US, Europe 'unrealistic' in fab expansion drive, says TSMC chair

Post by gpm » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

tachyonbeam wrote: post #29

bilbo0s wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And frankly, this is everyone's motivation. EU wants to not depend on TSMC. US has gone all-in to not depend on TSMC. China has gone all-in to not depend on TSMC. And there are even rumors that Russia is trying to build their capabilities in this regard. I think the leadership at TSMC is being a little naive. Alternatively, they may know very well what's going on here and they are being willfully obtuse to paint as b…

Yeah. It's not just supply chain, it's also national security. > I think the leadership at TSMC is being a little naive. Alternatively, they may know very well what's going on here and they are being willfully obtuse to paint as bright a picture as possible of their long-term prospects. It could be two things: 1. Some arrogance, "hah, this is harder than you think" 2. They're trying to discourage the competition beca…

Post by greggyb » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

kar1181 wrote: post #21

varispeed wrote: post #13

I think TSMC over estimates how state sponsored fabs would look like. I can predict now that it will be a disaster and many billions will be funnelled to bureaucrat friends through questionable procurement. If there is going to be a miracle and they actually build a fab, it will be lacking as they will not find specialists willing to work for EU wages and level of taxation.

I think Intel will do a good job of it. They have no choice if they get this expansion wrong they are done. My expectations for Europe though, are sadly much lower.

Post by tachyonbeam » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #31

tachyonbeam wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. It's not just supply chain, it's also national security. > I think the leadership at TSMC is being a little naive. Alternatively, they may know very well what's going on here and they are being willfully obtuse to paint as bright a picture as possible of their long-term prospects. It could be two things: 1. Some arrogance, "hah, this is harder than you think" 2. They're trying to discourage the competition beca…

3. They're trying to discourage competition, because competition impacts their (Taiwan's) national security. I don't think TMSC is naive about the geopolitical importance that they have to Taiwan.

Post by greggyb » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

hahahahe wrote: post #2

Sounds like someone wants to hold onto unsustainable monopoly. Edit: chip shortage has been a known variable for over a year now. I think TSM overplayed its hands a bit. They didn’t want to expand and get caught when the demand would subside, which is very understandable. But what they didn’t foresee is that the US govt would get involved in propping up its competition in direct response.

Post by Strom » Thu, Apr 01, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

blueblisters wrote: post #34

tehjoker wrote: post #30

TSMC is probably completely accurate. Their contention is that moving the supply chain would create "non-profitable capacity". However, national supplies do not need to be profitable if they are subsidized or fully funded by a state. The state is free to, and often does, engage in non-profitable production to ensure essential domestic needs can be satisfied. This doesn't make sense from a market perspective, but it c…

Won't this lead to innovation grinding to a halt? Right now TSMC has a decent profit margin to re-invest into newer technologies. If the margins become thinner, the industry will find it difficult to set aside R&D dollars for the newest technologies. Of course, you can always have a newcomer who can disrupt the market but most Moore's law advancements appear to happen in government funded research labs and large semi…