7 ms·

EU seeks to supercharge computer chip production

54 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

outside1234 6y ago
Sounds like a great dream they have there. Why would anyone produce chips there? I don't see any reason to do that.
- krastanov 6y ago
  Could you make the same argument for anything: "Why would anyone manufacture chip lithography equipment in Europe?" Without knowing that most of that equipment is made there, I would have asked this question. This is about mostly automated foundries and already expensive high skill low number labor.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  The largest manufacturer of semiconductor manufacturer equipment is Dutch, so it doesn’t seem that outlandish. More generally, the current market is unhealthy. There are only two companies fabbing high end chips (not counting Intel, who generally only fab their own stuff), and even then only if you’re generous to Samsung. In the long run, that’s not good for anyone, and it’s an obvious analogy to Airbus.
- dang 6y ago
  "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ggm 6y ago
Historically European "grand plan" computing pushes don't work. It's great to try. Anyone else worked through 5th generation, the Alvey report and the MITI catchup? What does work is sustained organic investment in fundamental science and an environment which stimulates SME. Its the transition to world scale which seems to defeat European initiated planning.
- Koliakis 6y ago
  Taiwan was quite successful with the policies they implemented to home-grow a semiconductor industry: https://www.nap.edu/read/10677/chapter/9 https://www.nap.edu/read/10677/chapter/9 The entire chapter is interesting, but it also mentions how TSMC came to be: > The government came to realize that it did not yet have an industry—only one company. The private sector was still fearful of risk and could not raise enough money to start new firms. Once again the government put up money, this time to start TSMC. And this time it applied a condition: The government’s share would be less than 50 percent. Lacking enough funds from the private sector, the government made an offer to Philips, which put in almost 35 percent of the initial investment; this pushed the private sector’s share above 50 percent, and TSMC was born. Again, the technology and all the people came from ERSO, including about 130 engineers, the 2-micron CMOS developed at ERSO, and its latest 6-inch-wafer fab. TSMC had no product, only the fab technology, which matched well with the idea of a pure-play foundry. I don't get why Europe is so bad at this kind of thing.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Because Taiwan is a single, small country, with a single government, and a great incentive to succeed in semiconductors. The EU is a conglomerate of 20+ hyperbureaucratic states where the incentive is to drag these initiatives for years and billions, get nowhere, and repeat. A lot of people will make a lot of money, regardless the outcome.
    - ggm 6y ago
      I'd put it slightly differently. Germans won't fund Philips. France wants CI Honeywell Bull, not Olivetti. If you want to invest, you either back new starts which wind up being a race to host them, or you back collaborative projects which force Bull, Olivetti, ICL, to work together. Sorry, they just never really work. Too much competitive tension. Taiwan, its kind-of a bit more apparent. The nasty neighbour is just across the straights. You better get your act together.
      - TMWNN 6y ago
Koliakis 6y ago
> But he acknowledged at the report's launch that it was still unclear whether this would involve offering tax cuts to woo TSMC, Samsung or another major player to establish a new site within Europe. Sounds like it'll be another half-assed EU project that won't amount to anything meaningful. They should be looking at home-growing talent (research labs, universities, programs) and rebuilding the European industry (joint partnerships, funding, subisidies, etc.), instead of relying on overseas companies for such a crucial and strategic issue.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  So, basically MEGA (Make Europe Great Again)?
  - elefanten 6y ago
    I don’t understand what angle this comment is coming from, but it feels like derision. If so, why?
    - jimmydorry 6y ago
      The link I see from the few words GP used, one of the core underlying messages behind the "Make America Great Again" campaign was to bring back manufacturing within America. Subsidizing and growing local production of computer chips would be quite similar, so I can see a parallel there. GP really should have expounded on their view though, rather than leaving the burden to interpret their words on us, the readers. EDIT: The derision you may feel might be because many shared the view that bringing back manufacturing was pointless and that bringing the capability back did not mean bringing back the jobs (automation). There was also the widespread conflation of Trump, his other policies, and the MAGA slogan... so the slogan is probably not as useful now.
    - Daho0n 6y ago
      I don't see why. This is exactly how MAGA was supposed to be. MAGA or MEGA, equally stupid.
- 6y ago
Guthur 6y ago
I've had a number of conversations recently on how semi conductors could be the new oil in relation to geo politics and it seems that many policies are coming out that reinforce that. It'll be interesting in the coming decades whether or not we can navigate this one peacefully or not. There is likely hope though as it's not really limited by natural resources or geography, at least right now, but rather on intellectual property which is inherently infinite except for the artificial constraints we've applied to it.
madengr 6y ago
The article says it costs $20B to build a state of the art fab. The USA is just about to pass its second $2T stimulus package. I’m betting a fab is not in there.
0xy 6y ago
The EU doesn't have the talent or the resources, especially not if they're planning on fleecing engineers like they do with software engineers (which earn 1/3rd or less the equivalent position's salary in the US). There's no reason to be in the EU as an engineer, unless you like making trade-offs that leave you in a net negative position (no, free healthcare is not worth >$100,000 less salary).
- xiphias2 6y ago
  High taxes and handouts to corrupt companies make it too hard to compete inside the EU. Everything is about winning the EU grants, and the better you are at winning EU grants, the more profitable your company gets.
- wdb 6y ago
  I prefer to be happier with live, a better quality of living than earning $100.000 more in salary. Just like in Europe in the US there are only specific areas were you would earn such high salaries. Don't think you would earn that much in Holland, Michigan but happy to be corrected :)
- imtringued 6y ago
  What you are saying doesn't make sense. If engineers can earn $100k more then why wouldn't private companies build the fabs in the EU? You can't conjure money out of nothing. If anything, cheap engineers would make it easier to build the fabs and stay competitive internationally because that is how Taiwan is competing.
mullingitover 6y ago
Europe has something arguably more valuable than semiconductor manufacturing - they have ASML Holding, which produces the equipment that makes the semiconductor manufacturing possible. In the gold rush, they're the ones selling picks and shovels.
- genericone 6y ago
  Yes, but the EUV license that underpins ASML's technology is owned by the EUV LLC, composed of Intel, AMD, and the US Department of energy, all those other members being US institutions, only ASML being a non american organization.
  - jorvi 6y ago
    Yes, but you are forgetting a massive amount of the research for EUV was done at and 'owned' by Euclides, ASML's EU based R&D center. It is more of a cross-licensing thing than the US companies being the sole owner of the tech.

