8 ms·

Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Will be interesting to see how China reacts as it moves forward. If Intel is serious this time about letting third pa

Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Will be interesting to see how China reacts as it moves forward. If Intel is serious this time about letting third parties into their fabs then it could be quite the reversal of fortune. However, as I've said in the past Intel is most likely to do this with "alternate" process streams, in order to not expose their full capabilities to competitors. High hopes but low expectations. Real estate in AZ could be a good investment though.

m00x 5y ago
Why China? Most of the major chip fabs aren't made in China. They're mostly made in Taiwan, South Korea and the US. Unless we're strictly talking about TSMC, which does have 2/18 fabs in China.
- artificial 5y ago
  The location of Taiwan to the mainland is the perceived concern with the Chinese navy and the reach of the American military. Recently a squadron was moved from Guam. China has been expanding its influence/territory via islands in the South China Sea over the last decade. I think it’s a strategic concern.
- lstamour 5y ago
  This article explains some of the conflict: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silicon-shield-protect-it-against-chinas-aggression https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silico... China’s stance on Taiwan is clear[1] but given Taiwan doesn’t agree, it has remained independent despite what China says. The same was true for Hong Kong until recently, however, so concerns remain. The US is waking up to realizing that they have a heavy reliance on China for civilian goods and a slight to moderate risk that it might be disrupted or used against them in future. The worry I suppose is that it might be easier for supply chain-based attacks to weaken US defences, not that we’ve seen anything like this in practice yet due to how easy it is to exploit existing software bugs, for example. 1. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tens...
  - nl 5y ago
    The situation with Taiwan (an independent - if unrecognised - country) is very different to HK which was a separately governed province of China.
    - ChuckMcM 5y ago
      This statement conflicts with my understanding of the British rule of Hong Kong and the accords under which is was placed under the sovereignty of China.
      - bigfudge 5y ago
        HK was always going g to be returned to the Chinese. It took 20 years for the charade to end, but the situation is different to Taiwan.
        elefanten 5y ago
        You’re not responding to the point. There was a clear deal in place regarding how China could govern/change Hong Kong, with strict timelines. China broke its word and trashed the deal. Eventual certainty notwithstanding — the CCP demonstrated (as it has oh so many other times) that their word is unusually unreliable, even in the shitty arena of international politics.
        nl 5y ago
        That's the point I was making originally btw. HK relies on Chinas word. Taiwan doesn't.
        bigfudge 5y ago
        I'm late returning to this, and I don't normally like whataboutism, and I don't want to be seen to be condoning what is happening in HK, but I have very low expectations for nations keeping commitments made in international politics. I think everyone was pretty clear when the HK deal was struck that it wouldn't make the distance. The UK just wanted to avoid rocking the boat + there was very little that could be done. The US has renagaged on several international agreements in recent history — we all know that these agreements reflect the preferences of those in power at the time and are contingent on it remaining convenient.
mook 5y ago
As a first pass, wouldn't this be good for China? TSMC was strategic for Taiwan, as a military takeover of Taiwan (where the plants will likely be damaged or scuttled) would be economically damaging for the US. That might be a bit different if the US has enough high-the fabs internally. I'd love to hear better analysis; I'm not confident of my understanding here.
- Laforet 5y ago
  Politically it would be ideal to keep everything in Taiwan as this greatly increases the stakes for a potential war. However there is a pressing shortage of electricity in Taiwan. Just yesterday there had been a major blackout as one of the coal fired power stations suddenly went off the grid. I'm sure TSMC has been given priority supply but they are cutting it extremely close. Taiwan is just not a good place to have more fabs right now. The shortage is unlikely to get better in the long term, with existing nuclear power stations nearing the end of their service life and the replacement stuck in political limbo. And there are already plans to move all 28nm+ process to China so they could better utilize the resources in Taiwan for the more profitable products. https://amp.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3131823/why-has-tsmcs-nanjing-expansion-plan-stirred-hornets-nest-beijing-and https://amp.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3131823/why-has-t...
  - cm2187 5y ago
    I read the main problem at the moment for fabs in Taiwan is water shortages. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/TSMC-tackles-Taiwan-drought-with-plant-to-reuse-water-for-chips https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/TSMC-ta...
    - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
      “Better move to Arizona.”
    - Laforet 5y ago
      TSMC reportedly uses over 50 million tonnes of water per year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the annual 12 billion tonnes consumed by agriculture. https://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=42837 https://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=42837 In any case, the current drought is likely to ease at some point but the electricity problem is only going to get worse.
baybal2 5y ago
> Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Geopolitically it makes no sense. What exactly do they expect any much changing from thus move other than Samsung getting even more desperate, and Korea possibly moving closer to China if the next Korean president will be a gullible populist (which is now a close probability.) A lion share of high tech manufacturing happens in Taiwan-SK-Japan triangle, all within walking distance from China, and reachable by their nuclear weapons. The whole of semiconductor industry is %60-%70 Taiwanese play with leading fab suppliers manufacturers often being single vendor, and in Taiwan. If something happens to Taiwan, the entire semi supply chain globally stops, as happens every time after a major earthquake there.
- emmelaich 5y ago
  > If something happens to Taiwan, the entire semi supply chain globally stops Sounds like you're arguing in favour? Also, Koreans will prefer ties with Japan, Taiwan, USA, over China. I'm pretty sure.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    I'm arguing that the public discourse is guided by misguided, technically illiterate opinion. A single, or two, to three, to six fabs will change very little to the fact the industry is permanently anchored in Asia, and Taiwan. Even a $50B cheque to the leading manufacturer will not amount to "buying the industry," but just handing a monopoly to one company.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  >reachable by their nuclear weapons. Nothing on earth does not fall in that category.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Being reachable by ICBMs which are in hundreds, hard to hide, and easily trackable, vs regular theatre level ballistic missiles which are in thousands make a big difference.
- 5y ago
bogomipz 5y ago
>"If Intel is serious this time about letting third parties into their fabs then it could be quite the reversal of fortune." Interesting. I'm not familiar with this bit of Intel history. When were these exactly? It sounds like multiple occasions? Whose fortune would be reversed, Intel's relative to TSMC?

