> 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 EU

> 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. They're all on EUV now. > 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. That's my point. That's about as big of a lead you can get. There's nothing one company can do that can't be copied by another. > 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. They're all investing in GAAFETs. Their roadmaps look very similar.