Live data from Hacker News

ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

tomshardware.com

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that comment I concluded that software patching speed isn’t a bottleneck there. It sounds frustrating but to be terrible it needs to significantly impede the product or business relationships, which isn’t at all happening.

I find it strange that they are making so few machines. The price would probably drop slightly if they made 10x more machines, but they would still end up earning more. And the world would be a better place, too. So I am left wondering ... what is capping their output? What is the bottleneck?

My understanding is that production and installation do not scale since the machines are essentially replications of a successful physics experiment environment. Manufacture is a long, multi-step process requiring technical expertise (which is limited). Then, machines are re-assembled at the customer site--again, carefully and with a large technical staff.

To commit engineering to achieving 10x manufacture rate would probably require giving up the lead on next generation processes.

Personally, I think there must be an end to this. There are steps we are going to learn to more reliably replicate, and reliably reassemble. Machines won't become smaller, but other heavy industries have learned to do faster, de-skilled installations so semiconductors should eventually as well. However, I don't think we'll get the 'good for the world' benefit because by the time every country can make leading edge semis, some other critical, supply-restricted part will become what's contested.

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#52
post #45
post #27

Zeiss -> ASML -> TSMC -> Nvidia Seems crazy that there are no alternatives for these four companies in the high end AI semiconductor supply chain.

That perspective is a little wrong; those are the 4 companies on the edge of a wave of technological improvement. It isn't unusual for there to be unique companies in those circumstances. For example when Apple hit the market with the iPhone back in '07 there were similar things going on. One of the things that hamstrung Apple's competitors was that nobody in the supply could manufacture equivalent parts. Those 4 com…

When the MacBook Pro switched to Intel processors, Intel made an entirely new top bin for Apple and for something like six months they had exclusive right to it.

Oh favoritism and bribery! More like, small market that can deal with the fact that the vendor can only promise small deliveries. But also Intel trying to land a whale.

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#53

Time to spread some liberty and freedom in the Netherlands.

The US is not far from doing that. See the Hague Invasion Act. Also I've been wondering why our Prime Minister has been so enthusiastically following US foreign policy lately. Turns out he's eyeing the NATO boss seat, and the US has the most important vote.

[dead]

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that comment I concluded that software patching speed isn’t a bottleneck there. It sounds frustrating but to be terrible it needs to significantly impede the product or business relationships, which isn’t at all happening.

I find it strange that they are making so few machines. The price would probably drop slightly if they made 10x more machines, but they would still end up earning more. And the world would be a better place, too. So I am left wondering ... what is capping their output? What is the bottleneck?

My money's on some of the optics.

https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology...

https://www.trumpf.com/en_US/products/lasers/euv-drive-laser...

https://www.cymer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cymer_SPIE_...

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbc, based on the comment that looks to be driven almost completely by the fact that they are making a tiny number of incredibly expensive bespoke machines, so they can't just keep extra machines lying around to do unit tests with (both because each machine is expensive, and because the results wouldn't necessarily generalize to other machines). So it sounds like a constraint of the field, not bad choices.

Why do you need the actual production machine for unit tests? Why can't you build a SW simulator for them and run unit tests on them? I used to work in automotive and all unit tests didn't require the finished car, just the SW. Nasa doesn't hava another Voyager probe in their lab floating around in zero gravity to run unit tests on before sending the SW patches, they use simulators. For calibration you do need the fi…

> Nasa doesn't hava another Voyager probe in their lab floating around in zero gravity to run unit tests on before sending the SW patches, they use simulators.

JPL keeps a working duplicate of their Mars rovers on Earth and tests software updates there. So if the Voyager zero-gee environment prevents a useful duplicate, that means testing software in simulation is considered inferior to using a (massively expensive) physical duplicate like for the Mars robers.

https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8749/nasa-readies-perseverance-ma...

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that comment I concluded that software patching speed isn’t a bottleneck there. It sounds frustrating but to be terrible it needs to significantly impede the product or business relationships, which isn’t at all happening.

I find it strange that they are making so few machines. The price would probably drop slightly if they made 10x more machines, but they would still end up earning more. And the world would be a better place, too. So I am left wondering ... what is capping their output? What is the bottleneck?

> What is the bottleneck?

Zeiss

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it strange that they are making so few machines. The price would probably drop slightly if they made 10x more machines, but they would still end up earning more. And the world would be a better place, too. So I am left wondering ... what is capping their output? What is the bottleneck?

My money's on some of the optics. https://www.zeiss.com/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology... https://www.trumpf.com/en_US/products/lasers/euv-drive-laser... https://www.cymer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cymer_SPIE_...

It’s Zeiss specifically. They’re a fun company.

Re: ASML dethrones Applied Materials, becomes largest fab tool maker

#58
post #50
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That perspective is a little wrong; those are the 4 companies on the edge of a wave of technological improvement. It isn't unusual for there to be unique companies in those circumstances. For example when Apple hit the market with the iPhone back in '07 there were similar things going on. One of the things that hamstrung Apple's competitors was that nobody in the supply could manufacture equivalent parts. Those 4 com…

Zeiss and ASML currently have no competitors in the EUV lithography space as everyone else dropped out. (There was a big switch from lenses to mirrors) I won't rule out a direct competitor, but they have a substantial moat. They face some pressure from indirect competition like Canon Nanoimprint though.

Another way of framing your opening is "a bunch of other companies are on the verge of figuring this out, but the market isn't big enough". EUV hasn't even been the done thing for all that long, I gather it is only the tech of choice for about a decade.

There are a bunch of thin bottlenecks and oligopolies in global supply chains. It is a big and complex world. But that leads to a situation where three things are true at once:

* There are companies that are expensive to replace.

* No single company is truly irreplaceable.

* On the cutting edge, it is common enough for there to be only one company that knows how to do something.

Post reply on HN