[HN Gopher] TSMC in Japan: Things to know about its chip factory...
___________________________________________________________________
TSMC in Japan: Things to know about its chip factory plans
Author : rbanffy
Score : 161 points
Date : 2021-12-21 13:50 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (asia.nikkei.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (asia.nikkei.com)
| mschuster91 wrote:
| So basically, another billion dollars worth of business for ASML
| and other suppliers of equipment that TSMC needed?
|
| What I do wonder though, given ASML is a Dutch company, why no
| European governments are cooperating to start a new, European-
| owned chip foundry on European soil when the equipment is to a
| large degree manufactured in Europe. Something similar to
| Airbus/EADS in terms of setup.
|
| Yes, there are GlobalFoundries and Bosch investing in "Silicon
| Saxony" aka Dresden, but the former is a US company owned by
| Emirati oil money and the latter is targeted to produce
| automotive chips. Europe needs independence from the US and
| security from China going full bonkers regarding Taiwan.
| izend wrote:
| i.e. Europe does not care if 24 million Democratic Chinese are
| suddenly forced into an authoritative society against their
| will as long as they receive their cheap goods?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Personally, I'd support more European backing of Taiwan, and
| if it needs to be by deploying a bunch of troops there, then
| that's fine by me.
|
| The problem is that the German automotive industry has only
| China as market to grow (Europe/US/Canada are saturated,
| South America, most of Asia and Africa don't have enough rich
| elites, Arabia wants ultra-luxury/sports cars), and the
| automotive industry is _extremely_ well connected to our
| politics - even if the CDU /CSU aren't in government any
| more, liberal FDP now is, and they'll bow to the whims of the
| industry... meaning Germany will not consent to anything that
| threatens the automotive industry. Italy and Greece have been
| forced to sell off harbors, airports and other infrastructure
| to China as a consequence of the 2008ff crises, Croatia has
| sold a large and important bridge project to China, and
| Hungary's Orban is effectively China's puppet.
|
| The result of that, combined with the 100% consensus
| requirement on European foreign policy decisions, is why
| Europe will likely rather stand aside than show China the
| well-deserved boot. Especially disgusting given that the
| European Union's foundation was the lessons-learned of the NS
| dictatorship and we all swore "never again" - and now we're
| staying silent as China is building concentration camps for
| Uyghurs and Tibetans.
| def_true_false wrote:
| EU countries can and do act on their own -- see for example
| French military operations in Africa.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| China is a whole different league to fight against than
| some backwater former colony and current dictatorship
| that struggles to feed its army.
|
| It's no big deal to bomb someone like Ghaddafi's Libya to
| hell and back... China will fuck over your entire economy
| if you dare to establish relations with Taiwan, such as
| Lithuania currently experiences.
| mathverse wrote:
| Pretty much just look at european take on Ukraine. "Not my
| chair not my problem".
| phatfish wrote:
| It's nothing to do with "Europe" or anywhere else, or
| consumers.
|
| The reason the Chinese government is uninterested with the
| "bad press" around repression of minorities in their country
| is because the know corporations will always take profit over
| ethics, and will happily contract Chinese factories in the
| name of being "competitive" -- which boils down to bigger
| payouts for the executive class.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The disaster of Afghanistan has made everyone very wary of
| interventionist foreign policy.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Because there is precious R&D you need. ASML does not have the
| technology to do what TSMC does. There is no European company
| that has it. There are few non-TSMC companies that have it
| right now, and their tech is out of reach of anyone but them.
|
| It costs TSMC $12b to build their fab. It will cost a United
| European government a lot more money and a lot of time to even
| develop the tech and by that time semiconductors will have
| moved on.
| wobblykiwi wrote:
| > ASML does not have the technology to do what TSMC does.
|
| ASML creates the technology that TSMC uses.
| tw04 wrote:
| Likely because it's BILLIONS of dollars of R&D with 0 customers
| at this point. You'd be building a factory _HOPING_ to get
| design wins. If I 'm Nvidia or Apple or _insert company_ - am I
| going to risk an entire generation of chips on a startup in
| Europe with 0 experience beyond what they can poach from
| competitors? Whatever this European company is, they 'd likely
| need to sell at a massive loss for a generation or 2, just to
| prove they can do it, and then hope to win some of the
| profitable contracts from an Apple or Samsung or Nvidia. I
| would imagine the investment would make a nuclear plant look
| cheap. And all of that is assuming TSMC or Intel don't build
| fabs in response to strangle you out of the market.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I would imagine the investment would make a nuclear plant
| look cheap.
