4 ms·
apparently they attribute the loss to deciding not to purchase EUV earlier from ASML. did they really think they knew better than company that's defining SOTA?
by treme 3y ago
apparently they attribute the loss to deciding not to purchase EUV earlier from ASML. did they really think they knew better than company that's defining SOTA?
- jauntywundrkind 3y agoIntel & US research labs were where the state of the art was created. We gave it to ASML. They've advanced the state of the art enormously, but it's i.possible to ignore how much is because we helped them. Because we wanted a factory for chip making machines, in a liberal free and democratic part of the world. Because just having vertically-integrated Intel's and AMD's (back when they made their own chips) wasn't enough . I'd love for much more detailed write-ups on these technology transfer, this history. Alas trying to search for Intel + ASML is massively overwhelmed by search engine's rececy bias, filled with what machines Intel is buying. But here's this ASML history write-ups brief description: > The research ASML received from US laboratories was even more valuable than the revenue provided by American firms. In the 1990s, Intel invested heavily in EUV research, subsidizing national labs. Insights developed at Lawrence Livermore and National Sandia laboratories were eventually passed to ASML after Intel realized no American firm could effectively commercialize these findings. https://www.generalist.com/briefing/asml https://www.generalist.com/briefing/asml
- juitpykyk 3y agoHindsight bias. The industry believed 15 years ago that ASML would fail to make EUV work.