3 ms·

Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source

Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source chips from somewhere else. But as far as suppliers, and chips in particular, CCP has very little leverage. Most chips are manufactured in Taiwan [0]. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-world-depends-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...

rjzzleep 5y ago
That graph says nothing. It's just talking about revenue. TSMC obviously has the biggest slice of the cake, but they produce the highest volume of premium chips. Most of what the world consumes are not in fact premium chips. Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.
- network2592 5y ago
  Do you have data on the quantity of chips rather than overall revenue? You claim this figure is meaningless. In the absence of reliable data, we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips. But, it is certainly not meaningless.
  - rjzzleep 5y ago
    > we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips No, most institutions don't publish what their production capacity is. There is an article claiming that TSMC makes "92% of world's most sophisticated chips". Define most sophisticated. You can't just throw in revenue graphs and pretend they show anything of value, just because north america measures success solely in revenue and growth. The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to substantiate your claims. EDIT: Interesting to see people bring in random graphs from CNBC. Things that would not even be considered investment advice and present it as scientific evidence without any sort of due diligence on their. Sad that this is the kind of discourse that we have to have. Things are not automatically true, valid, or contextual just because a big media corporation published them.
    - network2592 5y ago
      Your claim is that revenue evidence is meaningless. The burden of proof is on you. You are suggesting that the majority of low quality chips are manufactured outside of Taiwan. You have not defined your operational definitions for chip quality. You do not even have evidence on the quantity of chips. In the absence of any data that would contradict this, we can reasonably assume revenue figures are a sensible proxy for quantity of chips.
tgtweak 5y ago
The goal is that both partners (downstream) and suppliers (upstream) are aware that they should not be sourcing/supplying these regions, and that if Intel is made aware of it, they will have to enforce such embargos in both directions.

rjzzleep 5y ago

That graph says nothing. It's just talking about revenue. TSMC obviously has the biggest slice of the cake, but they produce the highest volume of premium chips. Most of what the world consumes are not in fact premium chips. Pie charts gone wrong. You think there's meaningful information in there, but there isn't.

network2592 5y ago
Do you have data on the quantity of chips rather than overall revenue? You claim this figure is meaningless. In the absence of reliable data, we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips. But, it is certainly not meaningless.
- rjzzleep 5y ago
  > we can make a reasonable assumption, perhaps flawed, that revenue is matched by quantity of chips No, most institutions don't publish what their production capacity is. There is an article claiming that TSMC makes "92% of world's most sophisticated chips". Define most sophisticated. You can't just throw in revenue graphs and pretend they show anything of value, just because north america measures success solely in revenue and growth. The burden of proof is not on me, it's for you to substantiate your claims. EDIT: Interesting to see people bring in random graphs from CNBC. Things that would not even be considered investment advice and present it as scientific evidence without any sort of due diligence on their. Sad that this is the kind of discourse that we have to have. Things are not automatically true, valid, or contextual just because a big media corporation published them.
  - network2592 5y ago
    Your claim is that revenue evidence is meaningless. The burden of proof is on you. You are suggesting that the majority of low quality chips are manufactured outside of Taiwan. You have not defined your operational definitions for chip quality. You do not even have evidence on the quantity of chips. In the absence of any data that would contradict this, we can reasonably assume revenue figures are a sensible proxy for quantity of chips.

tgtweak 5y ago

The goal is that both partners (downstream) and suppliers (upstream) are aware that they should not be sourcing/supplying these regions, and that if Intel is made aware of it, they will have to enforce such embargos in both directions.