Who cares if it’s not profitable? Who’s trying to onshore chips because it’s cheaper?
We’re bringing chips back home for security and resiliency reasons.
TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
71–80 of 221 posts
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Acquired did a podcast deep dive in TSMC history which supports your argument — they’ve arrive at those yields from just a massive set of iterations. I had a lot more respect to the art + science aspect of chip manufacturing the more I learn about fabs, having originally thought it was a basic recipe easily replicated.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It wasn't razor edge in 2009, when TSMC was running a 40% utilization rate. Forecasting is hard, and when you have in recent experience a massive glut it makes companies conservative about demand forecasts and investments.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Vague geopolitical considerations are very secondary and policy dependent compared to the real and abrupt chaos which will ensue if TSMC is taken out.
On the other hand, if China assumes control of Taiwan and TSMC with it, that need not have any impact on the rest of the world. Rather, it would provide a strong financial incentive not to push back as hard on China as we have on Russia.
In other words, part of the desire to onshore chip fabrication (and other manufacturing) is in part so we can sanction China harder if need be. Dependence on TSMC weakens our resolve to defend Taiwan for political reasons, it doesn't strengthen it.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because that's not where you end up in a world without numerous serious competitors.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#76> It makes sense that all the major economies hope to bring the chips for infrastructure or defense uses onshore, but to bring a full supply chain back and try to be fully self-reliant is totally not efficient
Unfortunately, sometimes you've got to trade efficiency for robustness. Taiwan has China dangling over its head like the Sword of Damocles.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The lithography machines and factories are prohibitively expensive, it can take years of production to break even, if you over build you may just end up in the red. Additionally the fabs have a limited lifespan when they are cutting edge and able to produce premium chips.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
While I do agree that e-waste is a real problem, it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” We need both more and better fabs, and better waste handling / recycling.
Maybe a certain level of tech IS good enough.
A better world for people means education and healthcare, not a 1mm slimmer disposable phone.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed. Agree landing marines is aggressive. But missiles strikes should be assumed. China would be the aggressor. And the things being attacked would be directly militarily relevant. If China retaliated by hitting Guam, I would call that fair play. (Hawai’i, for historical rea…
No one would bat an eye if a Carrier Strike group launched F35 fighters to attack the Chinese mainland to disable missiles before they were used. In fact, this is 100% expected strategy for this situation.
-----
What about a Marine WASP-class assault ship launching helicopters to do the same thing (except cheaper)?
----
What about a few Marine Special Ops units infiltrating the beaches under the cover of darkness to support those helicopters? If they're discovered, they could be "plausible deniability" units and arguably the USA never even landed in China.
----
What about the regular Marine infantry establishing a beach-head to support those Special Ops units, but never advancing further than just the beach?
Etc. etc. Its a smooth and slippery slope. Its not exactly clear where or how to draw a line. In any case, the Chinese missile forces are going to be a severe issue. I expect at a minimum, F35B fighters from Carriers to be utterly destroying any missile-site they discover. That absolutely means attacks on the Chinese mainland.
Something like this is almost a necessity, so that US Marines could do "something" to support the US Navy. Its probably too much to ask the US Navy to solo all of China by themselves.
Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't it possible to do this industry at less than razor edge?
It wasn't razor edge in 2009, when TSMC was running a 40% utilization rate. Forecasting is hard, and when you have in recent experience a massive glut it makes companies conservative about demand forecasts and investments.
See also: oil "capital discipline" right now