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

TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

asia.nikkei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#51

Post by 55873445216111 »

gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#52

Post by tomatowurst »

topspin wrote: post #12

At some point in the next 10 years Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers[1]. The rest of the world knows that continuing to rely so heavily on Taiwan for crucial components is not viable. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/china/china-aircraft-carrier-...

I doubt this. you'd need to continue having a thriving economy, not only that for an aircraft carrier group to be effective you'd need quality fighter jets that can take off with equal or more payload than the US (which does not use a ski ramp for this reason) and compete with it's 5th or 6th generation planes. In addition you would need adequate defense fleet, especially submarines quiet enough and capable of detecting threats and countermeasures.

Even the Taiwanese F-16V will be able to obtain air superiority in the present, 10 years is awfully short for it to master jet engine manufacturing.

In 10 years it would be lucky if CCP survives internal issues due to a dwindling economy and inability to service and maintain much of its core infrastructure rather than an external one.

I could definitely see Xi taking some of the islets close to its coast line but doing so would give the US justification to station its airbase permanently and start a Russian style sanction.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#53

Post by MangoCoffee »

hwillis wrote: post #22
gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

greater variety is not a thing that would happen (and incidentally, as an electrical engineer, there's plenty of variety already). The hardware used in semiconductor foundries is all made by the same few companies, which is a major reason everyone gets similar advances at the same time- they're all working with the same tools. The vast majority of variety in product lines comes from who is ordering the chips, not the…

>The hardware used in semiconductor foundries is all made by the same few companies, which is a major reason everyone gets similar advances at the same time- they're all working with the same tools.

it depend on the craft smith's skill. everyone have access to Python but some is able to craft a robust app while others app is buggy and unusable.

TSMC consistently have the best yields and quality chips

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#54

Post by themgt »

pphysch wrote: post #7
api wrote: post #2

TSMC is in part a Taiwanese defense asset. They don't want anything moved because right now having so much supply chain in Taiwan chains the rest of the world to Taiwan's security against the PRC.

This is an oft-repeated meme that doesn't align with the historical facts. TSMC is a distant secondary factor in the geopolitical competition over Taiwan, which is a continuation of the Chinese civil war that started in 1927 and has never officially ended. If TSMC didn't exist, or was located in e.g. Vietnam, Taiwan would still be a vital strategic asset in Washington's stated policy to contain Communist China (as pa…

The problem is TSMC points a gun back at us. Look at the Ukraine playbook: "ok Russia go ahead and try to invade, we'll turn it into a bloodbath for you while we cut you off from as much of the global economy as possible"

The threat to wreck China's economy if they invade becomes a lot less credible when we'll be cutting the legs of the entire global economy in the bargain. It becomes more of a mutual suicide pact and gives China reason to think we'd cut a deal if it came down to it.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#55

Post by hoseja »

55873445216111 wrote: post #51
gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

Why isn't it possible to do this industry at less than razor edge?

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#56

Post by mistrial9 »

55873445216111 wrote: post #51
gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

> accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity

says who? the world's rivers and oceans are polluted with micro-plastics and heavy metals from E*Waste, while thirty years of "wild west" profits and dog-eat-dog markets, COMDEX and single-use devices will take 1000 years to degrade in Nature.

Calls for "more" to be viewed with earned-suspicion IMO

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#57

Post by unethical_ban »

55873445216111 wrote: post #51
gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

I feel like there was a lesson about just-in-time inventory for critical supply chains recently. Perhaps a product as complex, sophisticated and absolutely necessary for a modern society should have government guarantees.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#58

Post by UnpossibleJim »

ketzo wrote: post #33
foolfoolz wrote: post #8

the pandemic and its effects showed that the cost benefits of globalization are beaten by the national security benefits of onshoring. i think we will see more critical manufacturing, even at great expense, move back to the u. s.

To be more accurate, the pandemic showed that onshoring beats globalization... in a pandemic . The cost benefits were wildly outstripping the national security benefits before 2020! That's why globalization has thrived! I know that's the point, and I'm sort of willfully misinterpreting what you're saying. But the cost benefits of globalization aren't going away, and people's fears of the pandemic and supply-chain dis…

I think this type of thinking, while relevant, ignores other hidden costs associated with off-shoring the majority of our manufacturing.

1. The environmental costs are not insignificant with both the lack of environmental regulation and added ocean shipping (yes, I know people are tired of hearing about environmental impact)

2. The humanitarian cost of offshoring our manufacturing is not insignificant. We may not have the best humanitarian track record in the world, but we aren't setting up suicide netting or sending manufacturing to Uyghur prison camps.

3. NAFTA has increased income inequality https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/#:~:tex....

4. The Trans-Pacific Partnership weakened intellectual protections, food safety regulations and helped destabilize the U.S. economy - creating even more "bubble and bursts" https://inthesetimes.com/article/tpp-free-trade-globalizatio...

Don't get me wrong, I think a certain amount of global trade is not only necessary but healthy. It strengthens treaties and national ties. This reduces war risk and national coalitions... all good things. But a certain amount of self interest and a healthy middle class bolster our own country. We have lost our ability to stand on our own two feet for any amount of time.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#59

Post by dahdum »

dragontamer wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.

That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND…

> There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds.

That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#60

Post by kansface »

alooPotato wrote: post #10
foolfoolz wrote: post #8

the pandemic and its effects showed that the cost benefits of globalization are beaten by the national security benefits of onshoring. i think we will see more critical manufacturing, even at great expense, move back to the u. s.

One thing I'm curious about is how you define "critical manufacturing"? Manufacturing seems like a directed graph where each node is a product or material and the edges are dependencies or inputs to that product. So if you want to onshore manufacturing of a particular product, you need to also onshore all of its dependencies. My contention is that the graph is so densely connected that you end up having to bring enti…

Some manufacturing can presumably be spun up with not too much effort if you have other heavy industry around and access to raw materials. Chip fabs require way more than retooling a line. We could quantify the problem as the amount of time it would take to bootstrap a domestic industry if the current suppliers turned off the spigot.
Post reply on HN