6 ms·

> "it usually builds a new fab to meet demand of its alpha customers and then either adds capacity by upgrading existing fabs or building another facility. With

> "it usually builds a new fab to meet demand of its alpha customers and then either adds capacity by upgrading existing fabs or building another facility. With N2 (2nm-class), the company seems to be taking a slightly different approach as it is already constructing two N2-capable fabs and is awaiting for a government approval for the third one." Customers would probably want to have plants outside of Taiwan, but proactively approving a new plant and starting to build one even before you have customers gives more leverage to Taiwan. This is just as much about Taiwan's security as it's about good business.

samus 3y ago
The fabs don't really have strategic value because the pace of development has slowed down. The fabs are presumably rigged for easy sabotage, so if something... happens to Taiwan, neither China nor the West can make use of them. It would barely affect the state of the art since Samsung is not far behind and Intel will eventually get its sh*t together again. And key parts of the supply chain are in the West, and China's access to it is already restricted. Edit: they have massive economic value of course, but economic factors alone have rarely prevented conflicts.
- Snow_Falls 3y ago
  If TMSC fabs go down, the world silicon foundry output would drop by a significant chunk. That could have an effect but the majority of the worlds silicon use is in less advanced nodes which many companies produce, it would slow down the state of the art sure, but it probably not be as catastrophic as some people imagine.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Even if China invades Taiwan and no sabotage happens to TSMC, sanctions would mean TSMC won't produce anything for years, and during that time other companies will catch up.
- creer 3y ago
  It's easy to dismiss economic impact in conflicts. Even the phrasing "economic factors alone have rarely prevented conflicts" is a little glib. US administrations (and all others) have to remember how the Cold War ended; The Oil Shock; the effect of fracking on the viability of action in the middle east (thrown together in one salad :-); the whole point of much conflict in the middle east; the Houthis firing at ships passing by; etc, etc. So not all conflict is tied-in with economics sure but wouldn't loosing most TSMC production and china-based supply chains be a major shock? For all sides? And as such would be taken into account?
  - samus 3y ago
    The chip foundries are just one factor in the importance of Taiwan. What matters more is that control over Taiwan would vastly simplifies to exercise control over what China perceives as their territorial waters (not just as their Exclusive Economic Zone!). The economic impact can be tanked by a national economy and is easily justified in the name of furthering national security, as it would severity weaken US influence in the whole region.

samus 3y ago

The fabs don't really have strategic value because the pace of development has slowed down. The fabs are presumably rigged for easy sabotage, so if something... happens to Taiwan, neither China nor the West can make use of them. It would barely affect the state of the art since Samsung is not far behind and Intel will eventually get its sh*t together again. And key parts of the supply chain are in the West, and China's access to it is already restricted. Edit: they have massive economic value of course, but economic factors alone have rarely prevented conflicts.

Snow_Falls 3y ago
If TMSC fabs go down, the world silicon foundry output would drop by a significant chunk. That could have an effect but the majority of the worlds silicon use is in less advanced nodes which many companies produce, it would slow down the state of the art sure, but it probably not be as catastrophic as some people imagine.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Even if China invades Taiwan and no sabotage happens to TSMC, sanctions would mean TSMC won't produce anything for years, and during that time other companies will catch up.
creer 3y ago
It's easy to dismiss economic impact in conflicts. Even the phrasing "economic factors alone have rarely prevented conflicts" is a little glib. US administrations (and all others) have to remember how the Cold War ended; The Oil Shock; the effect of fracking on the viability of action in the middle east (thrown together in one salad :-); the whole point of much conflict in the middle east; the Houthis firing at ships passing by; etc, etc. So not all conflict is tied-in with economics sure but wouldn't loosing most TSMC production and china-based supply chains be a major shock? For all sides? And as such would be taken into account?
- samus 3y ago
  The chip foundries are just one factor in the importance of Taiwan. What matters more is that control over Taiwan would vastly simplifies to exercise control over what China perceives as their territorial waters (not just as their Exclusive Economic Zone!). The economic impact can be tanked by a national economy and is easily justified in the name of furthering national security, as it would severity weaken US influence in the whole region.