m00x 5y ago

Why China? Most of the major chip fabs aren't made in China. They're mostly made in Taiwan, South Korea and the US. Unless we're strictly talking about TSMC, which does have 2/18 fabs in China.

artificial 5y ago
The location of Taiwan to the mainland is the perceived concern with the Chinese navy and the reach of the American military. Recently a squadron was moved from Guam. China has been expanding its influence/territory via islands in the South China Sea over the last decade. I think it’s a strategic concern.
lstamour 5y ago
This article explains some of the conflict: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silicon-shield-protect-it-against-chinas-aggression https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silico... China’s stance on Taiwan is clear[1] but given Taiwan doesn’t agree, it has remained independent despite what China says. The same was true for Hong Kong until recently, however, so concerns remain. The US is waking up to realizing that they have a heavy reliance on China for civilian goods and a slight to moderate risk that it might be disrupted or used against them in future. The worry I suppose is that it might be easier for supply chain-based attacks to weaken US defences, not that we’ve seen anything like this in practice yet due to how easy it is to exploit existing software bugs, for example. 1. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tens...
- nl 5y ago
  The situation with Taiwan (an independent - if unrecognised - country) is very different to HK which was a separately governed province of China.
  - ChuckMcM 5y ago
    This statement conflicts with my understanding of the British rule of Hong Kong and the accords under which is was placed under the sovereignty of China.
    - bigfudge 5y ago
      HK was always going g to be returned to the Chinese. It took 20 years for the charade to end, but the situation is different to Taiwan.
      - elefanten 5y ago
        You’re not responding to the point. There was a clear deal in place regarding how China could govern/change Hong Kong, with strict timelines. China broke its word and trashed the deal. Eventual certainty notwithstanding — the CCP demonstrated (as it has oh so many other times) that their word is unusually unreliable, even in the shitty arena of international politics.
        nl 5y ago
        That's the point I was making originally btw. HK relies on Chinas word. Taiwan doesn't.
        bigfudge 5y ago
        I'm late returning to this, and I don't normally like whataboutism, and I don't want to be seen to be condoning what is happening in HK, but I have very low expectations for nations keeping commitments made in international politics. I think everyone was pretty clear when the HK deal was struck that it wouldn't make the distance. The UK just wanted to avoid rocking the boat + there was very little that could be done. The US has renagaged on several international agreements in recent history — we all know that these agreements reflect the preferences of those in power at the time and are contingent on it remaining convenient.

