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

91–100 of 221 posts

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

#91

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

duped wrote: post #86
rektide wrote: post #63

Morris Chang (founder of TSMC)'s speech a year ago touched on 3 huge advantages Taiwan uniquely has. Having a whole, well-knit-together country with such intense knowledge & specilaization in making chips is something that would be extremely hard to recreate anywhere else. A community of practitioners is key. https://interconnected.blog/morris-chang-global-semiconducto... The United States had extreme success growing…

The first two points are at best opinion and and worst nationalism, neither are facts.

Chang is very well known for making these kinds of statements that make no sense.

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

#92

Post by potta_coffee »

inetknght wrote: post #69
btgeekboy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” But, why not?

I'm of the opinion that what we have is good enough. What we need are consumer devices that are not made with planned obsolescence in mind. I have perfectly viable devices that are sitting around that I don't want to throw in a landfill, that are deprecated purely because of software changes. It's clear when we can afford to toss all of our ram / compute at running Electron applications.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

flyinglizard wrote: post #11
pphysch wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by pphysch »

flyinglizard wrote: post #11
pphysch wrote: post #7

Earlier 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 contrary, techbros not getting their new overpowered MacBook or gamer rig or drone is very secondary to hard security concerns.

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

#95

Post by dahdum »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #70
dahdum wrote: post #59

Earlier 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…

> China would be the aggressor.

Russia is currently the aggressor and Ukraine has far more Western support than Taiwan could reasonably expect. Still no Western countries are "closing the skies" or attacking Russian military assets. China is a far stronger opponent than Russia, so I don't see why that would change.

The US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict. I believe the best way to protect them is helping them arm themselves to the teeth such that China sees only a brutally pyrrhic victory as a possibility.

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

#96

Post by deelowe »

hoseja wrote: post #55
55873445216111 wrote: post #51

Earlier 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?

I'm not sure I agree with some of the responses. The issue is that the price to build or retrofit fabs goes up significantly with each generation. Only a few companies have been able to survive given the amount of financial risk involved.

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

#97

Post by inetknght »

potta_coffee wrote: post #92
inetknght wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” But, why not?

I'm of the opinion that what we have is good enough. What we need are consumer devices that are not made with planned obsolescence in mind. I have perfectly viable devices that are sitting around that I don't want to throw in a landfill, that are deprecated purely because of software changes. It's clear when we can afford to toss all of our ram / compute at running Electron applications.

I completely agree with you.

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

#98

Post by potta_coffee »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #58
ketzo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Environmental impact is a really important concern. But aren't we just deciding _where_ that impact will occur? I don't think environmental damage in China is inherently superior to environmental damage in America; not for any reason other than, "I live in America, so of course I want America to be have a clean environment." I think the environmental impact of these industries could be reduced but profit overrules all other considerations.

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

#99

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dahdum wrote: post #95
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> China would be the aggressor. Russia is currently the aggressor and Ukraine has far more Western support than Taiwan could reasonably expect. Still no Western countries are "closing the skies" or attacking Russian military assets. China is a far stronger opponent than Russia, so I don't see why that would change. The US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict. I believe the best way…

> US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict

AUKUS and the Quad are explicitly aimed at changing this.

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

#100

Post by lsllc »

rednerrus wrote: post #88
joenathanone wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then shouldn't the government be involved in ensuring we have what's necessary? Seems like strategic reserves are in order here.

It's not unprecedented -- during the cold war, the US Air Force spent $279M (~$3B in today's money) on building some of the largest presses in the world specifically to enhance the capabilities around building complex and strong aircraft parts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Press_Program

Post reply on HN