8 ms·

Is automotive industry all that EU cares about? What about IoT/robotics? The fact that TSMC want to build only their older fab here is really disappointing to m

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  The EU has also supplied both weapons and technology that are currently threatening Taiwan: https://www.businessinsider.com/european-companies-are-supplying-china-with-billions-in-weapons-and-military-technology-2014-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/european-companies-are-suppl... France alone was the #2 supplier from 2015-2019: https://euro-sd.com/2020/03/news/16688/sipri-biggest-arms-exporters-and-importers/ https://euro-sd.com/2020/03/news/16688/sipri-biggest-arms-ex... You really can't blame Taiwan for not rushing to put its most cutting edge expertise in the EU.
  • xwolfi 5y ago
    We also sold a lot to Taiwan. There's really no anti-Taiwan military strategy in France: we sell to whomever buys. I live in Hong Kong and I was happy to hear the water cannon used to tame the revolutionaries was made in my homeland. I'm sure if Taiwan needs our help to kill or tame people, we'll happily provide. Something has to finance socialism, and it certainly won't be the sweat and blood of my fellow countrymen.
    • mannerheim 5y ago
      That's false. France hasn't exported arms to Taiwan since 2005 according to SIPRI <https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/values.php https://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/values.php>. All Taiwanese arms imports since 2015 have come from the United States.
    • idiotsecant 5y ago
      in Capitalism's majesty it provides equal access to incredibly expensive military technology to both the world's 2nd largest economy and it's 36th largest economy economy!
  • tasogare 5y ago
    France also sold a good part of weapons that is used to defend Taiwan (the Mirage fleet).
  • NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Eg ~ 200 million in 2012 is not a lot of arms. That's 2,5 x f35's ( without maintenance) which really is just peanuts.
    • AlchemistCamp 5y ago
      The more valuable part was the technology transfer.
      • NicoJuicy 5y ago
        Says what? > "Without European technology, the Chinese navy would not be able to move." You really think China couldn't buy tech from eg. Russia to make their "fleet move"? What was the tech? Why was it that important?
        • VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
          is russias technology still from the 60s and 70s though
        • mannerheim 5y ago
          The Russians can't even make their own fleet move. https://www.businessinsider.com/tug-sailing-with-russian-ships-reveals-their-fleets-biggest-problem-2018-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/tug-sailing-with-russian-shi...
          • NicoJuicy 5y ago
            The carrier is moving, isn't it? Lack of money to maintain their army has been a recurring issue since the fall of the USSR. My question still remains to have a realistic POV: > What was the tech? Why was it that important?
            • mannerheim 5y ago
              I mean, if you consider being pulled by a tugboat to be moving.
  • nl 5y ago
    France also sells arms to Taiwan probably worth more than the sales to China. https://www.france24.com/en/20200513-china-warns-france-against-selling-weapons-to-taiwan https://www.france24.com/en/20200513-china-warns-france-agai...
  • peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    TSMC buy their machinery from EU. Their most cutting edge expertise is in good part made in EU.
• mrtksn 5y ago
  EU is loosely coupled peace union with a lot of sovereignty left to the individual states. If I remember correctly, ones Rupert Murdoch famously said that it’s impossible to find a phone number to call. So, It’s probably not up to the EU to care about automotive, that must be Germany. France and Spain likely cares about other things and no one cares about cutting edge chips. EU can push from the top by easing state aid rules, I guess, however it must be a particular country to strike a deal.
  • Griffinsauce 5y ago
    > If I remember correctly, ones Rupert Murdoch famously said that it’s impossible to find a phone number to call. Do the HN rules of assuming good faith apply to him as well? /s https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/call-us_en https://europa.eu/european-union/contact/call-us_en Please don't signal boost easily falsifiable claims like this. The function of it is to sow division and prevent proper nuanced discussion.
    • RedShift1 5y ago
      R.M. probably meant it more as a figure of speech.
      • Griffinsauce 5y ago
        Yeah, that's nice cover. This is a meme that is meant to heighten emotions in politics. It's small but intentionally destructive and each repetition of one of these little demonizations further prevents cool-headed nuanced discourse. It's death by a thousand cuts for our society.
      • mrtksn 5y ago
        Exactly, it's not about actually finding a number to call but to convey the nature of the organisation. It might not even be a real quote by anyone but it is used to portray EU. It is a bad thing or good thing, depending on your opinions on governmental centralisation and the relations of businesspeople with politicians. Unfortunately we can no longer have conversation on politics without rage, so I agree that it is a bit provocative. That said, I don't see how we can talk about the TSMCs failure to strike a deal with the EU without pointing out about this fundamental difference between EU and USA.
• vineyardmike 5y ago
  TSMC is also likely saving their best tech for where they can control it the best and shop it around the best. The US has lots of high tech customers (Apple, Qualcomm, AMD even Intel) who are willing to pay top price for supply. Add in the US and their heavy national security needs/desire/politics and of course the energy and money is obvious for good fabs in the US. England has some semiconductor industry and so does Germany, but less of it is top-spec tech from cash rich companies. Obviously “Europe” still cares about national security but is the money and politics comparable to the US military industrial complex?
  • supergirl 5y ago
    is TSMC doing anything innovative themselves? I thought they just purchase the machines or at least specs from ASML, a Dutch company. So the "best tech" is designed in EU anyway.
    • andy_ppp 5y ago
      If it was that simple loads of companies would be smashing out 5nm chips...