54 points by mikesabbagh 6y ago

outside1234 6y ago

Sounds like a great dream they have there. Why would anyone produce chips there? I don't see any reason to do that.

krastanov 6y ago
Could you make the same argument for anything: "Why would anyone manufacture chip lithography equipment in Europe?" Without knowing that most of that equipment is made there, I would have asked this question. This is about mostly automated foundries and already expensive high skill low number labor.
rsynnott 6y ago
The largest manufacturer of semiconductor manufacturer equipment is Dutch, so it doesn’t seem that outlandish. More generally, the current market is unhealthy. There are only two companies fabbing high end chips (not counting Intel, who generally only fab their own stuff), and even then only if you’re generous to Samsung. In the long run, that’s not good for anyone, and it’s an obvious analogy to Airbus.
dang 6y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ggm 6y ago

Historically European "grand plan" computing pushes don't work. It's great to try. Anyone else worked through 5th generation, the Alvey report and the MITI catchup? What does work is sustained organic investment in fundamental science and an environment which stimulates SME. Its the transition to world scale which seems to defeat European initiated planning.

Koliakis 6y ago
Taiwan was quite successful with the policies they implemented to home-grow a semiconductor industry: https://www.nap.edu/read/10677/chapter/9 https://www.nap.edu/read/10677/chapter/9 The entire chapter is interesting, but it also mentions how TSMC came to be: > The government came to realize that it did not yet have an industry—only one company. The private sector was still fearful of risk and could not raise enough money to start new firms. Once again the government put up money, this time to start TSMC. And this time it applied a condition: The government’s share would be less than 50 percent. Lacking enough funds from the private sector, the government made an offer to Philips, which put in almost 35 percent of the initial investment; this pushed the private sector’s share above 50 percent, and TSMC was born. Again, the technology and all the people came from ERSO, including about 130 engineers, the 2-micron CMOS developed at ERSO, and its latest 6-inch-wafer fab. TSMC had no product, only the fab technology, which matched well with the idea of a pure-play foundry. I don't get why Europe is so bad at this kind of thing.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Because Taiwan is a single, small country, with a single government, and a great incentive to succeed in semiconductors. The EU is a conglomerate of 20+ hyperbureaucratic states where the incentive is to drag these initiatives for years and billions, get nowhere, and repeat. A lot of people will make a lot of money, regardless the outcome.
  - ggm 6y ago
    I'd put it slightly differently. Germans won't fund Philips. France wants CI Honeywell Bull, not Olivetti. If you want to invest, you either back new starts which wind up being a race to host them, or you back collaborative projects which force Bull, Olivetti, ICL, to work together. Sorry, they just never really work. Too much competitive tension. Taiwan, its kind-of a bit more apparent. The nasty neighbour is just across the straights. You better get your act together.
    - TMWNN 6y ago