mook 5y ago

As a first pass, wouldn't this be good for China? TSMC was strategic for Taiwan, as a military takeover of Taiwan (where the plants will likely be damaged or scuttled) would be economically damaging for the US. That might be a bit different if the US has enough high-the fabs internally. I'd love to hear better analysis; I'm not confident of my understanding here.

Laforet 5y ago
Politically it would be ideal to keep everything in Taiwan as this greatly increases the stakes for a potential war. However there is a pressing shortage of electricity in Taiwan. Just yesterday there had been a major blackout as one of the coal fired power stations suddenly went off the grid. I'm sure TSMC has been given priority supply but they are cutting it extremely close. Taiwan is just not a good place to have more fabs right now. The shortage is unlikely to get better in the long term, with existing nuclear power stations nearing the end of their service life and the replacement stuck in political limbo. And there are already plans to move all 28nm+ process to China so they could better utilize the resources in Taiwan for the more profitable products. https://amp.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3131823/why-has-tsmcs-nanjing-expansion-plan-stirred-hornets-nest-beijing-and https://amp.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3131823/why-has-t...
- cm2187 5y ago
  I read the main problem at the moment for fabs in Taiwan is water shortages. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/TSMC-tackles-Taiwan-drought-with-plant-to-reuse-water-for-chips https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/TSMC-ta...
  - JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
    “Better move to Arizona.”
  - Laforet 5y ago
    TSMC reportedly uses over 50 million tonnes of water per year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the annual 12 billion tonnes consumed by agriculture. https://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=42837 https://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=42837 In any case, the current drought is likely to ease at some point but the electricity problem is only going to get worse.

baybal2 5y ago

> Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Geopolitically it makes no sense. What exactly do they expect any much changing from thus move other than Samsung getting even more desperate, and Korea possibly moving closer to China if the next Korean president will be a gullible populist (which is now a close probability.) A lion share of high tech manufacturing happens in Taiwan-SK-Japan triangle, all within walking distance from China, and reachable by their nuclear weapons. The whole of semiconductor industry is %60-%70 Taiwanese play with leading fab suppliers manufacturers often being single vendor, and in Taiwan. If something happens to Taiwan, the entire semi supply chain globally stops, as happens every time after a major earthquake there.

emmelaich 5y ago
> If something happens to Taiwan, the entire semi supply chain globally stops Sounds like you're arguing in favour? Also, Koreans will prefer ties with Japan, Taiwan, USA, over China. I'm pretty sure.
- baybal2 5y ago
  I'm arguing that the public discourse is guided by misguided, technically illiterate opinion. A single, or two, to three, to six fabs will change very little to the fact the industry is permanently anchored in Asia, and Taiwan. Even a $50B cheque to the leading manufacturer will not amount to "buying the industry," but just handing a monopoly to one company.
Dah00n 5y ago
>reachable by their nuclear weapons. Nothing on earth does not fall in that category.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Being reachable by ICBMs which are in hundreds, hard to hide, and easily trackable, vs regular theatre level ballistic missiles which are in thousands make a big difference.
5y ago

bogomipz 5y ago

>"If Intel is serious this time about letting third parties into their fabs then it could be quite the reversal of fortune." Interesting. I'm not familiar with this bit of Intel history. When were these exactly? It sounds like multiple occasions? Whose fortune would be reversed, Intel's relative to TSMC?