4 ms·

How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment? Will this stop european chipmakers like ASML from selling to china too?

adventured 6y ago
> How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment? In the semi industry, nearly all of them. You can hardly make anything in the semiconductor industry without using several of the major US companies. The US still dominates the semiconductor equipment industry. Of the six major players, half of them are US companies. > The $412bn global semiconductor industry rests on the shoulders of just six equipment companies, three of them US-based. Together, the companies make nearly all of the crucial hardware and software tools needed to manufacture chips, meaning an American export ban would choke off China’s access to the basic tools needed to make their latest chip designs. > "You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major equipment companies, none of which are Chinese," said Brett Simpson, the founder of Arete Research, an equity research group. “If you fight a war with no guns you’re going to lose. And they don’t have the guns.” > "ASML cannot do without Applied Materials and the other way around. If you take even one out of the value chain, that may hamper Chinese fabs," said a former ASML executive. https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9...
- brennanpeterson 6y ago
  Mostly true, but you could come pretty close with ASML, ASM, TEL,ebara, hitachi and a couple others (particularly the Korean companies) I don't think it is quite so widely understood that there are close seconds in every market. It is pretty easy to imagine ASML giving up on Intel, cutting HMI, and all the chipmakers going outside of Lam, Applied, and KLA for their next tools. The industry would be a bit disrupted but outside the US...fine. and it would destroy the US industry. This will also tend to pressure the Chinese to keep pushing their own supplier industry, rather than just integrators.
  - sabas123 6y ago
    Could you give a layman overview of how ASML is dependent on these companies and what the geo-political/econmic shifts would be?
    - brennanpeterson 6y ago
      That is a big topic. Basically, though, a process flow is deposition, track, litho, etch, clean, deposition, cmp, metro, inspect (lots of steps vary, but these are the basics) You need each of these to work. Deposition: Lam, Applied, TELand then Wonik, ASM, and others Track: TEL Litho: ASML Etch: Lam, Applied, TEL CMP: Ebara, Applied Metro: Onto, KLA, Hitachi Inspect: KLa, Applied There are more, and I missed a bit, but basically, you need to tick off each of these layers, and quite often with the best at each. ASML cannot make wafers for anyone without someone doing all the other parts. And really, that is true for all these companies. There is a best of breed and selection bias that makes each system imperfectly interchangeable. But you can also see that ASML is the sole true monopoly. So if they are out, nothing works. There are plausible workarounds otherwise.not always easy or cost effective, but plausible in most cases. ASML needs the rest of the infrastructure to sell tools. And likewise, everyone needs ASML to deliver, or there is no new node....
  - jotm 6y ago
    Yeah, it looks like more of a way to make China break whatever dependence on the US it had and become an even bigger competitor :/
- namibj 6y ago
  Sounds like a reason to pick the Free-electron laser pathway back up. Particle accelerators are arguably more of a commodity than ASML's EUV exposure technology. And they might get nice introspection by operating an x-ray FEL to do coherent transmission imaging for analytical purposes.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  After this move by the US, it wouldn't surprise me if there soon were 7-9 instead of 6 such companies, and the new entries were Chinese/China-friendly. China has both, money and leverage (not just political, rare earths, etc), to throw at this problem, and from China's perspective it should be a strategic priority to get this done. It would in fact surprise me if there weren't such projects already in full drive since May 2019 when this all started.
  - mark_l_watson 6y ago
    You have brought up my largest concern over weaponizing IP and means of production. This might help Trump’s ability to win a second term, but I argue that long term we are forcing China and large parts of the world to develop their own tech and become stronger competitors. I know that our system of government does not optimize long term gain, but this case seems especially bad.
- jotm 6y ago
  > You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major equipment companies, none of which are Chinese Yet. Eh, you know what, bring it on. The CCP needs to chill the fork out, but new sources/manufacturers for this kind of technology are always welcome. I bet prices would go down a lot, like it happens every time AMD brings out something that can actually compete with Intel.
madengr 6y ago
They probably all use the software. Funny thing is that TSMC +10 nm is subject to these rules, but not the 7 nm as it uses under 13% USA technology. Yes, I think ASML will not sell them equipment.
- Udik 6y ago
  So now you have EU companies that bought a product from US companies and are retroactively deprived of the ability to produce for their customers? Is this even legal?
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    That depends on a lot of things, including perspective. Things can be legal according to one set of rules, yet illegal under another set. EU member states certainly could see this as illegal interference in their economies and a stretch of US jurisdiction. There is also a good chance that this goes counter to at least a few international trade agreements. Agreements the US still desperately needs for other things it wants to keep doing. It appears a very short sighted policy, by people who probably don't give a shit about whatever damage they do long term. Once they are out of office, it is no longer their problem. If it made them richer, they won. It's the ordinary people that will likely pay a price for this at some point, but not them.

