4 ms·

Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor

Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor behind a likely military invasion. Actually there's one other possibility: that this is an audition before Google acqui-hires eFabless. Can't say I blame them. Running MPW shuttles is an incredibly tough business; of the three leading shuttle providers (MOSIS, IMEC, CMP) two are non-profits affiliated with universities and the third used to be. There isn't a lot of profit in it. And I can't really blame Google either... Tim Edwards is easily worth the entire company's payroll so they'll be getting a great deal as long as they can keep him interested.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 6y ago
> Google Fiber Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Google do not have the commitment, focus, or skillset to compete in ASICs. Certainly not to compete with TSMC themselves. Apple have the design experience now to deliver the M1 - 12 years after acquiring PA Semi. And it's manufactured by .. TSMC. This has every hallmark of a VP who wants to play with semiconductors, not a serious attempt to deliver something specific.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not entirely. I'm not sure if they're still introducing Google Fiber to new cities, but they're definitely still expanding to new neighborhoods in existing cities.
  - technofiend 6y ago
    I don't think they even have full saturation in their pilot cities and only see one city added in the last year. Considering Google's tendency to cut projects below a certain size as much I'd love to be a Google fiber customer it's more realistic to expect it to be killed in the next year or two.
- partingshots 6y ago
  > Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not at all. In fact, they just finished rolling out 2 Gigabit Fiber[0] where I live (Nashville area). [0] - https://fiber.google.com/blog/2020/the-next-step-in-speed-experience-2-gig-now-with-the-google-fiber-trusted-tester-program/ https://fiber.google.com/blog/2020/the-next-step-in-speed-ex...
  - deelowe 6y ago
    They have to honor existing contracts which keep them on the hook for many years. When Larry announced they were scaling back, he specifically cited this sort of leverage being the biggest concern.
mschuster91 6y ago
> Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor behind a likely military invasion. TSMC only got so powerful because the competition, especially Intel, were abysmal failures in rolling out new tech. It's not like their Dutch supplier ASML only sells their tech to TSMC, too. Anyone with the cash at hand could buy their stuff. Also: the last US governments (both Obama and Trump) or the major EU governments could have stepped in any fucking time in the last 10-15 years and say "hey it might be a good idea to have some backup for Intel instead of leaving everything to Taiwan"... only in 2020 TSMC finally announced to build an US fab, and the EU is still sitting on their hands.
gimmeThaBeet 6y ago
Maybe I'm not looking far enough ahead, but how is running 130nm MPWs competing with the TSMC/Samsung level of fabs? I can see how eFabless might have the effect of commoditizing a foundry because you aren't necessarily locked in to their tooling. But doesn't that principle only sort of hold if the foundry's process itself is sort of a commodity (i.e. mature,old)? Old has worse connotations than I mean, because you can do a lot at fairly large nodes, you just aren't making iPhone SoCs at 130nm.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  You'd be surprised how much stuff is made on these old processes. A lot of very security-cricial stuff like Baseboard Management Controllers, lights-out management controllers, and laptop embedded controllers are almost entirely built on pre-OPC (i.e. pre-90nm) processes. All of those chips are in the "security flaw equals remote root" category. SkyWater's 130nm process is compatible with on-die flash (unlike most post-90nm and nearly all post-40nm processes). You could do a "secure enclave" or your own Hardware Security Module and not have to worry about backdoors. But to answer your question directly: this isn't about making an iPhone comeptitor.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 6y ago

> Google Fiber Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Google do not have the commitment, focus, or skillset to compete in ASICs. Certainly not to compete with TSMC themselves. Apple have the design experience now to deliver the M1 - 12 years after acquiring PA Semi. And it's manufactured by .. TSMC. This has every hallmark of a VP who wants to play with semiconductors, not a serious attempt to deliver something specific.

wtallis 6y ago
> Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not entirely. I'm not sure if they're still introducing Google Fiber to new cities, but they're definitely still expanding to new neighborhoods in existing cities.
- technofiend 6y ago
  I don't think they even have full saturation in their pilot cities and only see one city added in the last year. Considering Google's tendency to cut projects below a certain size as much I'd love to be a Google fiber customer it's more realistic to expect it to be killed in the next year or two.
partingshots 6y ago
> Haven't they paused the rollout of this? Not at all. In fact, they just finished rolling out 2 Gigabit Fiber[0] where I live (Nashville area). [0] - https://fiber.google.com/blog/2020/the-next-step-in-speed-experience-2-gig-now-with-the-google-fiber-trusted-tester-program/ https://fiber.google.com/blog/2020/the-next-step-in-speed-ex...
- deelowe 6y ago
  They have to honor existing contracts which keep them on the hook for many years. When Larry announced they were scaling back, he specifically cited this sort of leverage being the biggest concern.

mschuster91 6y ago

> Pulling a Google Fiber on the chip fabs might not be a bad thing right now -- TSMC is way, way too powerful at the moment. Even Google isn't the driving factor behind a likely military invasion. TSMC only got so powerful because the competition, especially Intel, were abysmal failures in rolling out new tech. It's not like their Dutch supplier ASML only sells their tech to TSMC, too. Anyone with the cash at hand could buy their stuff. Also: the last US governments (both Obama and Trump) or the major EU governments could have stepped in any fucking time in the last 10-15 years and say "hey it might be a good idea to have some backup for Intel instead of leaving everything to Taiwan"... only in 2020 TSMC finally announced to build an US fab, and the EU is still sitting on their hands.

gimmeThaBeet 6y ago

Maybe I'm not looking far enough ahead, but how is running 130nm MPWs competing with the TSMC/Samsung level of fabs? I can see how eFabless might have the effect of commoditizing a foundry because you aren't necessarily locked in to their tooling. But doesn't that principle only sort of hold if the foundry's process itself is sort of a commodity (i.e. mature,old)? Old has worse connotations than I mean, because you can do a lot at fairly large nodes, you just aren't making iPhone SoCs at 130nm.

octoberfranklin 6y ago
You'd be surprised how much stuff is made on these old processes. A lot of very security-cricial stuff like Baseboard Management Controllers, lights-out management controllers, and laptop embedded controllers are almost entirely built on pre-OPC (i.e. pre-90nm) processes. All of those chips are in the "security flaw equals remote root" category. SkyWater's 130nm process is compatible with on-die flash (unlike most post-90nm and nearly all post-40nm processes). You could do a "secure enclave" or your own Hardware Security Module and not have to worry about backdoors. But to answer your question directly: this isn't about making an iPhone comeptitor.