9 ms·

Other attempts to crack this failed mostly for economic reasons, not technical. Of course, not understating how hard it is technically, but the bigger problem w

Other attempts to crack this failed mostly for economic reasons, not technical. Of course, not understating how hard it is technically, but the bigger problem was that competitors didn't have the funds nor the risk appetite to invest 20+ years of R&D into something that may or may not work. We now know it works. Before, why should China bother when they can just buy from western suppliers and TSMC instead? Now we gave China no other choice but to invest 10-20 years into this until they have something that works. This is why you see all the chip manufacturing equipment makers in China have something like 150-200% YoY growth in the past 3 years. Their R&D centers are pursuing multiple avenues to make sub-5nm chips possible. Not only multiple avenues of making EUV work, but also non-EUV avenues. It just so happens that starting this year we know that nanoimprint lithography works, and is cheaper than EUV. Huawei's newest CPU performs on par with CPUs on smaller nodes. That's because Huawei invested heavily in CPU design and heat dissipation technology. They haven't even gone into advanced packaging yet. Will they stay behind western technology forever because we have an R&D lead? People who claim this are ignoring a big factor: they will no longer be able to profit from Chinese buyers. These profits are necessary for future R&D investment, which is necessary to maintain the lead and R&D speed.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Other attempts to crack this failed mostly for economic reasons, not technical. That's debatable. Samsung, a behemoth in Korea and one of the largest holdings in the world, has tried to compete with TSMC at the same node size, and failed so far. > Will they stay behind western technology forever because we have an R&D lead? People who claim this are ignoring a big factor: they will no longer be able to profit from Chinese buyers. Doesn't this work the other way around as well? Chinese companies in the same space will not be able to profit from EU and North American customers, historically the largest spenders.
- FooBarWidget 3y ago
  Samsung "failed"? As far as I know they are pretty close behind TSMC. Sure, not at the exact same node, but being this close I don't call failure at all. Even staying in the race and keeping up the pace is a huge achievement. > Doesn't this work the other way around as well? It does. But the difference is: - They're coming from behind and enjoy latecomer's advantage. They can take advantage of western R&D results. They may not be able to obtain all the details, but just knowing that a particular R&D path is viable is already an advantage. - They have a captive market thanks to sanctions. - They're coming from a smaller size. Chinese semiconductor companies had such small market share that capturing even a small part of only the Chinese market already translates to tremendous growth. They can only go up while the western supply chain will go down. Finally, there's the global south which is also growing. This is a huge market that they can sell to. In the future, western suppliers will have to compete with Chinese suppliers in this market, even if Chinese suppliers are locked out of western markets.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > Samsung "failed"? That wording is a bit harsh. They haven't failed, but they haven't been able to compete at scale, which is what matters. > They're coming from behind and enjoy latecomer's advantage. They can take advantage of western R&D results. Isn't that the main issue, that they can't? > They have a captive market thanks to sanctions. That isn't true. Current sanctions target exports of certain consumer and professional products, none of which are chips as far as I understand; and imports of certain products branded strategic such as AI related hardware. > They're coming from a smaller size. Chinese semiconductor companies had such small market share that capturing even a small part of only the Chinese market already translates to tremendous growth. I don't think this means anything in this context. Capturing a larger chunk of a single market doesn't even mean that they are better than most at what they do, just that their go to market strategy is more effective than their competitors. SMIC could be releasing chips with comically large transistors, as long as their scale and prices are preferable to those of their competitors. > They can only go up while the western supply chain will go down. This is wishful thinking, at best. But again, growth means nothing here. SMIC could "grow" a 1000% for all I care, and it wouldn't move the needle. > Finally, there's the global south which is also growing. This is a huge market that they can sell to. That depends highly on China and their allies. China may capture markets in Africa, but it is actively alienating most of Asia Pacific, minus perhaps Russia.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Samsung are claiming a 3nm process node within 24 months of TSMC, and 90% of TSMC's transistor density. That is commercially significant and entitles TSMC to bragging rights and huge profits. But if China fails like Samsung, they're at no strategic disadvantage at all and the US technology embargo will have effectively failed to do anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > But if China fails like Samsung, they're at no strategic disadvantage at all and the US technology embargo will have effectively failed to do anything. China is in no position of "failing like Samsung", right now. At most, they may fail like Samsung did five years ago. It would also mean that the sanctions worked.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> Other attempts to crack this failed mostly for economic reasons, not technical. That's debatable. Samsung, a behemoth in Korea and one of the largest holdings in the world, has tried to compete with TSMC at the same node size, and failed so far. > Will they stay behind western technology forever because we have an R&D lead? People who claim this are ignoring a big factor: they will no longer be able to profit from Chinese buyers. Doesn't this work the other way around as well? Chinese companies in the same space will not be able to profit from EU and North American customers, historically the largest spenders.

FooBarWidget 3y ago
Samsung "failed"? As far as I know they are pretty close behind TSMC. Sure, not at the exact same node, but being this close I don't call failure at all. Even staying in the race and keeping up the pace is a huge achievement. > Doesn't this work the other way around as well? It does. But the difference is: - They're coming from behind and enjoy latecomer's advantage. They can take advantage of western R&D results. They may not be able to obtain all the details, but just knowing that a particular R&D path is viable is already an advantage. - They have a captive market thanks to sanctions. - They're coming from a smaller size. Chinese semiconductor companies had such small market share that capturing even a small part of only the Chinese market already translates to tremendous growth. They can only go up while the western supply chain will go down. Finally, there's the global south which is also growing. This is a huge market that they can sell to. In the future, western suppliers will have to compete with Chinese suppliers in this market, even if Chinese suppliers are locked out of western markets.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Samsung "failed"? That wording is a bit harsh. They haven't failed, but they haven't been able to compete at scale, which is what matters. > They're coming from behind and enjoy latecomer's advantage. They can take advantage of western R&D results. Isn't that the main issue, that they can't? > They have a captive market thanks to sanctions. That isn't true. Current sanctions target exports of certain consumer and professional products, none of which are chips as far as I understand; and imports of certain products branded strategic such as AI related hardware. > They're coming from a smaller size. Chinese semiconductor companies had such small market share that capturing even a small part of only the Chinese market already translates to tremendous growth. I don't think this means anything in this context. Capturing a larger chunk of a single market doesn't even mean that they are better than most at what they do, just that their go to market strategy is more effective than their competitors. SMIC could be releasing chips with comically large transistors, as long as their scale and prices are preferable to those of their competitors. > They can only go up while the western supply chain will go down. This is wishful thinking, at best. But again, growth means nothing here. SMIC could "grow" a 1000% for all I care, and it wouldn't move the needle. > Finally, there's the global south which is also growing. This is a huge market that they can sell to. That depends highly on China and their allies. China may capture markets in Africa, but it is actively alienating most of Asia Pacific, minus perhaps Russia.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Samsung are claiming a 3nm process node within 24 months of TSMC, and 90% of TSMC's transistor density. That is commercially significant and entitles TSMC to bragging rights and huge profits. But if China fails like Samsung, they're at no strategic disadvantage at all and the US technology embargo will have effectively failed to do anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      > But if China fails like Samsung, they're at no strategic disadvantage at all and the US technology embargo will have effectively failed to do anything. China is in no position of "failing like Samsung", right now. At most, they may fail like Samsung did five years ago. It would also mean that the sanctions worked.