|
| The disaster of Flamanville is projected to cost 13 billion
| euros. Even TSMCs biggest projects are smaller than that in
| numbers.
|
| > Whatever this European company is, they'd likely need to
| sell at a massive loss for a generation or 2, just to prove
| they can do it, and then hope to win some of the profitable
| contracts from an Apple or Samsung or Nvidia.
|
| Samsung, NVIDIA and AMD are currently blocked by the
| limitations of TSMC which is mostly caused by Apple paying
| upfront to reserve all of TSMCs 3nm output [1]. If Europe
| were to say "okay, we're putting up a 3nm fab and we will not
| sell to Apple at all" you can _bet_ they would instantly join
| in to the collaboration, alone to have an alternative to a
| bidding war with Apple 's unfathomably large war chest.
|
| [1]: https://www.heise.de/news/Bericht-Apple-schnappt-sich-
| komple...
| anticensor wrote:
| 3nm chip production requires BEUV litoghraphy. That one is
| far out. The so-called 5nm nodes can currently only produce
| 14nm-sized features. If there is a customer that is willing
| to reserve the entire EUV and BEUV output of TSMC, so be
| it; but also keep in mind it is unlikely to see such a
| large project.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >need to sell at a massive loss for a generation or 2,
|
| Isn't this where gov't subsidies can help? Not only can gov't
| wave taxes which helps, but they can also just flat out buy
| the chips. Or they can add incentives to companies for buying
| these chips. Either way, it helps ease the transitional
| pains.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Not generally allowed under EU competition law.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Then they can do it like the LHC. Each country
| contributes, but it happens to physically located in one
| member country. Either EU feels like it is strategically
| important to not be dependent, or it's not. By your
| response, it is clear it is not an important agenda item.
| ulfw wrote:
| And what are 'the Europeans' going to do with said chips?
|
| Bosch is investing in automotive as Europe has plenty of world
| leading car companies.
|
| What world leading mass-market hardware tech companies does
| Europe have, which would warrant domestic chip production?
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| You could argue that the lack of mass-market hardware is
| because of, not due to missing domestic chip production.
|
| Not sure if it would be true tough.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > What world leading mass-market hardware tech companies does
| Europe have, which would warrant domestic chip production?
|
| AMD actually used to have a fab in Dresden, they spun it off
| to GlobalFoundries in 2012.
|
| Europe as a market of about 450M people should have enough
| demand to saturate a fab with GPUs and CPUs.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Electric vehicle inverters? Each motors in an EV require its
| own 1kV/1kA programmable switching supply to operate.
| philipkglass wrote:
| Yes, those are valuable but power electronics don't
| need/use leading edge processes with EUV photolithography.
| Building more European fabs for power devices would be
| affordable and useful but it wouldn't compete with TSMC for
| advanced CPUs and GPUs.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > warrant domestic chip production
|
| There are already loads of plants serving the domestic
| electronics industry? ST? Siemens? NXP? Infineon?
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/f946703e-5d1e-4328-bd54-63f30ff49.
| ..
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _What I do wonder though, given ASML is a Dutch company_
| [...]
|
| It should be remembered that they have an international supply
| chain, including lots of stuff out of the US. If the US wanted
| to, they could basically prevent ASML from shipping finished
| products.
|
| Not only is ASML a one-of-a-kind company, but so are a lot of
| their suppliers/partners.
|
| The _Odd Lots_ podcast had a good episode on this for a general
| audience (click Manage Cookies > Reject all to get to the
| article):
|
| * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-15/asml-
| the-...
|
| An earlier episode featured TSMC.
| oblio wrote:
| The US would only do that in case of a full blown US - EU
| trade war, which would probably paralyze the entire world,
| anyway.
| tlamponi wrote:
| FWIW, there are some initiatives, specifically there's an
| Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI)
| microelectronics and a European Chips Act (semi-conductors) in
| planning. > According to the European
| Commission work programme for 2022, released on 19 October
| 2021, > a proposal on a European chips act will be
| published in Q2 2022.
