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

141–150 of 221 posts

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

#141

Post by 55873445216111 »

hoseja wrote: post #130
55873445216111 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes >$10B and >2 years to build a fab which will be effectively obsolete ~2 years after it opens. If it doesn't open on schedule or is underloaded, the ROI goes negative almost immediately. (I somewhat oversimplified this of course but it's to make the point.)

Obsolete? Automakers etc are huuuungry for old chips.

Yes but there is a huge technology gap. example: Automakers need a lot more small low-power MCUs built on ~130/90nm process. A 14nm fab that started 2 years ago is never going to be producing those 130/90nm MCUs. Furthermore, the semi toolmakers that produce the tools needed to build 130/90nm chips stopped making those tools years ago. This is a rabbit-hole that just keeps going. The problem isn't going away soon or easily.

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

#142

Post by jcranberry »

little_endorian wrote: post #128
christkv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people just forget that intel has fabs all over the world with that expertise as well?

Morris Chang's point is that TSMC is able to draw upon Taiwan's very best talent, as the country's most attractive employer. Likewise, Samsung is among the most prestigious Korean employers. In contrast, where does Intel rank among US employers?

I thought Samsung had an absolutely horrible reputation as an employer.

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

#143

Post by StillBored »

hoseja wrote: post #130
55873445216111 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes >$10B and >2 years to build a fab which will be effectively obsolete ~2 years after it opens. If it doesn't open on schedule or is underloaded, the ROI goes negative almost immediately. (I somewhat oversimplified this of course but it's to make the point.)

Obsolete? Automakers etc are huuuungry for old chips.

Not just automakers, and not just old fabs. Not everything needs the latest bleeding edge process. So, even then some of the old processes get updated to support larger wafers.

Ex: brand new 65nm fab:

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/bosch-opens-...

So, 10-15 year ROI easy, and I'm guessing that might stretch even further as the trend to ever smaller nodes slows. AKA I'm betting 2nm doesn't look nearly as aged in 2040 as 90nm looks today.

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

#144

Post by dahdum »

dragonwriter wrote: post #111
dahdum wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> China is a far stronger opponent than Russia, so I don’t see why that would change. China is a weaker strategic threat despite being a stronger local conventional threat. That would seem to me to make outside direct intervention more likely (though not necessarily more likely than not.) > The US would be going it comparatively alone against China in a Taiwan conflict There is nothing as centralized as NATO or the E…

Why would China be a weaker strategic threat than Russia? They have 10 times the population and a massive industrial and technological base. Fewer nuclear weapons but more than enough to trigger the apocalypse. Much stronger trade relations, economic diversification, and growth.

Kendall, Air Force Secretary, said “When you look at it objectively, China is a much greater strategic threat than Russia is”.[1]

1. https://spacenews.com/air-force-secretary-were-worried-about...

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

#145

Post by tomatowurst »

iooi wrote: post #66
tomatowurst wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 detect…

You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot. > and start a Russian style sanction Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.

> US would go to war with China over Taiwan

They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF.

Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy.

US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.

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

#146

Post by fennecfoxen »

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?

Because sooner or later no one will buy it. They will buy the new tech with better performance at a fraction of the cost, and your firm will go out of business — or, if subsidized, have its budget laughed out of Congress.

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

#147

Post by zie »

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-...

Assuming this is true, makes Taiwan even happier they hold TSMC in country, otherwise what incentives does the rest of the world have for helping Taiwan out, except the whole, we are the good guys stance? We know the we are the good guys message is only good so far.

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

#148

Post by scarmig »

dragontamer wrote: post #79
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…

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…

> 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.

This isn't an accurate understanding of current US military or foreign policy thinking.

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/249127...

> Military strategists, planners, and force requirements developers should anticipate America’s civilian leadership needing effective military options short of mainland attacks on China. RAND analysts seem to appreciate the risks of homeland attacks, suggesting that “as low as the probability of Chinese first [nuclear weapons] use is, even in the most desperate circumstances of a prolonged and severe war, the United States could make it lower still by exercising great care with regard to the extensiveness of homeland attacks and by avoiding altogether targets that the Chinese could interpret as critical to their deterrent.”

Attacks against the mainland are certainly possible, depending on circumstances, but it's neither the default nor expected.

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

#149

Post by meowfly »

jacobolus wrote: post #40
dragontamer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, naval mines, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. And then the economic costs (to everyone in the world) are going to be extreme.

I'm extremely skeptical of this Taiwan invasion scenario I see floated around quite a bit.

1. As you said, and China is aware, a war between Taiwan and China will harm both countries and strengthen the US.

2. The world would react extremely negatively (more so than the Ukraine response) if half the world's semi-conductors supply disappeared.

3. Taiwan has cruise missiles that can reach Shanghai, Wuhan, Shenzhen, etc. Most of China's development is in the East. [1]

What I do believe might happen is China will reach the point that they can economically bully Taiwan until Taiwan decides it's best to play ball.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_IIE

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

#150

Post by AdamH12113 »

pphysch wrote: post #102
jaywalk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. If China took out TSMC, we would have an unimaginable global catastrophe on our hands that would make Covid look like nothing. There are far too many eggs in that basket.

This is absurd. No, we definitely wouldn't. Most people wouldn't notice if TSMC disappeared. In a couple years they might go, hey, why isn't my iPhone 42 any faster than my iPhone 35. But most devices and datacenters would keep running for literally years. Occasionally there would be a disaster that is hard to recover from due to missing supplier inventory. The average warranty on such devices is like 3 years, and ma…

TSMC makes a lot more than iPhone CPUs. A lot more. And they do a lot more than cutting-edge process nodes -- they have active 180nm fabs. Microcontrollers, ADCs, DACs, ASICs... almost anything you can buy that contains electronics can have ICs manufactured by TSMC.

Now think about all the non-consumer equipment with embedded electronics -- trucks, trains, container ships, industrial equipment, medical equipment. Suddenly there are no spare parts available. It takes months to redesign and re-manufacture new electronics, and the supply of non-TSMC components will be unpredictable as everyone rushes to change all at once.

On top of that, other foundries in Taiwan (like UMC) would go down, we'd be cut off from all the fabs in China, and if the war expands China might target fabs in South Korea and Japan. It wouldn't be mass starvation in weeks, but it might only be a few steps removed from that.

Post reply on HN