4 ms·

I really don't think you can just import scientists and engineers and essentially develop TSMC. It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but

I really don't think you can just import scientists and engineers and essentially develop TSMC. It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but they are not currently able to compete with TSMC. Technology is also quite advanced, I doubt it's just a few years of R&D. In fact, it's so expensive, there are only a few factories on earth capable on producing those chips. China would have done it already if it's so simple.

tivert 3y ago
> I really don't think you can just import scientists and engineers and essentially develop TSMC. I think it's more a question of being willing to spend the money you need to stay at the cutting edge. Based purely on market logic, you can't build a TMSC because it would be too expensive and risky for modern-day capitalist investors to contemplate. But if you have resources and don't care about making a profit in the market (like a government), you can do it eventually. > It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but they are not currently able to compete with TSMC. Technology is also quite advanced, I doubt it's just a few years of R&D. I don't think Intel is "not able" to compete, but rather they took a costly mis-step. IIRC, TMSC took a more slow-and-steady approach, while Intel was too ambitious and its plan failed, so now it has to backtrack. > In fact, it's so expensive, there are only a few factories on earth capable on producing those chips. IIRC, they basically build a new factory each time the technology advances, so that's not as much of a limitation than it sounds.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  Seems like starting an automotive manufacturing company would be far worse as a prospect yet they are popping up everywhere. That automotive industry has always been a case study in great ideas failing hard. If you succeed you get to compete with everyone else who has to fight and scratch for a profit while juggling one of the most complex undertakings imaginable. There are 150 year old established brands like Chrysler that have/are failing now.
  - hedora 3y ago
    The cost of a fab for each new process node is roughly double the cost of the previous node. That’s not true for cars. In fact, starting a new car company is probably cheaper than a few decades ago, since most part manufacturing has been outsourced.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > That’s not true for cars. In fact, starting a new car company is probably cheaper than a few decades ago, since most part manufacturing has been outsourced. Also most if not all the new car companies are building electric cars. My understanding is those are (in many ways) simpler to make than internal combustion engine cars.
  - DerekL 3y ago
    Chrysler is only 98 years old, not 150.
- dv_dt 3y ago
  That was a very similar investment landscape when TSMC started up - it’s a real shame that US capitalists are so short sighted. Or maybe they’re too cheap to invest when they have control of government taps via lobbying. Why invest your own capital when you can lobby for government handouts.
  - dsr3 3y ago
    Taiwan Government own 48% of TSMC stock at it founding. TSMC is not a product of free market capitalism. It is a product of the Taiwanese state. Source: Chip Wars (2022)
    - dv_dt 3y ago
      Then it's a shame the not only US capitalism and world capitalism is incapable of investing in the long term. Though I'm fine with government support as long as the outcomes return a fair share of the benefits of the private venture back to the government.
sct202 3y ago
A few leaders can pull critical people over with them and help speed up projects. Samsung and SMIC poach TSMC R&D leaders fairly frequently and it makes the news over there.
dirtyid 3y ago
Half the reason US started the semi war against PRC was because they knew it's pretty much that simple provided work force is culturally compatible. Ditto with foreign fab projects expanding in PRC at the time - without requirement of crazy subsidies to draw them in (big funds was for domestic indy). Industry assumed, PRC with right equipment and a few years of poaching TSMC, Samsung and whatever incumbent talent would be sufficient to get ball rolling. SKR basically did that from TW talent. IMO US can replicate east asian fabs quickly if it can replicate east asian work culture because that's the only way east asian fab owners knows how to run said fabs. They're not interested changing, because they weren't interested in expanding to US in the first place, since the business case never made sense. Huawei (possibly SMIC) 7nm did it in a few years with hands tie behind back.
roenxi 3y ago
> It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but they are not currently able to compete with TSMC. If it isn't a matter of budget then it is a combination of organisation, regulation and focus. All of those things can change fairly quickly. Under ideal conditions, Intel could get to TSMC's leading process node in a few years.

tivert 3y ago

> I really don't think you can just import scientists and engineers and essentially develop TSMC. I think it's more a question of being willing to spend the money you need to stay at the cutting edge. Based purely on market logic, you can't build a TMSC because it would be too expensive and risky for modern-day capitalist investors to contemplate. But if you have resources and don't care about making a profit in the market (like a government), you can do it eventually. > It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but they are not currently able to compete with TSMC. Technology is also quite advanced, I doubt it's just a few years of R&D. I don't think Intel is "not able" to compete, but rather they took a costly mis-step. IIRC, TMSC took a more slow-and-steady approach, while Intel was too ambitious and its plan failed, so now it has to backtrack. > In fact, it's so expensive, there are only a few factories on earth capable on producing those chips. IIRC, they basically build a new factory each time the technology advances, so that's not as much of a limitation than it sounds.

datavirtue 3y ago
Seems like starting an automotive manufacturing company would be far worse as a prospect yet they are popping up everywhere. That automotive industry has always been a case study in great ideas failing hard. If you succeed you get to compete with everyone else who has to fight and scratch for a profit while juggling one of the most complex undertakings imaginable. There are 150 year old established brands like Chrysler that have/are failing now.
- hedora 3y ago
  The cost of a fab for each new process node is roughly double the cost of the previous node. That’s not true for cars. In fact, starting a new car company is probably cheaper than a few decades ago, since most part manufacturing has been outsourced.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > That’s not true for cars. In fact, starting a new car company is probably cheaper than a few decades ago, since most part manufacturing has been outsourced. Also most if not all the new car companies are building electric cars. My understanding is those are (in many ways) simpler to make than internal combustion engine cars.
- DerekL 3y ago
  Chrysler is only 98 years old, not 150.
dv_dt 3y ago
That was a very similar investment landscape when TSMC started up - it’s a real shame that US capitalists are so short sighted. Or maybe they’re too cheap to invest when they have control of government taps via lobbying. Why invest your own capital when you can lobby for government handouts.
- dsr3 3y ago
  Taiwan Government own 48% of TSMC stock at it founding. TSMC is not a product of free market capitalism. It is a product of the Taiwanese state. Source: Chip Wars (2022)
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    Then it's a shame the not only US capitalism and world capitalism is incapable of investing in the long term. Though I'm fine with government support as long as the outcomes return a fair share of the benefits of the private venture back to the government.

sct202 3y ago

A few leaders can pull critical people over with them and help speed up projects. Samsung and SMIC poach TSMC R&D leaders fairly frequently and it makes the news over there.

dirtyid 3y ago

Half the reason US started the semi war against PRC was because they knew it's pretty much that simple provided work force is culturally compatible. Ditto with foreign fab projects expanding in PRC at the time - without requirement of crazy subsidies to draw them in (big funds was for domestic indy). Industry assumed, PRC with right equipment and a few years of poaching TSMC, Samsung and whatever incumbent talent would be sufficient to get ball rolling. SKR basically did that from TW talent. IMO US can replicate east asian fabs quickly if it can replicate east asian work culture because that's the only way east asian fab owners knows how to run said fabs. They're not interested changing, because they weren't interested in expanding to US in the first place, since the business case never made sense. Huawei (possibly SMIC) 7nm did it in a few years with hands tie behind back.

roenxi 3y ago

> It's not the sixties anymore, Intel has a massive R&D budget but they are not currently able to compete with TSMC. If it isn't a matter of budget then it is a combination of organisation, regulation and focus. All of those things can change fairly quickly. Under ideal conditions, Intel could get to TSMC's leading process node in a few years.