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-eur...
| pjc50 wrote:
| > why no European governments are cooperating to start a new,
| European-owned chip foundry on European soil
|
| The boring answer is that EU governments are generally banned
| from subisising businesses, and the EU as a whole is very slow
| to move. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-could-clear-
| state-ai...
| amelius wrote:
| What I don't understand is why ASML/TSMC doesn't start a more
| aggressive monetization model, taking e.g. 30% of the profits
| of their customers like Apple does.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Because Intel struck back and NVidia managed to punch upwards
| by an entire node.
|
| The moment TSMC can say "our node makes the king -- start
| bidding" their margins will expand exactly as you describe.
| They got close. Very close. Desperate, extreme action by the
| other players prevented them from fully capitalizing on the
| trophy. This time.
|
| In truth, the 20% price ramp still reflects a partial
| victory.
| monocasa wrote:
| That's literally where they are now. Apple won the bid a
| while ago. The bids don't happen the same year as the chips
| come off of the line.
| mlindner wrote:
| NVidia isn't a fab company or a EUV lithography machine
| manufacturing company....
|
| Perhaps you mean Samsung (which also uses ASML).
|
| And no, Intel didn't "strike back". They forced an existing
| manufacturing technology to run even hotter and still
| manage to work.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| NVidia is a customer of fab services, and it's customers,
| not nanometers, that decide which processes are
| competitive. Nobody would say Samsung 8nm was on equal
| quality footing to TSMC N7. NVidia, however, proved that
| they could ship products on Samsung 8 that successfully
| compete with products shipped on TSMC N7. That's what
| "punching up" means. It obviously wasn't easy, but it
| gives them leverage in the next round of negotiations
| with TSMC, because it proves that TSMC isn't an exclusive
| kingmaker. Not yet.
|
| Yes, Intel did "strike back" -- they shipped competitive
| products and earned money. Like NVidia on Samsung 8nm,
| they had to punch up.
|
| Once TSMC is a kingmaker, they will charge a king's
| ransom -- but they aren't. Not yet. Competitors are still
| holding on, though they certainly have the disadvantage
| at the moment. The 20% price hikes (which are actually
| more than 20%) reflect this dynamic almost exactly: TSMC
| is the champ, but not the undisputed champ, so they can
| start hiking prices but they can't actually squeeze out
| their customers' margins yet.
| ksec wrote:
| Not entirely sure if you are trolling. Considering you have
| asked this before and some gave you a few decent answers.
| philistine wrote:
| In the case of Apple, I would presume that they directly
| invest under very favourable terms in the technologies, the
| manufacturing equipment and the fabs to lock in a price. You
| don't raise the price on the bank giving you your loans.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >more aggressive monetization model
|
| why Westerners always thinking about aggressive increase
| price? it may give you a short term profit but in the long
| run. your customers will start to look else where and try new
| technology to by pass you.
|
| Apple stop paying Intel's tax. Apple stop paying Qualcomm's
| tax. Apple stop paying Samsung's tax.
|
| i just don't understand why you want to kill your golden
| goose and its not like TSMC doesn't raise price. (they
| increase it by 20% during covid shortage). why create a lose-
| lose situation instead a win-win for everyone.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| The Intel example is particularly interesting as AFAIK Jobs
| wanted to go with Intel for the iPhone. The problem wasn't
| the different architecture but that Intel wanted
| significant margins. Seems definitely short sighed for a
| strategic deal like that.
|
| Source: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/tsmc
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Imagine thinking profit-seeking is just a Western thing.
| Lol.
|
| TSMC _did_ hike prices the moment they were able. If they
| can maintain and extend their lead, they will hike them
| further. Because they can.
|
| I am sure they will frame this as a win-win. Victors always
| do.
| zopa wrote:
| > Imagine thinking profit-seeking is just a Western
| thing. Lol.
|
| Seems pretty clear to me that the comment you're replying
| to is talking about short-term profit maximization, and
| not "profit seeking" in general.
