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

EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

electronicsweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 318 posts

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#271

Post by close04 »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #77
throwaway4good wrote: post #11

All the big blocks: EU, US, South Korea, Taiwan, and China assume that their subsidy policies will expand their market share. Obviously they cannot all be right. The only that I think is given that will expand its global market share is China. Paradoxically because of the US sanctions and the fact that it relies so much on imports presently.

> Obviously they cannot all be right. They could all be right that their market share will be higher if they adopt this policy than if they don’t.

The market share is the percentage of the market, up to 100%. The market might grow due to the different measures adopted but percentage wise it will always be limited to the whole being 100%, split between however many players. Everyone's share increasing means the market going above 100%.

What OP means is that it's a mathematical impossibility for everyone's market share to increase. It's a zero sum game, for any player's market share to increase, someone else's must decrease.

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#272

Post by dns_snek »

robertlagrant wrote: post #236
dns_snek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People thought the iPhone was good value for money even though there were widespread reports of workers killing themselves by jumping out of factory windows due to horrible working conditions. I'm not singling them out, just providing a point of reference. [1] > If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren'…

> We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker…

I never said that we're uncompetitive solely because of environmental and labor laws, but those factors make such a significant difference that any other factors become irrelevant. We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation.

> Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban.

And how do you propose we enforce that against untrustworthy or even hostile governments that have a history of covering things up and a vested interest to do it again?

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#273

Post by epups »

logifail wrote: post #265
epups wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Netherlands already voted for a Eurosceptic, invoking similar rhetoric as you here - "replacement" of locals by foreigners, taking their jobs, etc. Interestingly, as is almost always the case in Europe, the places with fewer immigrants voted more harshly against them. The question we should ask is whether this is rational or not. I think not. If the Dutch want to vote themselves into a Brexit, then so be it - the…

> as is almost always the case [..] the places with fewer immigrants voted more harshly against them Well, the very opposite of that happened in the UK regarding the Brexit referendum: "More than 50 per cent of the population growth in Lincolnshire in the last decade has been caused by immigration. Across the county, population growth has been 57,999, with 30,568 due to immigration - a total of 52.7 per cent." https:…

The main issue with populism and why people fall for it is a reliance on narratives over facts. If we discuss consolidated data instead of an anecdote, the conclusion is quite clear, and it shows that you are wrong: https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low...

> To vote a particular way in the hope of change? Why wouldn't that be rational?

There are plenty of historical examples of people voting for "change" that ended up backfiring wildly. I think you could find quite a few of those in the same ideological spectrum of people like Wilders.

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#275

Post by lucioperca »

meepmorp wrote: post #210
lucioperca wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not work like that, EU has big stake in the EUV-tech. I see no problem in forcing ASML to build a fab in Europe.

ASML makes lithography machines, they don't actually fab chips themselves.

ups I meant TSMC

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#276

Post by nsteel »

londons_explore wrote: post #127
seper8 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's only a handful of companies in the world producing chips at scale, so it wouldn't be too out of the question. Don't think you have any idea how complex it is to both set up the fabs and run them. Are you gonna fly half of Taiwan to run these fabs here? How long do you think this process is going to take?

Nearly all chip making machines are computer controlled. The operators could easily operate them remotely from Taiwan. Data centers already work that way - the economic value of the physical building is quite small because all the actual moneymaking can be done by an office full of software engineers in san Fransisco.

TSMC have delayed opening their US fab because apparently local talent was lacking, I think that suggests it cannot be done remotely.

> Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) was supposed to have its first Arizona chip factory operational by late 2024 but now has confirmed significant delays. Primarily due to a shortage of technical workers with critical expertise in the US, TSMC projects to finish construction instead by 2025.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tsmc-delays-us-c...

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#277

Post by danaris »

close04 wrote: post #271
ChadNauseam wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously they cannot all be right. They could all be right that their market share will be higher if they adopt this policy than if they don’t.

The market share is the percentage of the market, up to 100%. The market might grow due to the different measures adopted but percentage wise it will always be limited to the whole being 100%, split between however many players. Everyone's share increasing means the market going above 100%. What OP means is that it's a mathematical impossibility for everyone's market share to increase. It's a zero sum game, for any p…

I think that what the GP is saying is that they could each be correct, individually, but not all collectively.

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#278

Post by pmayrgundter »

baq wrote: post #256
pmayrgundter wrote: post #251

How much does a chip fab cost? Internet says $10-20B [cost] The last paragraph says they "would need about a dozen new fabs to be built and in full volume production by 2030" max out 12*20 = $240B, but they say total cost $500B. Supply chain really on par with fab cost? Hm. [cost] - ChatG estimates $10-20 for SOTA on par with TSMC - https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-semic... - transitively source…

it costs $10-20B if you have the process figured out . good luck building a working fab from scratch without a blank check 20-year R&D investment.

Yeah, saw that too, but it's quoted at $4-5B and 7-10 years

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#279

Post by throwaway4good »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #241
throwaway4good wrote: post #11

All the big blocks: EU, US, South Korea, Taiwan, and China assume that their subsidy policies will expand their market share. Obviously they cannot all be right. The only that I think is given that will expand its global market share is China. Paradoxically because of the US sanctions and the fact that it relies so much on imports presently.

Why did you exclude Japan?

It would be fair to include Japan on the list of major semiconductor producers.

Re: EU chip goal 'unrealistic' says ASML CEO

#280

Post by robertlagrant »

dns_snek wrote: post #272
robertlagrant wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker…

I never said that we're uncompetitive solely because of environmental and labor laws, but those factors make such a significant difference that any other factors become irrelevant. We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation. > Making sure specific env…

> We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation.

What about the US? If 75% of Intel's fabbing is done in the US, that should show us something. An EU-based company that sent 25% of its fabbing off to China would also be much better than protectionist laws. Why can't it be made?

Post reply on HN