> 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

> 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.