|
| The argument is that excessive short-term profit
| maximization hurts you in the long run by driving your
| customers to look for alternatives. Which you'll notice
| only makes sense as an argument if you do care about
| profits.
|
| And I agree that it's debatable whether this is
| specifically a Western failing or not, but it's sure
| become a common approach over at least the last few
| decades in the US of A.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Isn't this a natural end state of a quasi-monopolist
| traded in the stock market? At some point the market
| share cannot go up by much anymore but your share holders
| want to see growth. So the only way to show the needed
| growth is by increasing margins.
|
| Increasing prices seems fairly safe for TSMC though as
| long as they keep their technological edge and are ready
| to lower prices again once a viable competitor emerges.
| schleck8 wrote:
| > why Westerners always thinking about aggressive increase
| price?
|
| Why do you unironically use the word westerner? that's like
| generalizing all of east asia
| not2b wrote:
| _For example "If we choose a left-wing Education Minister, what
| will test scores be in five years?" vs. "If we choose a right-
| wing Education Minister, what will test scores be in five years?"
| and then we have a good guess as to whether the left-wingers or
| right-wingers have better education policy on this axis._
|
| If the measure of good education policy is higher test scores, in
| a world where the tests are updated at regular intervals (and
| they have to be, because in a changing world the things you need
| to learn will change), just win by changing the tests. That's the
| problem with people who try to reduce everything to maximizing a
| utility function. Each side can drop or add things to the tests
| based on what they consider to be important.
| akmittal wrote:
| I wonder why samsung/other companies are not investing much in
| new Fab. There are so many Fabs planned in other parts of world
| but almost all by TSMC.
| Keyframe wrote:
| What makes you think Samsung isn't? They just announced $17b
| fab in US, construction starting next year.
| akmittal wrote:
| I didn't mean they aren't, but said not as much as TSMC. TSMC
| has already announced US, Japan new Fabs and China fab
| expension. They are also discussing with Germany and India
| govt.
| ksec wrote:
| Because Samsung's Foundry are not as mature and profitable
| as TSMC. You dont built Foundry and expect customer to
| come. You wait until your customer confirm their orders
| years in advance before you stamp that $20B cost in
| building a new fab.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| There are always companies investing in news fabs, the
| difference right now is that governments are subsidising them
| for strategic and/or political reasons.
| bell-cot wrote:
| I would bet that TSMC's competitors are similarly investing in
| new fabs. But TSMC is feeling a greater need to _publicize_ its
| investments.
| simonh wrote:
| Samsung are investing heavily in the gate-all-around
| architecture.
|
| https://www.economist.com/business/2021/10/21/samsung-electr...
| clavicat wrote:
| Exciting. Chips made in Japan often come in weird flavors.
| michaelyuan2012 wrote:
| [deleted]
| protomyth wrote:
| 22- and 28-nm production technology isn't going to lessen fears
| about being dependent on Taiwan. Nice for a lot of chips needed
| though.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Those nodes are perfect for industries where maturity matters
| more, like automotive, medical, industrial, etc.
| protomyth wrote:
| Yes and for a good many years in the future. It is a very
| good, practical thing. I doubt it will decrease any political
| concerns.
| rbanffy wrote:
| The vast majority of the chips we use are perfectly fine on 22
| and 28 nm nodes. Not all applications require the high
| densities a phone or laptop CPU does.
| protomyth wrote:
| I agree, that's why I added the last sentence. On the other
| hand, I do not expect this announcement to belay any of the
| fears over dependence on Taiwan by politicians since this fab
| is not on the cutting edge.
| robbiep wrote:
| But can your initial proposition also be true (or is it
| strongly true in any useful sense) in the face of the
| second statement?
| rbanffy wrote:
| This should still be able to cover a lot of the shortages
| we see in manufacturing. I suppose a lot of the concerns
| motivating this are in that space more than ensuring a
| continuous supply of bleeding edge silicon.
| protomyth wrote:
| Yes. The politicians constantly talk about the advanced
| process and Apple. They talk about cutting edge and not
| the logistical chain. The fear is denial of the advanced
| process fab.
| numpad0 wrote:
| For context, Ivy Bridge is 22nm and iPhone 5s is 28nm.
| barbacoa wrote:
| And all those automotive grade semiconductor chips that car
| companies are desperate for are in the order of 60nm.