      • supergirl 5y ago
        not saying it's simple. there are big companies in EU like Siemens that I bet are capable of doing it, if it makes sense economically. I guess so far it didn't. probably the reason was that it's cheaper to get the chips from Asia, same as it's cheaper to make iphones in Asia, etc.
        • adriancr 5y ago
          Intel isn't capable yet and they are pouring money and have all the incentives to get leading edge node... You think Siemens which has none of those will be capable to churn out leading edge fabs just like that? Lets face it, it's not a simple task.
    • Slartie 5y ago
• totalZero 5y ago
  Older lithography is what European automakers need, and the same can be said for robotics. The only reason for EU to demand fabrication of leading edge chips in Europe is hubris. How many laptops and mobile phones, in percent terms relative to those respective markets, are assembled in Europe?
  • pawsforapplase 5y ago
    I've actually always wondered why automakers never try to make consumer electronics. They wouldn't even need to compete with Apple or Dell; would you consider an Audi or Toyota laptop in place of a Panasonic Toughbook? Caterpillar does it with phones[1], and their main business is heavy industry. Why not auto manufacturers? Could easier access to smaller process nodes incentivize them to branch out into new markets like that? [1]: https://www.catphones.com/ https://www.catphones.com/
    • tim-- 5y ago
      It's not Caterpillar doing this, though. It's Bullitt Group. They are the same people behind the Kodak phone. Thier whole business model basically revolves around licensing big brands that you have heard of, and making mobile devices with that brand stamped on it.
    • bserge 5y ago
      I've always wondered why most household appliances recycling factories don't sell the parts, but hey, I'm just a lowly employee, not a CEO getting paid five+ figures a year. When I looked into it, the most cited reasons were "that's not our business" (really? then what is?) and "it costs more than it's worth" (it doesn't, plus you get government subsidies for green initiatives). No mention of contracts forbidding that, some manufacturers do forbid resale of whole units, but not of spare parts. Caterpillar sold/licensed their brand for use in industries they're not competing in, btw, just like many other big companies.
      • kube-system 5y ago
        I once did some work for a junkyard, and their business is a lot more complicated than what I would imagine a recycler has to do. They have to identify, catalog, evaluate the quality of parts. They have to identify cross-reference fitment information. With thousands of different vehicles with thousands of parts each, they’re looking at millions of SKUs. Then they have to inventory, warehouse, market, and manage the sales process for all of those. Even the highly automated tech-savvy junk yard I did work for threw out most of the parts that weren’t high value or high demand, simply because all of the above processes wouldn’t be worth it for a thousands of different $2 parts that don’t have names and are low demand. Appliances aren’t quite as complicated, but I could still see how it would be a big change from the perspective of how they do business.
• pas 5y ago
  TSMC depends on ASML (Netherlands) already.
• speleding 5y ago
  Biden promised $50 billion in subsidies for the industry, the EU does not have that kind of spending power, and (as a European) I'm happy they don't try to out-subsidise them. Chips are a global industry, so yes, the factories will end up there but we will be able to buy chips subsidised by US tax payers. Many economists would claim that business and citizens would be more likely to efficiently allocate that $50B themselves. The increased tax on businesses in the US is going to hurt their innovation elsewhere in the economy, it just won't be as visible. Governments picking winning industries has a very spotty track record. Often the industry does not turn out to be as crucial as thought, or subsidies end up in the wrong pockets. Every other generation this lessons needs to be re-learned it seems.
  • imtringued 5y ago
    The problem with the chip industry is that it's not really a money maker. Yes you need factories in your own country but this is only because of national security, the actual economic benefit isn't the deciding factor. The chip shortage is creating an economic incentive to expand production capacity on its own, there is no need for subsidies but countries should accommodate new fabs by making them viable to build them in the first place. One big problem with fabs is that they need specialized staff, they are not going to employ the average worker.
    • Reason077 5y ago
      > "there is no need for subsidies but countries should accommodate new fabs" No chip factories get built in Europe or North America without significant subsidies.
    • adventured 5y ago
      > Yes you need factories in your own country but this is only because of national security, the actual economic benefit isn't the deciding factor. You can't separate the two in the case of the US. Having the semi fabs in the US is an economic factor because it's a national security factor, even if it involved adding zero net new jobs because it was all automated by AI + robotics. Insurance is a very important segment of economy. Risk limiting, prevention. Security, both cyber and physical. And so on. For a business they're critical to sales even though they're costs and not generative for the businesses in terms of sales, they help to make sales possible by protecting the business (like having shelter for your employees). Building fabs in the US plays that same role to the US economy, it's a form of insurance, and it also helps to maintain/retain tech know-how. It's absolutely critical to the US economy, when you consider the realistic context of the world, re the US & China (as opposed to running a spreadsheet economic scenario that involves no potential politics, conflicts or wars). Semiconductors are critical now and will be more so in the future. The US has both the world's largest economy, most to lose in the tech sector, most powerful military (which depends on semiconductors and will more so tomorrow) and the most wealth of any nation. A superpower without a military is no superpower; the most wealth without a military to protect it, you won't keep that wealth for long. It's pretty obvious that's a very massive economic factor. Being brought to your knees as a superpower - both militarily and economically - by your primary global rival because you failed to build some fabs, would be particularly stupid. It's similar to the rare earth metals problem, both in terms of economy and national security. You might be able to separate the fab context of economy from national security to a limited extent in smaller nations, where realistically there's nothing you can do to stand off against far larger nations regardless of what you do about semiconductors (you'll lose whether you build that fab or not). Such is not the case with the US however. The US has epic scale global economic interests that very strongly benefit from having global military projection and security.