First, I'd say that sometimes companies don't use the same tooling even if they could. One of the things that gave TSMC an advantage was that they did push EUV

First, I'd say that sometimes companies don't use the same tooling even if they could. One of the things that gave TSMC an advantage was that they did push EUV while Intel didn't. Intel did make some investments in EUV, but pushed off the commercialization of it. So even when companies ca use the same tooling, sometimes people think something is too expensive and that they can get more out of something cheaper. Beyond that, I'd say that we don't really want companies to have giant moats against competition. TSMC can keep an advantage as long as it keeps innovating. Having something a year before others can be important. Being able to produce better yields is important. Qualcomm and AMD wanted to move a bunch of their production to Samsung, but were disappointed in the yields despite Samsung having "the same process." > As a first order approximately, all of them should have the same level of fabrication capabilities Yes, but "approximately" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Each car manufacturer has "approximately" the same quality and value car. Windows/macOS/Linux are all "approximately" the same. One could easily reply that fabs are undifferentiated products and that is true to an extent, but there's a reason why Qualcomm and AMD went back to TSMC tail between their legs. > if they figure something out, their competitors should match them in short order. Again, I'd say "short order" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Are we talking a year? Two? Even when companies are using TSMC, they often can't get the latest process for a year or so after Apple because TSMC can't spin up capacity that fast - never mind a competitor that's trying to match TSMC. I think in basically any industry, it's hard to keep a lead unless you continue executing well. Of course, one could argue that it's easy to keep a lead - just not over a couple other extremely well-run companies. Intel, Samsung, and TSMC have a huge sustained lead over basically everyone else. Does that not count? It's not like we're seeing lots of companies going around grabbing ASML EUV machines and spinning up even 7nm fabs because it's "easy". Even 5nm has been around for 2.5 years now. In fact, why did AMD wait 2 years to get 5nm if they could have simply bought an ASML machine and started printing the chips? Ok, I should walk back from hyperbole. In some ways, I simply agree with you: they can't really have a sustained lead without continuing to put in work to stay 3-18 months ahead of the competition. However, I'd argue that a 6-12 month lead can be pretty big. Intel is looking to introduce new stuff like RibbonFET (a successor to FinFET) and PowerVia backside power delivery so there's a lot more than "just use ASML EUV machines" and there is a lot of space for companies to innovate and create leads. But we also don't necessarily want companies to have leads that are too durable. I guess: what is offering a durable lead to companies? Even companies that have well-differentiated products don't really survive well without continuous improvement. Some leads are more durable than others, but the investment and knowledge can be a durable lead. Heck, look at TSMC's efforts to build a US-based plant. It isn't "just ship them a machine to print chips." They're struggling to make it work despite the fact that there's literally nothing to "figure out" in terms of the technology. They're already producing 5nm chips. Why can't they just start doing that in the US? It's just ASML machines and knowledge they already have! If TSMC can't figure out how to make 5nm chips in the US easily, why would it be easy for another company to be able to produce 5nm chips at a different place just because they could similarly buy ASML equipment and "figure out" whatever TSMC has figured out? There's a lot more than just being able to order from the same parts bin.