| oblio wrote:
| For most of their stuff 60nm provides enough computing
| power and as for actual electricity usage, that's
| obviously dwarfed by the "move 2 tons of steel at
| 150kmph" part :-D
| politician wrote:
| It's not like putting TSMC fabs in Japan is making things any
| safer. A China that makes a military move on Taiwan is going to
| feel emboldened to right more perceived historical wrongs.
|
| The US needs fabs on-shore.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > Why is TSMC building a plant in Japan?
|
| > Primarily to serve Sony and other Japanese clients.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| The US has Intel and China is highly unlikely to make a move on
| Taiwan at the peak of Taiwan's technological power. They're far
| more likely to wait 10-20 years to when TSMC is no longer the
| same powerhouse and then slowly come in as the benevolent
| helping hand.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| I doubt the CCP taking the Republic of China will be slow,
| economical, and political like we've seen them do for their
| other puppet countries.
|
| It will be abrupt and bloody. The ROC knows these strategies,
| the only way it will fall is by force and hopefully the US
| and other sovereign countries stand up and help against that
| when the day comes.
|
| It seems that the CCPs plan is to whittle away support from
| all of the ROC's allies first, then crush them.
| willmw101 wrote:
| >hopefully the US and other sovereign countries stand up
| and help against that when the day comes.
|
| Genuine question, what do you think that help would look
| like? Because every time I try and game out scenarios for
| China re-absorbing Taiwan by force I come to the conclusion
| it would essentially be an unwinnable 'war' by western
| nations and likely a further erosion of the United State's
| position as the global military superpower (on the back of
| the Afghan pullout). China can afford to play the long,
| slow game when it comes to their proximity and civilian
| toll in/around Taiwan, much of the West can not.
| trasz wrote:
| "Abrupt and bloody" is the US way of doing things. China
| has no reason for doing it like that.
| bell-cot wrote:
| One could very similarly argue that the US needs to have a
| great many things - most of them far, far simpler than a fab -
| on-shore. Unfortunately, the US seems uncaring. If not
| oblivious.
| megablast wrote:
| So many things you decline to name one.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >The US needs fabs on-shore.
|
| Intel, GlobalFoundries, TSMC and Samsung all have fabs in the
| US.
|
| TSMC have a fab at WA and building one in AZ.
|
| Samsung have a fab at TX
|
| US have plenty
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| The US needs more fabs in more diverse geographical
| locations. AZ seems like a poor choice given the water
| situation. TX may have similar issues. Maybe some fabs in
| Canada would also be a good idea?
| avs733 wrote:
| As I understand it, the Fabs in AZ are a net positive for
| the water situation there. They are incredibly responsible
| users (especially compared to agriculture)
|
| The major reason for them being in AZ is constant(ish)
| weather, cheap land, workforce, and cheap power.
| Something1234 wrote:
| Yeah except most of them are in water scarce region. Texas
| and Arizona are going to be in trouble in the next 10 to 15
| years WRT water supply, the mighty Colorado isn't delivering
| enough. The fossil aquifers are being depleted.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/why-do-chip-
| makers-k...
|
| "Counterintuitively, the famously thirsty industry can even
| improve the local water supply due to a focus on
| reclamation and purification--Intel has funded 15 water
| restoration projects in the Grand Canyon State with a goal
| of restoring 937 million gallons per year, and it expects
| to reach net positive water use once the projects are
| completed."
|
| "What Arizona lacks in water, it makes up for with overall
| stability--the state is very seismically stable and does
| not suffer from hurricanes, with low risks of other natural
| disasters such as tornadoes to boot. Building chip fabs
| without such guarantees is possible--for example, Intel has
| a large presence in Oregon--but chip fabricators on the
| West Coast must take extreme isolation measures, which
| Arizona plants don't require."
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is not a significant risk factor. It's the naive
| model: "they use water, therefore they will be in trouble
| if water becomes scarce". However through recycling to
| reuse, the net use is low enough to not be a significant
| risk factor.
|
| Think about it. They're building a massive plant. This is a
| basic input factor. What model of the world reconciles the
| idea that these guys are very good at making semiconductors
| for decades but unable to model changes in the input
| factors over that period? Does that model sound like the
| highest probability model to explain their behavior?
