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

211–220 of 221 posts

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

#211

Post by dirtyid »

A more recent piece with Morris including link to his talk at Brookings from a few days ago.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/20/us_chips_tsmc/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwCWYcag5RE

Choice quotes:

> Chang said that costs for manufacturing in the US are simply prohibitive, and TSMC has the data to prove it thanks to 25 years of manufacturing at its plant in Oregon. Chang said the plant is profitable, but expansion plans have all but been abandoned.

>"We were extremely naive," Chang said, "in expecting comparable costs, but manufacturing chips in the US is 50 percent more expensive than in Taiwan."

...

>It's perhaps hard to square Chang's position with TSMC's $12 billion investment in an Arizona fab, and news that it raised an additional $3.5 billion in bonds for the factory. Then again, he did leave in 2018 and said that the decision to build the new US fabs wasn't his.

>"We did it at the urging of the US government, and TSMC felt we should do it," Chang said. Still, he believes that all the billions of subsidies being ring-fenced by the US for increased domestic semiconductor assembly will still fall far short of the necessary amount needed to boost homegrown chip manufacturers.

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

#212

Post by parkingrift »

What we’ve learned the last 18 months is that chip production is vital to the economy, not just national defense. It doesn’t matter if it is profitable. If American businesses can’t run chip production on American soil at a profit then we’ll have to subsidize it. Either way we absolutely can’t continue with such an absurd reliance on Taiwan and China.

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

#213

Post by ajsnigrutin »

joenathanone wrote: post #193
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premium fabs, premium chips, and shortages of everything, from modern ("premium") graphics, to shitty DIP AVRs (relatively old tech). New fabs can still produce old chips when needed, and we need all of the chips now, and a bunch of the "new tech" chips, will still be needed in 20+ years, so that fab line can still operate then.

The difference is being able to manufacture a chip that retails for multiple thousands of dollars in the case of server chips or in the case of chips that go into coffee machines or cars for cents or dollars each. Premium chips demand a premium price. When you send billions on your factory you don't want to be stuck making low profit chips.

Well yeah, but now ("current few years"), you'll be able to manufacture expensive, premium chips, and after a few years, new, "smaller" tech will be used for those, and you'll still be able to use your (now older) tech to produce older chips.

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

#214

Post by deelowe »

collaborative wrote: post #192
paulmd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, and TSMC and Samsung aren't happy about it (nevermind that both Samsung and TSMC are de-facto quasi-state enterprises themselves[0]). "Hmm, I wonder who that sign is for..." https://archive.ph/kvlnp / https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-28/tsmc-sams... It started with getting TSMC to build a fab in Arizona, but to be fair it's a small fab (25k wafers/month) and 5nm will not be leading-edge by th…

Give Taiwan and SK nukes then. Since that's the only thing stopping aggression these days. Both countries are perfectly capable of the responsibility

I'm not so sure that would be a good idea.

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

#215

Post by thorRay8383 »

anamax wrote: post #205
thorRay8383 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practical terms the government is intentionally hamstrung to appear incompetent: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/... With a vote Congress destroys budgets and the narrative is the PO sucks. Government incompetence is private interest driven propaganda

Govt incompetence is a reality. You can argue that govt need not be incompetent, but it's foolish to act as if the US govt is competent until it actually is competent. That's true regardless of how good things could be if the US govt was competent.

No post body was provided.

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

#216

Post by LAC-Tech »

dirtyid wrote: post #210
LAC-Tech wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof is in the pudding. PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96, Taiwan US relations are much closer than 30 years ago and have crossed many of the PRCs red lines, and the US military capabilities have not been standing still either. Looks like cooler heads have prevailed, which is good news for all three parties.

>Proof is in the pudding. Which neglects the point that USN aren't using CVNs to conduct FONOP in PRC SCS features that US does not recognize. There's no explanation other than being risk averse considering other developments. >PRC has not initiated another crisis since '96 The crisis in 96 was US initiated when House passed bill to allow TW president Lee to visit Cornell after first denying him. Current rekindling o…

in the past 5 or so years, off the top of my head:

- phone call between Trump and Ingwen

- confirming US military presence in Taiwan (alleged PRC red line)

- Officially released videos showing US military training with ROC forces in Taiwan

- Higher and higher level US officials visiting Taiwan

- Vice presidents of respective countries seen talking together

The things you list that the US still is not doing, I fully expect them to start doing. It would be in the framework of the US one china policy, but it would continue the trend of salami slicing their way to dual recognition. It would probably be in PRCs interest to negotiate the status of Taiwan with Taiwan directly to save face before this happens.

Not sure why you're so pre-occupied with the lack of aircraft carrier transit. Let's say one was targeted by PRC missiles while transiting in international waters. Do you think that would be the end of it? The repercussions of that would hurt the PRC more than vice versa.

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

#217

Post by squeaky-clean »

ncphil wrote: post #198
squeaky-clean wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Congress is part of the government. So it's hamstringing itself. It's the same line of thought when some large dinosaur of a company purchases a startup. "Welp, startup is going to suck in 2 years." It's not the startup's fault, but to the consumer it's still going to suck. It doesn't really matter why.

No. Congress is not "part of the government". Sure, they get government paychecks, but they're the legislature not the executive. They don't "do" anything, just direct that it be done. All but a few are millionaires who make more income from non-government sources than that paycheck. By virtue of their office, they're also well connected: able to get lucrative board memberships for their kids in Ukraine, or Arkansas.…

> but they're the legislature not the executive

The government has multiple branches... They're the legislative branch.

If we're going by your logic, the executive branch is the one that is not part of the government because they don't get to decide how to govern.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm...

https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government

https://people.howstuffworks.com/three-branches-government.h...

> All but a few are millionaires who make more income from non-government sources than that paycheck. By virtue of their office, they're also well connecte

All of this is true for the executive branch too.

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

#218

Post by squeaky-clean »

thorRay8383 wrote: post #181
squeaky-clean wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Congress is part of the government. So it's hamstringing itself. It's the same line of thought when some large dinosaur of a company purchases a startup. "Welp, startup is going to suck in 2 years." It's not the startup's fault, but to the consumer it's still going to suck. It doesn't really matter why.

Incorrect. Congress can muck up government for everyone while investing in stocks, and receive unlimited campaign cash to help keep their job mucking up government. As individuals, Congress is doing fine by its members

Yes, it's correct. It's the government mucking up itself to benefit the individual's personal interests. That doesn't mean they're not part of the government or not mucking up the government.

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

#219

Post by R0b0t1 »

hwillis wrote: post #129
R0b0t1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually the tech to create the chips will become more common and people will make their own purpose built chips. Eventually.

That assertion fits worse with this industry than like, any other. The constant flow of freshly obsolete semiconductor machinery literally feeds entire other industries. There is always a huge amount of easily available equipment to make high performance semiconductors because new technology is constantly replacing it with new tooling. Expertise and facility time are the limiting factors. Low volume purpose built SOC…

You could say the same thing about something less niche like spectrum analyzers 20-30 years ago. They used to take up equipment cabinets, and you needed purpose built versions for specific analyses.

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

#220

Post by beamatronic »

peanuty1 wrote: post #113
beamatronic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a certain level of tech IS good enough. A better world for people means education and healthcare, not a 1mm slimmer disposable phone.

Newer chips are also more energy efficient (at least, at the same level of performance).

Isn’t a recyclable, user-replaceable battery better for the environment in the long run?
Post reply on HN