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

Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#141

Post by CyanBird »

kwere wrote: post #138
wbl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the US can't retaliate by throwing sanctions on consumer goods back? Board assembly is automated. It can move back here.

china biggest trade partner is europe and they are grooming Africa and other countries, so they with almost a modern economy will care little of sanctions. Maybe Us will get the kickback having to deal (aka subsidie)with unhappy lobbies

> they are grooming Africa and other countries

What's up with this language, being an economic partner is now "grooming"?

My country was literally coup'd by the US in order to maintain its access to my nation's natural resources through US/British companies, how is that for "grooming"?

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#142

Post by CyanBird »

fock wrote: post #101
FooBarWidget wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between receiving an amount of government subsidy, and the government funding almost everything with nearly no budget limits. The former is definitely true, though China is not the only country engaging in such a practice. The latter claim needs sources to back up. If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are…

> If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. A private sector which got so successful not least because government systematically robbed IP from competitors (Nortel...). Yes, western politics also messed this up, but no these are not "private" sector operations in the same way Te…

> government systematically robbed IP from competitors

You do realize that's exactly how the US became an industrial power right?

The difference being that most companies were happy to provide access to their technology in exchange of reaping higher profits from penny on the dollar Chinese labor and expedited logistics

But ofc, you never hear that, or the fact that we are talking of a different country with different laws, the US is not entitled to enforce its laws in other nations after all

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#143

Post by CyanBird »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #108
FooBarWidget wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see this documented history. You mentioned electronics, but have they raised prices?

The trend in electronics prices is to decline over time, so you get the same result by not reducing prices as much as the ongoing reductions in cost. Check how much a piece of consumer electronics costs in China vs. the US. They could charge the same amount.

> They could charge the same amount.

Go tell apple this, they would be very happy to be able to be able to charge even more for what they produce from China, they would be quite pissed to know that someone along the production chain is making too much money where it could be them instead

The only difference between let's say Xiaomi or US located electronics is that the US ones are very, very happy to pricegauge the hell out of their customers, that's why so many are happy to buy in alibaba rather than let's say Amazon or eBay

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#144

Post by CyanBird »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #30
scott_codie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats great for them and great for US semiconductor companies since we are trading partners.

That would be fine if the US and China were great friends and allies - like if it was the UK instead of China that was the semiconductor powerhouse. But things look stormy on the horizon. Even discounting a military conflict with China (not likely anytime soon, I think) an economic conflict seems very possible. As China begins to manufacture a larger share of semiconductors they could easily decide to favor their own…

> But things look stormy on the horizon

What do you even mean?

Be explicit

It certainly wasn't China the one that started the tarrifs debacle throwing the world economy into disarray

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#145

Post by FooBarWidget »

ycombinete wrote: post #136
FooBarWidget wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see this documented history. You mentioned electronics, but have they raised prices?

They’ve done it in the security industry. Look at Hikvision for an example, who have recieved billions of USD in direct loans, and even more billions of USD in credit from the Chinese government.

Loans... credit... meaning that they have to pay it back some day. How is this different from any other company in any other country lending money to grow? The original claim was an unlimited pumping of state money, which never has to be paid back, with the purpose of killing the competition.

And now that HKVision has 'won', have they raised prices and are they extorting the market, as the original claim said?

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#146

Post by tpxl »

dannyw wrote: post #89
fomine3 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe (something looks like permanent) ETH crash is enough to fix GPU demand including miners selling their GPUs as used. By introducing PoS or gov's regulation?

An ETH crash will happen, but I doubt it will be permanent.

The last BTC crash sent a lot of used equipment to the market, even though it wasn't permanent.

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#147

Post by TrispusAttucks »

jjcon wrote: post #94
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just hours ago [1] H.R.5 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) was passed in the house. Also known as the Equality Act. It appears well intentioned, great name, but some of the demands are gonna be a challenge, specifically, bathroom accomodations, and potential to disrupt traditional women's programs. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/te...

Seems pretty unlikely to make it through the us senate no?

Who knows. House was narrow so senate will be a battle.

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#148

Post by TrispusAttucks »

danaliv wrote: post #104
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the USA we're more focused on the important things, like passing identity politics legislation.

As someone protected by that legislation who also works in aerospace operations: good.

I'm curious is gender identity and/or orientation [1] not already a protected class where you work?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13672

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#149

Post by cameldrv »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #17

Given the strategic importance of semiconductors and how expensive new fabs are and how long they take to start production (if you start planning a new state of the art fab now it'll take ~5 years before it's ready to produce chips) it seems like perhaps we need to look a public-private partnerships here in the US. The Chinese government is funding fabs. While we tend to be squeamish about such things here in the US,…

> it seems like perhaps we need to look a public-private partnerships here in the US.

Wouldn’t be the first time... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH

Re: Semiconductors Demand 30% Above Supply, 20% Year-on-Year Growth

#150

Post by totalZero »

vkou wrote: post #98
totalZero wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is right. US public companies are judged by the efficiency and timeframe of their returns on capital, which means that big long-term projects have to be carefully planned and justified. That's not the case when the government gets involved. We've already seen China build a lot of other infrastructure for no reason. Highways, skyscrapers... Additionally, Chinese companies operate in an environment where it's OK to…

> That's not the case when the government gets involved. We've already seen China build a lot of other infrastructure for no reason. Highways, skyscrapers... China urbanized 550 million people in the last 30 years. They aren't building cities and highways to stand empty. They are building them in advance of demand. Sometimes the demand arrives a few months, or a few years after the infrastructure is in place. [1] All…

No corporation would finish construction of a factory ten years prior to the existence of demand. Companies like to lay out capex as close to income generation as possible. That comes from a shareholder-driven pressure for operational efficiency. It looks bad if Samsung (for example) spends $30B on a fab for which there is little demand. Fab utilization needs to be as close to 100% as possible; even at high utilization, the company doesn't break even on the fab for several years. Even if you assume 100% utilization, a fab may take a decade or more (from the time ground is broken on the facility) to break even on the investment.

In contrast, governments can leg out risk on big capital-intensive projects. Read the citations in the wikipedia article you referenced (avoid the blog post and the China-based publication) and you will see what I am talking about. A government's ability to build infrastructure without knowing whether there will be demand upon completion is how we end up with projects like HZMB that don't serve an existing commercial or private purpose.

Post reply on HN