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| the water talking point is never going to die. Taiwan
| doesn't have enough water for all its industry and semis
| industry taking up the most water yet Taiwan managed and
| TSMC keep building new fab in Taiwan.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/why-do-chip-
| makers-k...
|
| "Counterintuitively, the famously thirsty industry can
| even improve the local water supply due to a focus on
| reclamation and purification--Intel has funded 15 water
| restoration projects in the Grand Canyon State with a
| goal of restoring 937 million gallons per year, and it
| expects to reach net positive water use once the projects
| are completed."
|
| reclaim the water is the key
| ahartmetz wrote:
| > However through recycling to reuse
|
| Exactly! Fabs use lots of hazardous chemicals, it's not
| like they can just dump the water contaminated with these
| into the next river. And if they clean it, why not clean
| it a little more and reuse it?
| qchris wrote:
| This is something I've wondered about myself. Like, if I
| was going to be building a foundry in North America that is
| supposed to operate 24/7 producing silicon for potentially
| many decades and required billions of dollars of ongoing
| investment, I'd probably try to pick somewhere in the upper
| Midwest like Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, or even Missouri. You
| might potentially get a little lake weather depending on
| where you pick, but the big risks like drought,
| earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes
| would be much less likely, there's not exactly a shortage
| of space, and there's a number of mid-sized cities and some
| elite universities in the region that could both help
| attract and keep talent happy. Are the tax credits in AZ
| really that much more attractive?
| bee_rider wrote:
| I suspect it is a tradeoff between "cheap real estate"
| and "nearby California."
|
| But if I were in charge, I'd try to put some fabs as
| close to the Northeast megalopolis as possible while
| still being cheap. So probably like... Pennsylvania?
| Upstate NY? Hell, why not Maine? Better weather in the NE
| (which isn't much of a statement, Arizona is barely human
| habitable) and it might be interesting to experiment with
| some alternative tech culture to Silicon Valley's (more
| down to Earth, IMO).
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| This is an interesting article about that
| http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2020/ph240/multani2/
| jhgb wrote:
| I think the interesting question is for what alternative
| purpose you could use that water for in Texas or Arizona.
| While processing a wafer might require quite a bit of
| water, it is also the case that the economic value of that
| finished wafer is very substantial. How comparable are
| other industries in the region when it comes to dollars
| generated per cubic meter of water consumed?
| trasz wrote:
| The US is on the opposite side of the Earth.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > The US is on the opposite side of the Earth.
|
| Guess its my job to remind someone that the Earth is round.
| ;-)
|
| Go to Japan on your favourite map website, zoom out, and take
| a look to the right.
| chaosite wrote:
| The US has military bases in Japan.
|
| In various other locations in the world, too, but also in
| Japan.
|
| edit: I think I may be missing your point.
| trasz wrote:
| My point is, US security is irrelevant here. It's about
| Taiwan and Japan.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| why would anyone build chip factories in regions with high
| seismic activity?
|
| that is so fishy
|
| the perfect place to build such factories in EASTERN/CENTRAL
| EUROPE
| danbolt wrote:
| I mean, Japan's had a solid history of electronics
| manufacturing in spite its seismic activity. Doesn't it seem a
| bit contrary to suggest the country wouldn't be a good bet?
| adventured wrote:
| Japan has a huge number of fabs. It's a problem that can be
| managed, short of a truly catastrophic seismic event hitting
| Japan. It's definitely not fishy at all.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| Using existing infrastructure is a solid point, but gets
| defeated by history that told us how often they needed to
| stop production due to such natural events
|
| Not wise considering such investment is supposed to counter
| the current chip shortage
|
| Fighting chip shortage with more chip shortage? hmm not wise,
| nor is a future proof investment..
| Kye wrote:
| There isn't really a good place to build a fab when a short
| disruption can cause huge delays. The next best criteria is
| a place that's a short plane ride from HQ and politically
| friendly with people who won't take kindly to the country
| you're in being bombed by the country next to your HQ.
| ksec wrote:
| You do realise a third of NAND used worldwide are built on
| Japanese soil?
