3 ms·

TSMC isn't competitive. That's a misconception. Back in the days Intel was ahead and by a huge margin. TSMC go by the slow and steady model. Intel made mistake

by re-thc 4y ago

TSMC isn't competitive. That's a misconception. Back in the days Intel was ahead and by a huge margin. TSMC go by the slow and steady model. Intel made mistakes and lost its gain and here we are today. Intel has always been a lot more aggressive and risk taken. They might catch up again. It's just a long process. As to Samsung etc they were never really in the game. They only got remotely competitive by heavy poaching and stealing of trade secrets from TSMC / Intel (and merging IBM fabs). At the end of the day it's not just ASML machines (that take forever to deliver). It's a huge investment.

pohl 4y ago
I'm not sure I understand how they're not competitive. Staying steady while your opponent is making mistakes is, in fact, a competitive strategy — straight out of Aesop's Fables. Intel doesn't get to be the "competitive" one just because they're playing the role of the Hare.
- re-thc 4y ago
  Your example of Hare suggests Intel was sleeping. I don't think they were. And no, TSMC is staying steady no matter what. That's how they've been operating from the start - regardless of if the "opponent" is making mistakes. It's not a strategy in that sense where they're competing. They're doing their own thing and the competitors either died by themselves or failed. They're not competitive as in they aren't competing with Intel. Otherwise they'd go for counter measures or what not. That's never been their strategy. Cutting edge wasn't their core business originally.
  - diceduckmonk 4y ago
    Competitive in economics and the market means they can provide a good at a lower price than competitors. Either TSMC has no competitors, or they are beating them. If they don’t have competitors, it’s a sign other newcomers can’t compete, so they’re still competitive.
    - re-thc 4y ago
      That's like saying if everyone fails an exam and 1 student failed a bit less that they're great or that public transport in American is great because there's none in the Amazon Forest. IF we go at it that way everyone is competitive - just label the target market differently and claim to be on top / no competitors.

by re-thc 4y ago

pohl 4y ago

I'm not sure I understand how they're not competitive. Staying steady while your opponent is making mistakes is, in fact, a competitive strategy — straight out of Aesop's Fables. Intel doesn't get to be the "competitive" one just because they're playing the role of the Hare.

re-thc 4y ago
Your example of Hare suggests Intel was sleeping. I don't think they were. And no, TSMC is staying steady no matter what. That's how they've been operating from the start - regardless of if the "opponent" is making mistakes. It's not a strategy in that sense where they're competing. They're doing their own thing and the competitors either died by themselves or failed. They're not competitive as in they aren't competing with Intel. Otherwise they'd go for counter measures or what not. That's never been their strategy. Cutting edge wasn't their core business originally.
- diceduckmonk 4y ago
  Competitive in economics and the market means they can provide a good at a lower price than competitors. Either TSMC has no competitors, or they are beating them. If they don’t have competitors, it’s a sign other newcomers can’t compete, so they’re still competitive.
  - re-thc 4y ago
    That's like saying if everyone fails an exam and 1 student failed a bit less that they're great or that public transport in American is great because there's none in the Amazon Forest. IF we go at it that way everyone is competitive - just label the target market differently and claim to be on top / no competitors.