Koliakis 6y ago

> But he acknowledged at the report's launch that it was still unclear whether this would involve offering tax cuts to woo TSMC, Samsung or another major player to establish a new site within Europe. Sounds like it'll be another half-assed EU project that won't amount to anything meaningful. They should be looking at home-growing talent (research labs, universities, programs) and rebuilding the European industry (joint partnerships, funding, subisidies, etc.), instead of relying on overseas companies for such a crucial and strategic issue.

Daho0n 6y ago
So, basically MEGA (Make Europe Great Again)?
- elefanten 6y ago
  I don’t understand what angle this comment is coming from, but it feels like derision. If so, why?
  - jimmydorry 6y ago
    The link I see from the few words GP used, one of the core underlying messages behind the "Make America Great Again" campaign was to bring back manufacturing within America. Subsidizing and growing local production of computer chips would be quite similar, so I can see a parallel there. GP really should have expounded on their view though, rather than leaving the burden to interpret their words on us, the readers. EDIT: The derision you may feel might be because many shared the view that bringing back manufacturing was pointless and that bringing the capability back did not mean bringing back the jobs (automation). There was also the widespread conflation of Trump, his other policies, and the MAGA slogan... so the slogan is probably not as useful now.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    I don't see why. This is exactly how MAGA was supposed to be. MAGA or MEGA, equally stupid.
6y ago

Guthur 6y ago

I've had a number of conversations recently on how semi conductors could be the new oil in relation to geo politics and it seems that many policies are coming out that reinforce that. It'll be interesting in the coming decades whether or not we can navigate this one peacefully or not. There is likely hope though as it's not really limited by natural resources or geography, at least right now, but rather on intellectual property which is inherently infinite except for the artificial constraints we've applied to it.

madengr 6y ago

The article says it costs $20B to build a state of the art fab. The USA is just about to pass its second $2T stimulus package. I’m betting a fab is not in there.

0xy 6y ago

The EU doesn't have the talent or the resources, especially not if they're planning on fleecing engineers like they do with software engineers (which earn 1/3rd or less the equivalent position's salary in the US). There's no reason to be in the EU as an engineer, unless you like making trade-offs that leave you in a net negative position (no, free healthcare is not worth >$100,000 less salary).

xiphias2 6y ago
High taxes and handouts to corrupt companies make it too hard to compete inside the EU. Everything is about winning the EU grants, and the better you are at winning EU grants, the more profitable your company gets.
wdb 6y ago
I prefer to be happier with live, a better quality of living than earning $100.000 more in salary. Just like in Europe in the US there are only specific areas were you would earn such high salaries. Don't think you would earn that much in Holland, Michigan but happy to be corrected :)
imtringued 6y ago
What you are saying doesn't make sense. If engineers can earn $100k more then why wouldn't private companies build the fabs in the EU? You can't conjure money out of nothing. If anything, cheap engineers would make it easier to build the fabs and stay competitive internationally because that is how Taiwan is competing.

mullingitover 6y ago

Europe has something arguably more valuable than semiconductor manufacturing - they have ASML Holding, which produces the equipment that makes the semiconductor manufacturing possible. In the gold rush, they're the ones selling picks and shovels.

genericone 6y ago
Yes, but the EUV license that underpins ASML's technology is owned by the EUV LLC, composed of Intel, AMD, and the US Department of energy, all those other members being US institutions, only ASML being a non american organization.
- jorvi 6y ago
  Yes, but you are forgetting a massive amount of the research for EUV was done at and 'owned' by Euclides, ASML's EU based R&D center. It is more of a cross-licensing thing than the US companies being the sole owner of the tech.