13 ms·
What Washington should be doing is investing in creating a US-based top-notch semiconductor foundry business. And that's something that takes 20+ years.
by zweep 7y ago
What Washington should be doing is investing in creating a US-based top-notch semiconductor foundry business. And that's something that takes 20+ years.
- andromeduck 7y agoOr Intel can just spin off their foundary business.
- foota 7y agoHe said top notch though :-)
- creddit 7y agoThere's Intel today but, also, presumably this could be done with GloFo? They were in the midst of research into 7nm processes but stopped due to competition. Feels like investment there could work faster than 20+ yrs.
- ghaff 7y agoAnd ON Semiconductor bought Global Foundries' Fab 10 (formerly IBM) in East Fishkill. Sematech was the last US government effort to improve US competitiveness in semiconductors. It's still around but isn't a US government initiative any longer.
- agoodthrowaway 7y agoIntel does not support a fabless semiconductor business model. Lots of other chips are necessary besides CPUs.
- davidf18 7y agoPerhaps Intel could spin off a separate company that has a fabless business model.
- radicsge 7y agoIn case of war it can be forced to, the question is whether it is competitive with TSMC in medium/long run?
- agoodthrowaway 7y agoReally not that easy to release a PDK and get the industry familiar with it particularly for anything that is high speed analog.
- yvdriess 7y agoA modern chip design-to-production pipeline takes roughly five years, 2 years if you crunch it and dot try anything fancy. And yes moving from TSMC/GoFo production nodes to Intel would require significant redesign.
- kingosticks 7y agoAre you saying I can't make a random chip using Intel's fabs?
- hinkley 7y ago"Random" has some connotations that probably aren't helpful. He's saying you can't make arbitrary chips at the Intel fabs. So you could end up with a proverbial car with no wheels. Looks cool but it ain't going anywhere.
- kingosticks 7y agoI just meant if I had a design I wanted to make could I make it with Intel in the same way I could with a TSMC partner like Broadcom. My previous experience is that you could, we had them come deliver us a presentation some years ago. Their offering was no good at the time as they didn't have some of the IP macros available in the time frame we needed. So I find the parent comment confusing, unless things have changed.
- hinkley 7y agoHonestly that was news to me, but I'm only paying enough attention to this space to make a stock pick or two. I think I'd appreciate a [citation needed] as well.
- kingosticks 7y agoLooks like it's still a thing: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.htm...
- agoodthrowaway 7y agoAbsolutely. NSA has its own fab to guarantee security and ensure secrecy. No reason why we can’t have a corporation that pushes semiconductor tech forward.
- jagger27 7y agoSo did NSA buy last gen tech from Intel/GlobalFoundries and set it up somewhere secret or did they develop it in-house?
- agoodthrowaway 7y agoActually I am wrong. NSA divested their fab a while ago. Instead they use the Trusted Foundry Program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Foundry_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Foundry_Program
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- manicdee 7y agoAre Apple and Tesla building their own foundries or outsourcing?
- shakna 7y agoI believe Apple use TSMC, whilst Tesla use Samsung for their customs. So, outsourcing. I haven't heard of either going into the silicon business recently.
- wmf 7y agoThey use TSMC.
- tooltalk 7y agoApple's A chips were, once upon a time, manufactured by Samsung in Austin, Texas until 14nm in 2015. Tim Apple switched to TSMC in Taiwan shortly after defending Apple's outsourcing practices in a rare national TV appearance, boldly claiming that "the engines of iPads and iPhones are made in US." Tesla's chips are made in Samsung's Austin, Texas plant.
- kijin 7y agoWell, there's the American fab we've been looking for! Samsung isn't too far behind TSMC, is it? Even if the Austin plant were a generation or two behind their Korean plants, it shouldn't be too difficult to bring it up to date -- especially if the investment will be rewarded by lucrative defense contracts. Besides, Samsung already builds a lot of military-grade stuff for the Korean government, so it's not like they lack the experience. This sounds much easier than telling TSMC to build a whole new fab on American soil.
- tooltalk 7y agoWell, the key thing is to get everyone to use the US plant, but nobody wants to use potential competitor's foundry, who recently announced that they plan to spend $100+B to challenge other logic chip makers. A few minuscule defense contracts aren't probably worth what they have to invest in -- Samsung for instance has already spent $15B in their Austin plant.
- Seenso 7y ago> What Washington should be doing is investing in creating a US-based top-notch semiconductor foundry business. And that's something that takes 20+ years. That would require leadership and vision. Unfortunately, too many American politicians would prefer to use any money available for that to instead cut taxes yet again.
- jngreenlee 7y agoI'm confused...we already have a lot!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...
- JamalW 7y agoI agree with your statement up until you point your finger at tax cuts. Tax Revenues are at an all-time high BECAUSE of the tax cuts. Look it up before making erroneous statements.
- gumby 7y agoYes, I remember this strategy from the 80s (Sematech). This kind of industrial policy didn't help anything.
- rb808 7y agoWhat's the point when China will just copy it and do it cheaper.
- hinkley 7y agoTrying to be careful what I wish for (and probably failing), at this point electronics are such an integral part of Defense that some of the money spent on aerospace really should be diverted to insuring domestic capacity for electronics and computers. But as several other people pointed out, and several political luminaries from the past have also pointed out, a global supply chain reduces the threat of war. Either goods cross borders or soldiers do.