adventured 6y ago

> How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment? In the semi industry, nearly all of them. You can hardly make anything in the semiconductor industry without using several of the major US companies. The US still dominates the semiconductor equipment industry. Of the six major players, half of them are US companies. > The $412bn global semiconductor industry rests on the shoulders of just six equipment companies, three of them US-based. Together, the companies make nearly all of the crucial hardware and software tools needed to manufacture chips, meaning an American export ban would choke off China’s access to the basic tools needed to make their latest chip designs. > "You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major equipment companies, none of which are Chinese," said Brett Simpson, the founder of Arete Research, an equity research group. “If you fight a war with no guns you’re going to lose. And they don’t have the guns.” > "ASML cannot do without Applied Materials and the other way around. If you take even one out of the value chain, that may hamper Chinese fabs," said a former ASML executive. https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9...

brennanpeterson 6y ago
Mostly true, but you could come pretty close with ASML, ASM, TEL,ebara, hitachi and a couple others (particularly the Korean companies) I don't think it is quite so widely understood that there are close seconds in every market. It is pretty easy to imagine ASML giving up on Intel, cutting HMI, and all the chipmakers going outside of Lam, Applied, and KLA for their next tools. The industry would be a bit disrupted but outside the US...fine. and it would destroy the US industry. This will also tend to pressure the Chinese to keep pushing their own supplier industry, rather than just integrators.
- sabas123 6y ago
  Could you give a layman overview of how ASML is dependent on these companies and what the geo-political/econmic shifts would be?
  - brennanpeterson 6y ago
    That is a big topic. Basically, though, a process flow is deposition, track, litho, etch, clean, deposition, cmp, metro, inspect (lots of steps vary, but these are the basics) You need each of these to work. Deposition: Lam, Applied, TELand then Wonik, ASM, and others Track: TEL Litho: ASML Etch: Lam, Applied, TEL CMP: Ebara, Applied Metro: Onto, KLA, Hitachi Inspect: KLa, Applied There are more, and I missed a bit, but basically, you need to tick off each of these layers, and quite often with the best at each. ASML cannot make wafers for anyone without someone doing all the other parts. And really, that is true for all these companies. There is a best of breed and selection bias that makes each system imperfectly interchangeable. But you can also see that ASML is the sole true monopoly. So if they are out, nothing works. There are plausible workarounds otherwise.not always easy or cost effective, but plausible in most cases. ASML needs the rest of the infrastructure to sell tools. And likewise, everyone needs ASML to deliver, or there is no new node....
- jotm 6y ago
  Yeah, it looks like more of a way to make China break whatever dependence on the US it had and become an even bigger competitor :/
namibj 6y ago
Sounds like a reason to pick the Free-electron laser pathway back up. Particle accelerators are arguably more of a commodity than ASML's EUV exposure technology. And they might get nice introspection by operating an x-ray FEL to do coherent transmission imaging for analytical purposes.
rndgermandude 6y ago
After this move by the US, it wouldn't surprise me if there soon were 7-9 instead of 6 such companies, and the new entries were Chinese/China-friendly. China has both, money and leverage (not just political, rare earths, etc), to throw at this problem, and from China's perspective it should be a strategic priority to get this done. It would in fact surprise me if there weren't such projects already in full drive since May 2019 when this all started.
- mark_l_watson 6y ago
  You have brought up my largest concern over weaponizing IP and means of production. This might help Trump’s ability to win a second term, but I argue that long term we are forcing China and large parts of the world to develop their own tech and become stronger competitors. I know that our system of government does not optimize long term gain, but this case seems especially bad.
jotm 6y ago
> You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major equipment companies, none of which are Chinese Yet. Eh, you know what, bring it on. The CCP needs to chill the fork out, but new sources/manufacturers for this kind of technology are always welcome. I bet prices would go down a lot, like it happens every time AMD brings out something that can actually compete with Intel.

madengr 6y ago

They probably all use the software. Funny thing is that TSMC +10 nm is subject to these rules, but not the 7 nm as it uses under 13% USA technology. Yes, I think ASML will not sell them equipment.

Udik 6y ago
So now you have EU companies that bought a product from US companies and are retroactively deprived of the ability to produce for their customers? Is this even legal?
- elmo2you 6y ago
  That depends on a lot of things, including perspective. Things can be legal according to one set of rules, yet illegal under another set. EU member states certainly could see this as illegal interference in their economies and a stretch of US jurisdiction. There is also a good chance that this goes counter to at least a few international trade agreements. Agreements the US still desperately needs for other things it wants to keep doing. It appears a very short sighted policy, by people who probably don't give a shit about whatever damage they do long term. Once they are out of office, it is no longer their problem. If it made them richer, they won. It's the ordinary people that will likely pay a price for this at some point, but not them.