Moore's 1965 paper was literally about "the complexity for minimum component costs" [1]. So you're right that transistors on a chip is more applicable then just

Moore's 1965 paper was literally about "the complexity for minimum component costs" [1]. So you're right that transistors on a chip is more applicable then just die density. But as too often nowadays you left out the "minimum cost" aspect. Moore's law is not only about tech performance, it's about economics. Everybody knew the "minimum cost" part would fall the first, and it did. When the least cost offering improves, when things get better and cheaper, everyone follows. The lowering cost per function increases the addressable market, which can then sustain increasing investments. This is the virtuous cycle that moved the industry forward for a long time. When the economic part stops, when you can get more transistors but only at a higher cost, then the virtuous cycle stops. Technical progress do continue, but you will have less players at each new step: only those who can absorb the increasing costs will keep on playing at the leading edge. And production costs will still rise. If the market gets smaller due to increasing prices, and the production cost keep on raising, you will see a slow down as it will take more time to amortize investments. The big players are worried about this: slow down has in itself the specter of followers catching up (eventually...), leading to commoditization. We're definitely not there yet, but it's not a good perspective. Definitely bad for their stock. So the cost has been taken out. At first the NRE part was dropped of the equation, to consider only the cost per transistor. For this one can also be creative: considering the fabs amortization, or after? Makes a big difference (see the issue car makers have in getting new investments at "old" nodes: message from the big guys is move to smaller nodes, even if it's not always convenient). But in the end it's been simpler to just drop the least cost aspect completely. The industry PR had good results on this ;) For small to medium fabless players, Moore's law has been over for a while. For the biggest players it's also over now: there's still technical progress on transistors per device, but at an increasing cost. It's not always a smooth process: if you're an Apple, you can gain on the cost by going vertical (good-bye Intel margin). But it's a bold move not for all, and it's a one off gain. Moore's law is over. Tech progress is not. For HN readers who can afford the increasing cost of the devices and are reading regularly from the big silicon vendors that "Moore's law is still going strong yoo-hoo", when it's been neutered to transistors count only, it may be easy to miss. [1] https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/05/moores-law-electronics.pdf https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/...