older nodes are g…

Your reply looks carefully written but "is there any truth to that statement?" "Yes." confuses me. Maybe the parent's question is not well formed. Would the best direct answer be?

I have met so many people that think their semiconductor manufacturing needs are exempt from the supply chain issue or backlog. [because they are not on a leading node]

Their semiconductor manufacturing needs are not exempt from the supply chain issue or backlog. [for the reasons you explained]

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#32

Post by nwiswell »

code_biologist wrote: post #31
nwiswell wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The "size" you are talking about is the "process node". It's basically a shorthand for how large the transistors are. These nodes are not fungible, once a chip is designed and a mask set is taped out it must be fabricated on that specific process node. Even if you have a chip designed on an older/larger node, it cannot be fabricated on a newer/smaller node without significant expense and delay. Older nodes are g…

Your reply looks carefully written but "is there any truth to that statement?" "Yes." confuses me. Maybe the parent's question is not well formed. Would the best direct answer be? I have met so many people that think their semiconductor manufacturing needs are exempt from the supply chain issue or backlog. [because they are not on a leading node] Their semiconductor manufacturing needs are not exempt from the supply…

I meant "Yes, there is truth to the statement" in the sense that some market participants are "exempt from", or more accurately "not constrained by", supply chain issues or backlog problems because their specific process nodes are not capacity impacted, and the fungibility problem acts to ensure it stays that way. I actually did not mean to say that leading nodes are the only ones impacted; that's not the case.

The landscape can be surprising at a glance because there's no obvious rhyme or reason to who and what is capacity impacted. Before fabs get greenlit for construction, the beancounters do demand forecasts many years out into the future (getting the first chips out of a fab is a labor of many years). If those forecasts were high, there is overcapacity and prices will settle relatively low for that node. If they were low, then there will be capacity issues.

Over time, trailing nodes will get "arbitraged" because chip designers for new devices that are cost-sensitive or not performance-critical will preferentially select cheaper nodes, but acute changes in demand like we've seen from COVID can still cause problems.

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#33

Post by code_biologist »

genericone wrote: post #17

For a somewhat biased take on the situation, Asianometry on Youtube talked about Hongxin last year, this guy's choice of topic coverage is all over the map, but focuses on Asia, Tech, and Politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZSvDYDfd78

Really good video and channel!

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#34

Post by kodemager »

bfung wrote: post #16
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #4

Economical and performant chip and jet turbine production are two areas where China can't really take any shortcuts. They have to put in a lot of time and resources to rediscover closely guarded secrets that are almost impossible to reverse engineer. They are dumping in the resources, so I'm sure they will eventually get there, but it might be a few decades (in both fields, they can already do performant or economica…

I suspect some or most of this secret sauce is more like institutional knowledge and not one single person knows how the whole system works (to produce high quality chips at scale). Or maybe there IS one person, but that’s the CEO/founder, haha. Regardless, it’s similar to software companies claiming to run agile, but always reverting to the “get it done, waterfall deadline” mode. It takes good effort and detailed kn…

> Agile’s been around for over 10years and people still don’t do good versions well)

Agile software development has been around since the early 90’ies. Scrum is from something like 1995.

The reason people fail to implement it so often is that project management sort or doesn’t work in software development, and it doesn’t work because you can spend two hours looking for a spelling error or a missing semicolon, and you can create Godlike code in half an hour, and you never know which mode you’re going to be in when you get up in the morning.

Waterfall doesn’t work either, for the same reason, and for all the adaptive reasons that lead to agile.

The best way to deal with it is to take the methods that make sense for your current project and run with that. 99% or the time that’s a kanban board, and maybe some time registration software if you’re unfortunate enough to work in a place that bills by the hour.

The worst part about the project management methods in my personal opinion is that they all want to sell themselves as the universal solution, in a world where no two projects are alike but you also can’t be bothered to have 90 different project models in an organisation, because then what’s the point.

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#36

Post by eightysixfour »

bvaldivielso wrote: post #8
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #4

Economical and performant chip and jet turbine production are two areas where China can't really take any shortcuts. They have to put in a lot of time and resources to rediscover closely guarded secrets that are almost impossible to reverse engineer. They are dumping in the resources, so I'm sure they will eventually get there, but it might be a few decades (in both fields, they can already do performant or economica…

Interesting. What about hiring people from the leading companies? Isn't that how a lot of knowledge transfer happens in all industries? Are non-competes enforceable internationally?

Knowing that you fire microdroplets of tin with a specific shape into a chamber at 50khz and hit it with two laser pulses is one thing, doing it is an entirely different one.

How EUV works: https://youtu.be/5Ge2RcvDlgw

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#37

Post by akvadrako »

panabee wrote: post #21
chx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 50B? That's nowhere near what you need. Last year both TSMC and Intel announced they are spending a hundred billion each on new fabs (TSMC in April, Intel in July) and they have all the R&D already and good relationship with ASML (and both own a few percent of it, too). But the US banned ASML from selling to China so you need to catch up with ASML and Intel/TSMC at the same time. Now, I don't know when ASML starte…

why haven't alternatives emerged to ASML to help drive down the cost of building new fabs? do you know what the cost breakdown is when building fabs?

I don't know about the whole fabs, but the machines that ASML makes are incredibly precise and powerful. They are built and stay in vacuum, so even shipping them costs millions. And the laser that powers them is room sized; it would probably make a decent weapon for a battleship too.

So I think the cost is largely that every part must be engineered to perfection.

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#39

Post by r00fus »

tablespoon wrote: post #18
carabiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like this isn't just trade secrets, in the US it's often ITAR-controlled and requires a security clearance. There are CFD algorithms that are classified. If you possess this information and plan to move to (or even visit) China, I imagine US immigration will look at you very closely and not simply allow you to leave to go work for Chengdu Aerospace Corporation.

> If you possess this information and plan to move to (or even visit) China, I imagine US immigration will look at you very closely and not simply allow you to leave to go work for Chengdu Aerospace Corporation. I don't think the US border control system works like that. If you're a citizen, you never need an exit visa. IIRC, as long as you have a valid passport, you can exit and enter as you please, but if there's p…

Do you actually understand how this works or are you theorizing? The no-fly-list exists. Security clearances are tracked.

Re: Two startups tried to catch up to makers of advanced computer chips, and failed

#40

Post by jhgb »

bsedlm wrote: post #25
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a company share its trade secrets? It's one of the few differentiators left to most companies. Not to mention the national security arguments.

> Why would a company share its trade secrets? indeed, I wish I could answer this. > Not to mention the national security arguments. it is an inteserting excercise to consider this from the rival's point of view

The rival's point of view is utterly irrelevant.
Post reply on HN