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| Talent and investment. There's nothing fishy about that.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| Talent? that doesn't make any sense, talents can build things
| everywhere in the world, talents wouldn't choose an island
| with dense population and high seismic activity
|
| Investment? i agree, you need some investment to build things
|
| Wich begs the question: why would anyone decide to invest
| there? if not to waste money, or perhaps get easy
| government's money?
|
| A way to inflate prices perhaps?
|
| https://www.fierceelectronics.com/electronics/chip-plants-
| ha...
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Talent _ecosystem_. Graduates from nearby universities
| could intern and cut their teeth. Local professors could
| have coffee /tea chats with everyone, ensuring high
| throughput of relevant research. The best of the best from
| nearby related fabs / companies / customers could be
| poached with high salaries, or less boredom.
|
| As pointed out, Japan has lots of fabs and top-rate high
| tech companies.
|
| It matters to have a pipeline of high-skill workers and
| access to high-tech industries for a business like this.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| That's a good point, hopefully i am wrong
| vlovich123 wrote:
| US has largely given up its fab making talent. We can
| regain it but it'll take time.
| jrockway wrote:
| > talents wouldn't choose an island with dense population
| and high seismic activity
|
| Said talent might have been born on that island, have their
| family on that island, and speak that island's native
| language which is not used anywhere else in the world.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Geopolitical security considerations over geographic security
| considerations.
| akmittal wrote:
| Hopefully their discussion to setup plant in India also
| materialise. Considering they are going for 22nm is Japan India
| also will get something similar.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Yes. But to judge by this list -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...
| - the situations in India and Japan are very different. (The
| list shows only 4 fabs in India, vs. ~100 in Japan.)
| akmittal wrote:
| Everyone start somewhere, Indian government is almost
| obsessed with getting a fab in India. India already screwed
| up changes of getting big fabs twice.
|
| Edit: India has announced $10 billion package for
| semiconductor/display, which is lot of money. There will
| definitely companies investing, big or small.
| ksec wrote:
| >India has announced $10 billion package for
| semiconductor/display, which is lot of money. There will
| definitely companies investing, big or small.
|
| Unless India only wants to attract low end, mature node
| Foundry capacity. $10B is absolutely peanuts for anything
| that is mainstream or leading edge. Especially for India
| when they have very little infrastructure and Foundry
| Ecosystem.
|
| And this is something I notice with India. They dont seems
| to have a long term strategic plan with anything. It would
| be much better if it was $50B over 10 years.
| gumby wrote:
| > Unless India only wants to attract low end, mature node
| Foundry capacity. $10B is absolutely peanuts for anything
| that is mainstream or leading edge.
|
| I don't think this is a good "leapfrog" opportunity.
| Start with a larger node, sell a bunch of commodity
| parts, develop some expertise (and business and physical)
| infrastructure. This is the path Japan and China
| followed.
|
| > And this is something I notice with India. They dont
| seems to have a long term strategic plan with anything.
|
| This has frustrated me for decades.
| oblio wrote:
| There's a ton to complain about China, but they have the
| long term vision chiseled on a mountain top somewhere...
| Grakel wrote:
| They've been making some hard left turns lately that
| could very well drain the gas tank from the bottom. Or
| usher in a utopia, although it seems very unlikely. I
| guess we'll see!
| gumby wrote:
| Mmm...maybe. Same was said about Japan in the 1980s.
| Let's look again and 25 years and see.
|
| USSR had enormous growth in the early years (well, after
| adopting the NEP) all through the rural electrification
| period and were favorably contrasted with the 1930s
| depression in the west. It didn't work out though in the
| long term.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Having a solid long term vision is plan, only if the
| solid long term plan is any good.
|
| You trade stability for flexibility. It takes time to
| steer a big ship, even if your current plan has clearly
| extremely negative effects (e.g. killing all the sparrows
| resulting in a locust population boom during the Great
| Leap Forward). A command economy is about as big as a
| ship can get.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think you are misunderstanding the intent here. 10B
| could pay for a new fab.
|
| India is looking to subsidize fabs, so that might be 10%
| off ten fabs.
|
| Similarly, it would be foolish to go for high end fabs,
| assuming they want them for security and supply chain
| security.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-21 23:00 UTC)