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

Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

datacenterdynamics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 453 posts

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#191

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #163
rllearneratwork wrote: post #76

with Tesla, SpaceX, Samsung and other tech investing this heavy in Texas, when/will it surpass CA as a tech powerhouse of the future?

Can they get similar talent with draconian social policies like abortion bans? If I suggested moving to Texas my wife would (rightfully) tell me to go fuck myself. There's been a lot of talk about Texas "turning blue" over the past few years and I wonder if these companies either moving their operations or building new plants there could be the tipping point.

I imaging taking on a TX job would feel a lot like collaborating with an invader.

I mean, I get that some folks are into that but still.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#192

Post by trasz »

tw04 wrote: post #138
trasz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest (and probably the only) way to prevent a war with China is to convince the US to not start it.

>The easiest (and probably the only) way to prevent a war with China is to convince the US to not start it. Yes, if there's one thing we should have learned from WWII, it's that capitulating to land-grabs results in the bad-actor stopping. If we just let them take over the entirety of the South China Sea, Taiwan, and maybe just half of the African nations they've been lending money to who will never be able to repay…

Until you realize that you are fine with the same stuff being done by US.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#193

Post by russellbeattie »

Why in the world would Samsung choose Texas? Does that seem like a state with a functioning stable government, and well informed citizenry? No.

So, Texas most likely won this investment by loads of tax incentives, side deals, offers to cut red tape (like those pesky environmental impact reports), and massive, massive graft.

I guarantee that in the future we're going to read about how this particular investment is an environmental nightmare, in the end cost taxpayers billions, added little to the economy and only benefit was to make a few local politicians insanely wealthy.

Remember, Texas went to the supreme court in an attempt to INVALIDATE the democratic votes of other states. They are barely part of the US any more, so I don't even consider this a win on a national basis.

I really hope Samsung pulls out of the deal.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#194

Post by rllearneratwork »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #186
rllearneratwork wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are also not hostile to kids in public schools (CA dumbs down math, requires masks, requires CRT, etc.)

The Texas State Board of Education routinely tries to push young earth Creationism into science classrooms which is a bit hostile to those who want their kids to learn actual science.

did they succeed though? And if yes, did it came at the expense of "actual science"?

An important lesson a parent should teach to their kids is that not 100% of what is taught to them is true and that some stuff taught to them is non-sense/political propaganda. In CA it is CRT, it TX it is Creationism.

But which place will still teach them Algebra?

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#195

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

rllearneratwork wrote: post #190
micromacrofoot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they get similar talent with draconian social policies like abortion bans? If I suggested moving to Texas my wife would (rightfully) tell me to go fuck myself. There's been a lot of talk about Texas "turning blue" over the past few years and I wonder if these companies either moving their operations or building new plants there could be the tipping point.

"Can they get similar talent with draconian social policies like abortion bans? If I suggested moving to Texas my wife would (rightfully) tell me to go fuck myself." - I am very much against TX's policy on this. However, how many people are affected by this policy Vs how many kids will be denied Algebra in CA now? It is never 100% all good or bad policies in any place. It is always a mix. Rational people chose what's…

> I am very much against TX's policy on this. However, how many people are affected by this policy Vs how many kids will be denied Algebra in CA now?

I'm not sure these two things are meaningfully related.

> It is never 100% all good or bad policies in any place.

This argument works for about any systemic harm one can think of.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#196

Post by missedthecue »

kragen wrote: post #165
missedthecue wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't make semiconductors out of thin air. They're made out of inputs that we have to buy from other countries. The United States cannot possibly produce its own sufficient supply of rare earths and silicon for instance, they must be extracted where they occur naturally.

The US did produce its own sufficient supply of rare earths and silicon for decades, they occur everywhere, mainstream semiconductors don't contain any rare earths, and I suggest you at least skim a Wikipedia article on a relevant topic before writing your next HN comment.

The US imports massive amounts of silicon (from countries like Russia no less). We do not have our own supply.

And no, rare earths are not contained in semiconductors specifically, but I assumed the parent comment wants to onshore more production than solely semiconductors, and rare earths are needed for lots of essential electronics.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#197

Post by tooltalk »

fabfabfab wrote: post #99
guai888 wrote: post #18

‘Impossible':TSMC founder Morris Chang on US dreams for onshoring chip supply chain https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4327937 Morris Chang spent 25 years (1958–1983) at Texas Instruments.He knows US very well.

Having worked in Fab, the supply chain is already in the US+EU+Japan. About the only change in last 5 years or so is Intel's ability to compete in lithography process and get sufficient yield to stay competitive in pricing. Lithography is one of the 400 or so steps in Fab processing, but arguably the most critical and a bottle neck. TSMC does not have a lead in every single of these 400 steps, in fact quite the oppos…

According to US Semiconductor Association's recent State of the Industry Report, Taiwan's share in the manufacturing equipment part of the supply chain is almost nil and entirely depends on suppliers in the US, Japan and EU.

  Manufacturing Equipment (12%):
  US: 40%
  Japan: 32%
  EU: 18%
  S Korea: 4%
  Taiwan:
I guess Apple's decision to leave Samsung's Austin fab back in early 2010's to TSMC in Taiwan had an outsized role in TSMC's lead in tech and rise in revenue -- Apple accounts for 25% of TSMC sales.

[1] https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/20...:

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#198

Post by rossdavidh »

bnt wrote: post #2

So everyone is on the "Let's build a Fab in the USA" train, will that eventually bring down the chip production costs? (not an expert in the field, so asking naively)

So chip production does have a labor cost, but the equipment used is quite pricey, and so the relative cost of labor is less. Also, given how pricey the equipment and how demanding the cleanroom protocol (which, if not followed, reduces yield of saleable products), there are a lot of incentives to make sure you have long-term employees who are well trained and motivated to keep their job.

Also, Austin (and other parts of Texas) already have a fair number of chip fabs, and have for decades. I used to work in some of them. Samsung even has existing fab capacity in Texas. So it's not such a new thing.

Re: Samsung plans $17B chip plant in Taylor, Texas

#199

Post by ethbr0 »

kesselvon wrote: post #115
ethbr0 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not accurate today. It might be different in 10 years, depending on how successful China is at becoming self-sufficient in semiconductor design and manufacturing. Global companies didn't just outsource all the work to China. Even in the 90s, they were aware of the risk/reward, and specifically retained high-value, low-headcount/capital work outside of China. As a result, China makes most of a device, but many…

We're not even talking about semiconductors. All of the basic goods you'd need to supply an army, or the industrial capacity for consumer goods that could be shifted to wartime production no longer exists. It's a problem the DoD has been talking about for years, but little action has happened.

Basic goods like food?

Imports, Total Estimated Value by Country, 2017 (most recent) [0]: Canada: 26,200.3, Mexico: 23,541.0, [...] China: 6,159.7

Or energy?

"In 2020, the United States exported about 8.51 MMb/d and imported about 7.86 MMb/d of petroleum1, making the United States a net annual petroleum exporter for the first time since at least 1949." [1]

Or arms?

Based and manufacturing in the US: Honeywell, Huntington Ingalls (ex: Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding), L-3, UTC, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin [2]

If you're talking a full manpower, total war scenario that requires mobilization of the entire country's non-military industrial base...?

I think there's a reason there haven't been any wars like that between nuclear armed powers. Ever.

Because by the time it gets to that stage now, someone has fired nuclear weapons if they have them.

[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-food-imports/us-fo...

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...

[2] https://www.therichest.com/the-biggest/top-20-largest-arms-m...

Post reply on HN